Good News from Iraq

[quote]vroom wrote:
Also, thanks for pointing out the obvious – I don’t think anyone ever would have assumed an author had a viewpoint otherwise…

BB, you are a snarky son of a bitch at times aren’t you? It is very damned clear by the idolatry and cheerleading that many people simply believe what they read when it sounds good.[/quote]

Occasionally… Rather especially in the morning, and even more especially in response to something I viewed as a personal attack. If I was wrong on that score, I apologize for unprovoked snarky-ness.

BTW, I love the word “snarky” - I don’t think I’d ever heard it before last year, and now it’s everywhere. I think it spread mostly on the internet. Anyway…

[quote] Clearly, these folks, perhaps not yourself, need to be reminded from time to time to think about what they are reading and to consider what it might really mean.

You are going to have to stop assuming everything written is meant personally for your consumption. I have no doubt you can read and think if you choose to.

This is however an open forum, and my comments are addressed to points that are raised in the discussion by various parties at various times. [/quote]

Point conceded.

[quote] Also, to address an issue you raised, I wouldn’t characterize it as a decision to get security in place first, I would characterize it as a myopic vision entailing military means only… that resulted in lost opportunities to improve relations and hence security.

This points to the fact that Bush isn’t being driven by a concern for the Iraqi people though he will use that as a justification. Funny, what he says and what he does don’t match. [/quote]

I don’t think that’s quite fair - basically you’re saying that because the administration came up with a plan with different priorities in terms of what problems to tackle first than you think would have been best, you can infer that his rationale is a lie.

Once again, I think it’s a matter of priorities. I’m not in the cabinet or privy to any plans, but I think one can infer from actions taken that maintaining military control of the country was the top priority, almost equally balanced with establishing a legitimate Iraqi government. Other priorities were pushed down the ladder. You can argue this was ineffective, but I think the overall goal was Iraqi stability – but not necessarily just “as quickly as possible”, but rather something they thought would be maintainable.

[quote] If you are the type to “get shit done” then solutions can be found for whatever problems might represent themselves. If you aren’t of that type, then you can find excuses or reasons for not getting something done.

Finally, these things aren’t tirades. They are basically mini opinion articles written by me, instead of some wag working at a conventional publication. At least I am wiling and able to present my own ideas as opposed to mindlessly parroting other peoples ideas. Heck, I wouldn’t mind being a paid wag writing opinion pieces. [/quote]

I know what you mean. I used to write opinion columns and editorials in college. It was fun. Time-consuming, but enjoyable.

[quote] The right is often challenging those complaining about the administration to come up with ideas, thinking that there must be no good ideas if the administration didn’t think of them. Well, there are ideas. If your mind can hold onto concepts other than hatred and military might it isn’t hard to think of them at all.

Why isn’t the administration thinking of these things? The answer to this question, whatever it might be, should be extremely illustrative.[/quote]

It is interesting. As you can see from the above, I think it’s a matter of prioritization - although I could easily be wrong.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Also, to address an issue you raised, I wouldn’t characterize it as a decision to get security in place first, I would characterize it as a myopic vision entailing military means only… that resulted in lost opportunities to improve relations and hence security.

[/quote]

We are at war in Iraq - How is it myopic to to think that using the military is probably the only way to win a war?

With that said, we have built schools, provided teachers and supplied them with books. We are working to restore an infrastructure that was, for all intents and purposes, unusable even before the war. So I find it odd that you accuse the administration of being myopic in their quest to gain the peace in Iraq.

While agree with you that there are many other avenues to explore in winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and thereby making a huge dent in the war on terror - Some level of peace must be attained first.

The holding of hands, and singing of Kumbaya must come later.

Vroom,

Do you even realize that you are so self-righteous that you label people who disagree with your opinions in a demeaning way.

For example:

“I must say seperate your notion of self-worth and esteem from that of the current administration.”

The whole “grow up” comment.

Maybe you define your worth by simply being able to hate Bush and write about it. You do seem to really fit the mold of a Bush-hater. Maybe you seek that mold to give you self worth. I don’t think any of my comments held Bush up as some sort of mesiah, but you seem quick to make him the devil. Perhaps you should get in touch with your self-esteem, grow up, and realize that you arrogance is obvious. You may not have intended to insult anyone, but you definitely don’t seem open-minded or fair as indicated by your name calling.

You also assume thet Bush has not thought of as many ideas as you have simply because he didn’t implement your idea.

Your only solution baffles me. Do you think that they would build a mosque with American funds? Do you have any idea how many foreign, Arab businesses are over here involved in construction projects? I am pretty sure that Bush has thought about using Arab companies, organizations, and military forces to help settle the situation. I believe that has been talked about in the media for some time. Do you think they are immune from kidnappings and murder even if they just work on Iraqi projects? Look at some of the most recent kidnappings. How can you build anything when the militias still retain power and destroy any work that you do. In Basra for one example, they complain about not having power, but looters steal the copper from the new lines and insurgents attack the lines providing fuel for the power generators. You can’t have basic services without basic security. You can’t have security unless you have guns and soldiers willing to use them.

Arabs are generally very emotional people and respect strength.

I think your just build a mosque together idea is a little too utopian and idealistic. You do realize that the people most against us hate us for our religions and our freedoms.

Some good stuff in this speech on Iraq from Tony Blair:

Excerpt:

I know, too, that as people see me struggling with it, they think he’s stopped caring about us; or worse he’s just pandering to George Bush and what’s more in a cause that’s irrelevant to us.

It’s been hard for you.

Like the delegate who told me: “I’ve defended you so well to everyone I’ve almost convinced myself.”

Do I know I’m right?

Judgements aren’t the same as facts.

Instinct is not science.

I’m like any other human being, as fallible and as capable of being wrong.

I only know what I believe.

There are two views of what is happening in the world today.

One view is that there are isolated individuals, extremists, engaged in essentially isolated acts of terrorism.

That what is happening is not qualitatively different from the terrorism we have always lived with.

If you believe this, we carry on the same path as before 11th September.

We try not to provoke them and hope in time they will wither.

The other view is that this is a wholly new phenomenon, worldwide global terrorism based on a perversion of the true, peaceful and honourable faith of Islam; that’s its roots are not superficial but deep, in the madrassehs of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the former training camps of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; in the cauldron of Chechnya; in parts of the politics of most countries of the Middle East and many in Asia; in the extremist minority that now in every European city preach hatred of the West and our way of life.

If you take this view, you believe September 11th changed the world; that Bali, Beslan, Madrid and scores of other atrocities that never make the news are part of the same threat and the only path to take is to confront this terrorism, remove it root and branch and at all costs stop them acquiring the weapons to kill on a massive scale because these terrorists would not hesitate to use them.

Likewise take the first view, then when you see the terror brought to Iraq you say: there, we told you; look what you have stirred up; now stop provoking them.

But if you take the second view, you don’t believe the terrorists are in Iraq to liberate it.

They’re not protesting about the rights of women - what, the same people who stopped Afghan girls going to school, made women wear the Burka and beat them in the streets of Kabul, who now assassinate women just for daring to register to vote in Afghanistan’s first ever democratic ballot, though four million have done so?

They are not provoked by our actions; but by our existence.

They are in Iraq for the very reason we should be.

They have chosen this battleground because they know success for us in Iraq is not success for America or Britain or even Iraq itself but for the values and way of life that democracy represents.

They know that.

That’s why they are there.

That is why we should be there and whatever disagreements we have had, should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done.

And, of course, at first the consequence is more fighting.

But Iraq was not a safe country before March 2003.

Few had heard of the Taliban before September 11th 2001.

Afghanistan was not a nation at peace.

So it’s not that I care more about foreign affairs than the state of our economy, NHS, schools or crime.

It’s simply that I believe democracy there means security here; and that if I don’t care and act on this terrorist threat, then the day will come when all our good work on the issues that decide people’s lives will be undone because the stability on which our economy, in an era of globalisation, depends, will vanish.

And I believe so strongly that if Europe and America could only put aside their differences and united around a common cause, the future could be different and better.

So the decisions I’ve been called on to make are stark.

When I hear people say: “I want the old Tony Blair back, the one who cares”, I tell you something.

I don’t think as a human being, as a family man, I’ve changed at all.

But I have changed as a leader.

I have come to realise that caring in politics isn’t really about “caring”.

It’s about doing what you think is right and sticking to it.

So I do not minimise whatever differences some of you have with me over Iraq and the only healing can come from understanding that the decision, whether agreed with or not, was taken because I believe, genuinely, Britain’s future security depends on it.

There has been no third way, this time.

Believe me, I’ve looked for it.

Trevor, everybody on here generally castigates people who disagree with them.

Now, as I said to BB earlier, the shoe doesn’t necessarily have to fit you, but you are the one who keeps putting it on, don’t blame me if you choose to wear it.

At the same time, people who aren’t able to let their intellect control their emotions do indeed need to grow up. Does that describe you? Grow up. Does it not describe you? Relax.

Also, those that equate criticism of the administration with criticism of themselves need to grow up. Does that describe you? Grow up. Does it not describe you? Relax.

So, like I said, if you want to saddle yourself with conditional insults, then that is your choice.

I don’t think you get the point. What I’ve raised is the idea of a make work project. It doesn’t have much to do with infrastructure. It wouldn’t be much of anything valuable worth looting. Maybe it wouldn’t work now, but it might have in the beginning when the public was more receptive. It might have been a good preventative idea.

I’m also thinking that if you were to put effort into building non-strategic items, then the likelihood of them being attacked will be greatly lessened. Especially if they aren’t being built in support of western goals, such as oil pipelines which are seen as a way to benefit the west at the expense of themeselves (even if that is not a correct impression).

Regardless, the strategy is still valid, find a way to get aligned with the Religious and community leaders – to forge some type of understanding. Alternately, use them to drive a wedge between the resistance and the general populace.

Also, given the inability to spend the billions slated for rebuilding, I absolutely think Bush has not focused on rebuilding, at least not as a tool to keep possible dissenters occupied with something other than resistance.

Don’t agree, then fine. Want to cry because I think it speaks poorly of the Bush administration, go ahead. Then grow up.

Now who is insulting who? First, I’m very aware of what Bush has been stating to us about why we are hated. Second, is this what people are brainwashed into hating us for or is it actually what the general populace would choose to hate us for? There is a big difference.

So, let me ask you, if someone hates you for religious differences, how do you go about generating tolerance and understanding between both parties? Your enemies may respect the business end of a gun, but it certainly won’t change their mind. What is Bush doing to stop being on the receiving end of this hatred?

Yes, yes, he’s tough on terror. I’ll grant that. But the ability to turn prospective enemies, the general Iraqi populace, into friends, seems to be beyond his grasp. Like I said before, I don’t think that is what is truly on his mind. If it was, he’d have done some interesting things by now.

You, BB, or anyone else can certainly decide he’s waiting until the country is secure. I don’t buy it. These ideas would have led to increased security, but I don’t think the current administration is capable of creating an environment receptive to ideas.

Put as much work into improving these ideas as you do criticizing them because of their source and we’d be there already. Do you want to play politics or do you want to come up with a workable strategy?

The right isn’t interested in getting the right things done, they are interested in defending the choices of Bush due to ideology. It’s sad really. Is military might the only tool in your arsenal?

Countries that are weak but smart are going to have you for dinner.

[edited for typo’s and spelling]

Again and again, Lumpy graces us with his very own special blend of idiocy, ignorance and hubris.

Tell me please Lumpy, are all of those ‘experts’ the same ones that reported on the bountious production of the former USSR and the Wirtschafts Wunder in the ehmaliger DDR on par with that of West Germany?

Shut the F up already on this mythically great PLAN of the State Dept. Their competence has not been exactly demonstrated over the years. If you can, read Clausewitz on plans and war. We are acting against an enemy that REACTS, and it’s a bit hard to plan for that.

So those guys in Fallujah, a Sunni city and a Baathist stronghold, are in commanded by the son of a Shiite cleric murdered by… Baathists back in the day when Saddam was the MAN, days you yearn for? You are truly BRILLIANT!

After FDR defeated the Naziis back Democrats knew HOW to fight a war, Germany was an economic basket case until 1948, some three years after their defeat. A total basket case. What the hell can we expect in a year and a half?

“Sorry, but I demand that people who are leading our military and our nation are COMPETENT and good at their jobs.” So, upon wincing at the train wreck that is the Kerry campaign, you don’t want him ‘reporting for duty’ anywhere near the Oval Office, do you? How long are you going to hold your breath if your demand is not met? Will someone be there to catch your fall, or will you be lying down, or will you just hit the floor with a big thud?

“Try posting some info from a source that is at least marginally non-partisan.” Like Bill and Hillary’s bitch Sidney Blumenthal? You are funny in ways that you can’t even begin to comprehend.

“A soldier is going to be in one place and lack an overall bigh picture.” Well, you did get that right. So tell, me, does that apply to a certain junior grade officer with an abbreviated term of service back in the NAM named John Kerry?

In general, who ‘knows’ what the ‘truth’ is in Iraq anyway? Am I supposed to get it from Danger Dan, or the NYT, or perhaps the Washington Post, or maybe CNN? None of those institutions has had their problems with veracity over the years. They didn’t run numerous stories by a reporter bent on making them look like fools. They didn’t run make- believe sob stories about crack addicts. They didn’t supress and alter stories to curry favor with Saddam. They don’t now have documentation problems. Their producers didn’t call the DNC to tell them about some loon in fly-over country with some ‘dirt’ on the CIC. No way, none of that ever, ever, ever happened. Right, Lumpy, tme, Elk? Can I get a witness?

More to the point, the reporters they send to Iraq don’t suffer from the Vietnam Disease. They have done all of the background reading on the country, the culture, warfare, the US military, guerilla warfare, and all of the icky stuff that give context and depth to one’s reports. Just like they did in Vietnam. Wait a minute, they DIDN’T, and therefore were able to report Tet as a victory for Charlie when in fact he was wiped out. Interesting- I feel even better than before about media coverage of Iraq.

So Kerry has this super-duper neato plan to fix Bush’s F-ups in Iraq, based on his extensive command experience thirty plus years ago. Okay, let’s see, bring in the organization that is doing a GREAT job in the Sudan and ran the Oil for Bribes program. Sounds good so far. Then, lets grovel to the Frogs, the Krauts, and the Ivans and get them to help out. Well aside from picking on African nations without UN or Nato permission, what can the Frogs do? Precious little indeed. Ditto the Krauts. And the Rooskies? Well, their special forces really showed 'em in Breslan and their counter terrorist ops are second to none. Of course the fact that Saddam and his fellow Baathists owed them tens of billions of dollars didn’t in any way, no possible way, no remotely fathomable way, affect their decision-making. It is simply not possible.

Go read your Clausewitz, boys. The ability to wage war, which is what we are still doing in Iraq, rests on material ability and the WILL to use it. Given the fact that we have a resource base infinitely larger than that of our opponent, they are concentrating their attack on our will, ala the North Vietnamese and the various acts of terror up to and including 9/11. I doubt that they are unaware of our media’s dislike of Dubbya, our distain for casualties and the effete nature of the modern Democratic Party. Feed these idiots the seeds of doubt and watch the tree of pessimism grow, hopefully enought to bear fruit.

My guess: The future of the country is still to be determined in ways that are not yet figured out. The process is dynamic, as soldiers and their officers learn every day. We probably can’t even calculate good odds. The press are of course free to what they will, and certainly ought to be. On the other hand, though, given the standards that Danger Dan and his minions apparently adhere to, they shouldn’t be surprised when fewer and fewer tune them in.

Schrauper,

That was wonderful!

I was laughing out loud.

One of the best posts all year!

Keep up the strong work,

JeffR

Jeffr, thanks, but Lumpy deserves the credit. He makes it soooo easy…

I received an e-mail from one of our dear readers who’s a father of a marine serving in Najaf now.
The marine sent his father the message below in which he provides some interesting observations from there. He’s also asked for some help in providing stationery for kids in Najaf.
If you want to contribute, you can contact his father at this address.

Dear Dad:

  1. Not much to report on here in Najaf. Its been quite but we have heard about things being hot in other parts of Iraq so we are still being vigilant. Just recently the Mosques here in Najaf have re-opened and people are returning to them for prayer for the first time in almost a year. When the militia came into the city they took over the Mosques and used them as hideouts, even though it’s against their own religious beliefs to use a holy site in such a way, but they did so because they knew that we wouldn’t bomb there. The people kept asking us to just go in and get them, but we didn’t want to destroy their Mosque, and some of my friends died as a result of sniper fire from inside, but we know it was the right thing to do.

As we were driving through the city on a security patrol the other day we drove by the newly re-opened Mosque. As we drove by many people came out and waved at us and some parents even held up their children and said “thank you America.” I remember thinking that how lucky I was to be able to be from a country where I don’t have to worry about someone using my church as a battle position, or that someone might shoot me and my family for trying to go to church. Some times I forget how lucky I am and I can’t ever believe that I thought of going to church as being a “chore” We should feel blessed to be able to go in and pray as we choose. And I thank God every day that you and my family are safe and sound in the U.S. I love you guys so much that I would gladly lay down my life so that you never lose a single freedom that you enjoy today. And if anything should happen to me, don’t worry there are a lot of guys like me out there who will never let that happen.

Lately we have been doing public affairs stuff, going around to different schools and seeing what kinds of stuff they need to be fixed. Things like desks and chalkboards and stuff. The hard part is dealing with all the little kids that come out to see us and they all think that we are going to be giving away food and candy. And it’s not like it’s just a couple of kids, we get mobbed by like a hundred kids. Instead of more candy or chocolate or stuff me , if you could send some basic school supply stuff to me we can get it right to the school kids. Things like pens, pencils, protractors, rulers, etc and we will get it out. I will also get some pictures of the kids for you that I will send. Oh, and don’t forget those little hand held pencil sharpeners. Apparently they need some of those too…
Love,
David Jr


Now this I also found… On another super website…

And then there was the media coverage. In the midst of all the carnage and chaos overflowing the front pages of our newspapers and the TV screens, “Newsweek” chose to run an overview of the current situation in Iraq, titled appropriately “It’s Worse Than You Think”. Having for quite some time closely followed the mainstream media’s reporting from Iraq, it struck me that this is hardly possible.

In the same week that “Newsweek” published its panic attack, the editorial board of a less worldly “Kansas City Star” met up with a group of five Iraqi journalists visiting the United States on a tour organized by the State Department. During the discussion with his Iraqi colleagues E. Thomas McClanahan of the “Star” asked them what they thought about the media coverage of Iraq:

"The response was amusing in a way. Perhaps out of tact, our visitors (they asked that we not use their names) said they hadn’t seen much U.S. coverage. Most couldn’t speak English. But coverage by the Arab media, they said through translators, presented a distorted picture.

"One member of the group, the only woman, said the pessimistic tone of Arab coverage was making things worse by encouraging terrorists and demoralizing those who supported democracy. Another journalist, a man in a dark suit, said the insurgents ‘don’t represent the Iraqi people.’

“Arab reporters, said a third, ‘try to give the impression that it’s hopeless. If you watch the satellite channels from Arab countries you would imagine there’s no rebuilding going on’.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi echoed these sentiments recently when he spoke before the United States Congress: “I have seen some of the images that are being shown here on television. They are disturbing. They focus on the tragedies, such as the brutal and barbaric murder of two American hostages this week… Yet, as we mourn these losses, we must not forget either the progress we are making or what is at stake in Iraq. We are fighting for freedom and democracy, ours and yours. Every day, we strengthen the institutions that will protect our new democracy, and every day, we grow in strength and determination to defeat the terrorists and their barbarism.”

There are two Iraqs at the moment; both equally real and consequential. The Iraq of never ending strife - the insurgency, terrorism, crime, and all too slow pace of reconstruction makes for interesting news stories and exciting footage. The Iraq of steady recovery, returning normalcy and a dash of hope rarely does.

By the way, the “Newsweek” story did not mention even one positive development in Iraq. So here is another story - Iraq: “Maybe Not Quite As Bad As You Thought.” Read the stories below in addition to - not to the exclusion of - all the bad news. Only by knowing both sides of the story you can make an informed judgment about how things in Iraq are really going.

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/09/good-news-from-iraq-part-11_27.html

Joe

THIS IS FROM A 01 USNA GRAD AND MARINE HELO PILOT

Dad, you asked me what I would say to America from Iraq on 9/11 if I had a podium and a microphone. I have thought about it, and here is my response.
Your Son,
Kevin

September 11, 2004
Dear America,

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” -George Orwell

The Marine Corps is tired. I guess I should not say that, as I have no authority or responsibility to speak for the Marine Corps as a whole, and my opinions are mine alone. I will rephrase: this Marine is tired. I write this piece from the sands of Iraq, west of Baghdad, at three a.m., but I am not tired of the sand. I am neither tired of long days, nor of flying and fighting. I am not tired of the food, though it does not taste quite right.

I am not tired of the heat; I am not tried of the mortars that occasionally fall on my base. I am not tired of Marines dying, though all Marines, past and present, mourn the loss of every brother and sister that is killed; death is a part of combat and every warrior knows that going into battle. One dead Marine is too many, but we give more than we take, and unlike our enemies, we fight with honor. I am not tired of the missions or the people; I have only been here a month, after all. I am, however, tired of the hypocrisy and short-sightedness that seems to have gripped so many of my countrymen and the media. I am tired of political rhetoric that misses the point, and mostly I am tired of people “not getting it.”

Three years ago I was sitting in a classroom at Quantico, Virginia, while attending the Marine Corps Basic Officer Course, learning about the finer points of land navigation. Our Commanding Officer interrupted the class to inform us that some planes had crashed in New York and Washington D.C., and that he would return when he knew more. Tears welled in the eyes of the Lieutenant on my right while class continued, albeit with an audience that was not very focused; his sister lived in New York and worked at the World Trade Center. We broke for lunch, though instead of going to the chow hall proceeded to a small pizza and sub joint which had a television. Slices of pizza sat cold in front of us as we watched the same vivid images that you watched on September 11, 2001. I look back on that moment now and realize even then I grasped, at some level, that the events of that day would alter both my military career and my country forever. Though I did not know that three years later, to the day, I would be flying combat missions in Iraq as an AH-1W Super Cobra pilot, I did understand that a war had just begun, on television for the world to see, and that my classmates and I would fight that war. After lunch we were told to go to our rooms, clean our weapons and pack our gear for possible deployment to the Pentagon to augment perimeter security. The parting words of the order were to make sure we packed gloves, in case we had to handle bodies.

The first Marine killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom was in my company at The Basic School, and was sitting in that land navigation class on September 11. He fought bravely, led from the front, and was killed seizing an oil refinery on the opening day of the war. His heroism made my emergency procedure memorization for the T-34 primary flight school trainer seem quite insignificant. This feeling of frustration was shared by all of the student pilots, but we continued to press on. As one instructor pointed out to us, “You will fight this war, not me. Make sure that you are prepared when you get there.” He was right; my classmates from Pensacola are here beside me, flying every day in support of the Marines on the ground. That instructor has since retired, but I believe he has retired knowing that he made a contribution to the greatest country in the history of the world, the United States of America.

Many of you will read that statement and balk at its apparently presumptuous and arrogant nature, and perhaps be tempted to stop reading right here. I would ask that you keep going, for I did not say that Americans are better than anyone else, for I do not believe that to be the case. I did not say that our country, its leaders, military or intelligence services are perfect or have never made mistakes, because throughout history they have, and will continue to do so, despite their best efforts. The Nation is more than the sum of its citizens and leaders, more than its history, present, or future; a nation has contemporary values which change as its leaders change, but it also has timeless character, ideals forged with the blood and courage of patriots. To quote the Pledge of Allegiance, our nation was founded “under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” As Americans, we have more freedom than we can handle sometimes.

If you are an atheist you might have a problem with that whole “under God” part; if you are against liberating the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Asia, all of Europe (twice), and the former Soviet bloc, then perhaps the “liberty and justice for all” section might leave you fuming. Our Nation, throughout its history, has watered the seeds of democracy on many continents, with blood, even when the country was in disagreement about those decisions.

Disagreement is a wonderful thing. To disagree with your neighbors and your government is at the very heart of freedom. Citizens have disagreed about every important and controversial decision made by their leaders throughout history. Truman had the courage to drop two nuclear weapons in order to end the largest war in history, and then, by his actions, prevented the Soviets from extinguishing the light of democracy in Eastern Europe, Berlin.

Lincoln preserved our country through civil war; Reagan knew in his heart that freedom is a more powerful weapon than oppression. Leaders are paid to make difficult, sometimes controversial decisions. History will judge the success of their actions and the purity of their intent in a way that is impossible at the present moment. In your disagreement and debate about the current conflict, however, be very careful that you do not jeopardize your nation or those who serve. The best time to use your freedom of speech to debate difficult decisions is before they are made, not when the lives of your countrymen are on the line.

Cherish your civil rights; I know that after having been in Iraq for only one month I have a new appreciation for mine. You have the right to say that you “support the troops” but oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have the right to vote for Senator John Kerry because you believe that he has an exit strategy for Iraq, or because you just cannot stand President Bush. You have the right to vote for President George W. Bush if you believe that he has done a good job over the last four years. You might even decide that you do not want to vote at all and would rather avoid the issues as much as possible. That is certainly your option, and doing nothing is the only option for many people in this world.

It is not my place, nor am I allowed by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, to tell you how to vote. But I can explain to you the truth about what is going on around you. We know, and have known from the beginning, that the ultimate success or failure of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the future of those countries, rests solely on the shoulders of the Iraqi and Afghani people. If someone complains that we should not have gone to war with Saddam Hussein, that our intelligence was bad, that President Bush’s motives were impure, then take the appropriate action. Exercise your right to vote for Senator Kerry, but please stop complaining about something that happened over a year ago. The decision to deploy our military in Iraq and Afghanistan is in the past, and while I believe that it is important to the democratic process for our nation to analyze the decisions of our leadership in order to avoid repeating mistakes, it is far more important to focus on the future. The question of which candidate will “get us out of Iraq sooner” should not be a consideration in your mind. YOU SHOULD NOT WANT US OUT OF IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN SOONER. There is only one coherent exit strategy that will make our time here worthwhile and validate the sacrifice of so many of our countrymen. There is only one strategy that has a chance of promoting peace and stabilizing the Middle East. It is the exit strategy of both candidates, though voiced with varying volumes and differing degrees of clarity. I will speak of Iraq because that is where I am, though I feel the underlying principle applies to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The American military must continue to help train and support the Iraqi Police, National Guard, and Armed Forces. We must continue to give them both responsibility and the authority with which to carry out those responsibilities, so that they eventually can kill or capture the former regime elements and foreign terrorists that are trying to create a radical, oppressive state. We must continue to repair the infrastructure that we damaged during the conflict, and improve the infrastructure that was insufficient when Saddam was in power. We should welcome and encourage partners in the coalition but recognize that many will choose the path of least resistance and opt out; many of our traditional allies have been doing this for years and it should not surprise us. We must respect the citizens of Iraq and help them to understand the meaning of basic human rights, for those are something the average Iraqi has never experienced. We must be respectful of our cultural and religious differences. We must help the Iraqis develop national pride, and most importantly, we must leave this country better than we found it, at the right time, with a chance of success so that its people will have an opportunity to forge their own destiny. We must do all of these things as quickly and efficiently as possible so that we are not seen as occupiers, but rather liberators and helpers. We must communicate this to the world as clearly and frequently as possible, both with words and actions.

If we leave before these things are done, then Iraq will fall into anarchy and possibly plunge the Middle East into another war. The ability of the United States to conduct foreign policy will be severely, and perhaps permanently, degraded. Terrorism will increase, both in America and around the world, as America will have demonstrated that it is not interested in building and helping, only destroying. If we run or exit early, we prove to our enemies that terror is more powerful and potent than freedom. Many nations, like Spain, have already affirmed this in the minds of the terrorists. Our failure, and its consequences, will be squarely on our shoulders as a nation. It will be our fault. If we stay the course and Iraq or Afghanistan falls into civil war on its own, then our hands are clean. As a citizen of the United States and a U.S. Marine, I will be able to sleep at night with nothing on my conscience, for I know that I, and my country, have done as much as we could for these people. If we leave early, I will not be able to live with myself, and neither should you. The blood will be on our hands, the failure on our watch.

The bottom line is this: Republican or Democrat, approve or disapprove of the decision to go to war, you need to support our efforts here. You cannot both support the troops and protest their mission. Every time the parent of a fallen Marine gets on CNN with a photo, accusing President Bush of murdering his son, the enemy wins a strategic victory. I cannot begin to comprehend the grief he feels at the death of his son, but he dishonors the memory of my brave brother who paid the ultimate price. That Marine volunteered to serve, just like the rest of us. No one here was drafted. I am proud of my service and that of my peers. I am ashamed of that parent’s actions, and I pray to God that if I am killed my parents will stand with pride before the cameras and reaffirm their belief that my life and sacrifice mattered; they loved me dearly and they firmly support the military and its mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that statement, they communicate very clearly to our enemies around the world that America is united, that we cannot be intimidated by kidnappings, decapitations and torture, and that we care enough about the Afghani and Iraqi people to give them a chance at democracy and basic human rights.

Do not support those that seek failure for us, or seek to trivialize the sacrifices made here. Do not make the deaths of your countrymen be in vain. Communicate to your media and elected officials that you are behind us and our mission. Send letters and encouragement to those who are deployed. When you meet a person that serves you, whether in the armed forces, police, or fire department, show them respect. Thank the spouses around you every day, raising children alone, whose loved ones are deployed. Remember not only those that have paid the ultimate price, but the veterans that bear the physical and emotional scars of defending your freedom. At the very least, follow your mother’s advice. “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Do not give the enemy a foothold in our Nation’s public opinion. The enemy rejoices at Fahrenheit 9/11 and applauds every time an American slams our efforts. The military can succeed here so long as American citizens support us wholeheartedly.

Sleep well on this third anniversary of 9/11, America. Rough men are standing ready to do violence on your behalf. Many of your sons and daughters volunteered to stand watch for you. Not just rough men -the infantry, the Marine grunts, the Special Operations Forces- but lots of eighteen and nineteen year old kids, teenagers, who are far away from home, serving as drivers, supply clerks, analysts, and mechanics. They all have stories, families, and dreams. They miss you, love you, and are putting their lives on the line for you. Do not make their time here, their sacrifice, a waste. Support them, and their mission

And that is really the bottom line here…Again this is a Marine on the front lines…Something really to pay attention to here…Which so many are not. And America is not doing enough to support the troops. To say thank you and to mean it. For all this is doing is playing right into the hands of the terrorists. For they want to see this. And its time this bashing the President, the US. even the ALLIES, to end. And get down to brass tacks, and say how can we WIN this War on terror, as a United States?

For all this campaign is turning out to be, a tit for tat. Especially on the Demcoratic side, they are bashing trashing, tarring and feathering Bush, to no avail. They do more bashing of Bush, then give substance. Every other sentence is bash Bush Bash Bush some more. Tell us what YOU plan to do! Again the bottom line is who IS the real John Kerry? And no one is doing that on his team. You listen to those in the Kerry camp. When a substanant question is asked of them. They turn it around and bash Bush. They cannot even state what his position is! He has no conviction. He changed his mind so much on Iraq, that you do not know wehre he stands…What 14 times???
And this man wants to be our next President?? God help us if he is…

Joe

Some good developments noted by an NYT reporter:

October 3, 2004
Militant Cleric Considers Entry Into Iraqi Politics
By DEXTER FILKINS

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 2 - The Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr has begun laying the groundwork to enter Iraq’s nascent democratic process, telling Iraqi leaders that he is planning to disband his militia and possibly field candidates for office.

After weeks of watching his militia wither before American military attacks, Mr. Sadr has sent emissaries to some of Iraq’s major political parties and religious groups to discuss the possibility of involving himself in the campaign for nationwide elections, according to a senior aide to Mr. Sadr and several Iraqi leaders who have met with him.

According to those Iraqis, Mr. Sadr says he intends to disband his militia, the Mahdi Army, and endorse the holding of elections. While Mr. Sadr has made promises to end his armed resistance before, some Iraqi officials believe that he may be serious this time, especially given the toll of attacks on his forces.

Mr. Sadr’s aides say his political intentions have been endorsed by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country’s most powerful Shiite religious leader. He has long tried to tame what he believes is Mr. Sadr’s destructive influence on the chances of Iraq’s Shiites to win a majority in the elections scheduled for January.

In recent weeks, Mr. Sadr’s chief aide, Ali Smesim, has met with some of the country’s most important political leaders, including members of the Association of Muslim Scholars, the powerful Sunni organization; leaders of the country’s Kurdish community; Christians and other Shiite leaders. Mr. Sadr appears to be particularly interested in cultivating disaffected political groups that did not cooperate with the American occupation and which are not now part of the interim Iraqi government. Those smaller parties, in turn, are keenly interested in tapping the vast support enjoyed by the 31-year-old cleric among Iraq’s poor.

“We are ready to enter the democratic process, under certain conditions,” Mr. Smesim said in an interview. “We will have a program. And if Moktada comes in, he will be the biggest in Iraq.”

Mr. Smesim said Mr. Sadr’s two major conditions were the involvement of the United Nations, which is already assisting in the elections here, and the absence of any interference from American and British military forces in the electoral process.

Mr. Sadr’s overtures toward the political mainstream, if they develop into a full-blown commitment, would represent a significant victory for the American-led enterprise here, just a few months before nationwide elections are to be held in January.

Mr. Sadr, who commands a vast following among Iraq’s poor, has long posed one of the most difficult threats to the efforts to implant a democracy here. Twice before, he has called for armed uprisings against the Americans that took weeks and hundreds of lives to suppress. More than once, he has promised to disband his militia, only to keep fighting.

His steps, though clear, are still tentative, with no definitive public declaration from the man himself. With an Iraqi murder warrant still issued for his arrest, Mr. Sadr has not been seen in public in weeks. The informal talks to persuade Mr. Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, to disband, have yielded little.

Nonetheless, Iraqi officials say they are encouraged by Mr. Sadr’s recent overtures, and some believe that this time Mr. Sadr might be serious. The reason, they say, is the political and military defeat that Mr. Sadr suffered in Najaf, where the Mahdi Army was badly mauled by American forces and where Mr. Sadr himself was ordered to capitulate by Ayatollah Sistani.

Mr. Smesim said Mr. Sadr was in the process of trying to form a political coalition, putting out feelers for Iraqis willing to join him. He has even floated a name for a new party - the Patriotic Alliance.

According to the same Iraqis, Mr. Sadr’s aides have begun to work closely with Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who was once a favorite of the Bush administration but who has since fallen out of favor. In recent weeks, Mr. Chalabi has been advising Mr. Sadr’s aides in their search for allies, and he has encouraged members of the Shiite Council, a political alliance that he is a part of, to join with Mr. Sadr. Mr. Chalabi and his allies appear to be interested in tapping the vast support that Mr. Sadr enjoys among Iraqis poor and lower-class Shiites.

Since August, when Mr. Sadr met with Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf and pledged in a cease-fire to enter the democratic process, the pressure on Mr. Sadr has only intensified. With his forces routed from Najaf, the American military has been attacking almost daily in Sadr City, the sprawling Shiite district in northeastern Baghdad.

American and Iraqi officials have long said that Mr. Sadr could be given a place in the country’s budding democratic system as long as he renounces violence. But it is not clear just how far they are willing to let him go. There is still a great wariness about Mr. Sadr, whose fiery sermons often include promises to expel the Americans from the country. Officials also believe that he maintains close relations with the Iranian government, which is regarded as a destabilizing force here.

Among those most concerned about Mr. Sadr’s potential entry into democratic politics are the mainstream Shiite parties, like Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri. Both parties are well organized and well financed, yet each has suffered some loss of popularity for cooperating with the American occupation.

In the interview, Mr. Smesim accused the leaders of the two parties of pressing the Americans and the government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi to exclude them from the political process at whatever cost, lest Mr. Sadr undercut the two big Shiite parties. Even so, Mr. Smesim recently met the leaders of both parties to tell them of Mr. Sadr’s plan.

For their part, the Shiite party leaders say they welcome Mr. Sadr’s entry into the political fray but say he overestimates his popularity.

“He has no support,” said Adil Abdul Madhi, the finance minister and a Sciri leader. “You will see that when his hold is broken in these neighborhoods, he will have no support.”

And then there is the problem of the Mahdi Army, the loosely organized guerrilla group that is thought to number in the thousands. In informal talks that have unfolded during the past several weeks, the Allawi government has insisted that any normalization of relations with Mr. Sadr must start with a surrender of the group’s mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. The group would still be allowed to keep most of its automatic weapons.

Until the group turns over its heavy weapons, Iraqi and American leaders say, they will keep up the military pressure. “The government has made clear that it can accommodate all trends in Iraqi society,” said Barham Salih, the deputy prime minister. “But we cannot accept the presence of any armed militias.”

Mr. Sadr, who has broken several earlier promises to disarm, does not inspire much trust among the American military either.

“My daddy taught me, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me,” a senior American military commander said. “I don’t trust him.”

Indeed, there are some indications that Mr. Sadr intends to test the political waters before giving up his guns. Asked about the group’s heavy weapons, Mr. Smesim turned evasive, indicating that most of the weapons were the property of individual Iraqis within the Mahdi Army who were not likely to listen to Mr. Sadr’s orders to turn them over. “They are personal weapons, personal R.P.G.'s,” he said.

Yet for all the reservations about Mr. Sadr, many of the Iraqi leaders who have met with his representatives say they are impressed with their seriousness.

Faoud Masoon, chairman of the National Assembly and a senior leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said he was not surprised by Mr. Sadr’s switch, given the decimation of his army. He met with Mr. Smesim two weeks ago.

“Every man is free to change his mind,” Mr. Masoon said. “I think Moktada is being cautious, so he is sending his people out, testing the waters.”

“We would welcome him into the democratic process,” he said.

Mr. Sadr appears to be cultivating a number of groups, like his own, that are outside the political mainstream. One is the Association of Muslim Scholars, an influential Sunni Arab group that is opposed to the occupation and has decided, for now, to sit out the elections.

Abdul Salam al-Qubaisi, a senior member of the group, said talks with Mr. Smesim were planned for next week. Despite the groups’ religious differences, Mr. Qubaisi said he saw a natural confluence of interests.

“We represent the Sunni resistance, and Sadr represents the Shiite resistance,” Mr. Qubaisi said. “We think there can be a coordination of responses for the elections.”

Of all those encouraging Mr. Sadr to jump into the political arena, one of the most surprising is Mr. Chalabi. A former exile with little popular support, Mr. Chalabi has recently tried to position himself as a populist Shiite leader much like Mr. Sadr is. In an interview, Mr. Chalabi acknowledged that he was trying to coax Mr. Sadr into the mainstream.

“Our real business is to persuade everybody that Sadr is better inside than outside,” Mr. Chalabi said, “and to provide some measure of comfort to the middle class that he is not going to eat them up.”

Mr. Smesim has recently met at least 10 times with members of the Shiite Council, an alliance of about 40 political parties that includes Mr. Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.

The big question surrounding Mr. Sadr and the Mahdi Army is how much authority he really has. Among many Iraqis, there is some worry that if Mr. Sadr jumps to the political mainstream, some of the hard-liners in his organization, like Abdul Hadi Daraji, would keep fighting.

"Most of them would give up if Moktada told them to,‘’ Mr. Masoon said. “A few of them would go with the terrorists.”

John F. Burns contributed reporting for this article.

Good thoughts from the WSJ editorial board - we should definitely push our assault. I’ve said it before above: our troops aren’t cops, they’re soldiers, and they should be used as such.

Don’t Stop in Samarra
October 4, 2004; Page A16

Last week’s allied offensive in the city of Samarra looks to be a tactical victory, in that insurgents were routed and city offices, hospitals and other buildings retaken. But it will only be a strategic success if the allies keep moving to clean out other terrorist sanctuaries in the Sunni Triangle.

The Samarra campaign makes up for what was turning out to be a repeat of April’s mistake in Fallujah to trust a deal with former Baathists in the city. That agreement looked hollow when terrorists openly patrolled in Samarra under the flag of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi only days later. This time a force of 3,000 American and 2,000 Iraqi troops was quickly dispatched to retake the city located about 60 miles northwest of Baghdad.

The Iraqi contribution was especially notable, since it included newly trained forces. Once again one of the best Iraqi units was a group of some 300 from the 36th battalion that was put together in 2003 by the much-maligned Iraqi National Congress. It’s a shame the State Department and CIA opposed training more such anti-Saddam Iraqi allies earlier.

We hope Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and his interim government conclude that the lesson of Samarra is to continue into Ramadi and Fallujah. One reason the insurgency has been able to increase its attacks is because it has these safe staging areas to retreat to. Another is because Iraqis have begun to suspect that the Iraq government is afraid to respond for fear of a Sunni political backlash. But the far more dangerous backlash will be if Iraqis conclude that Mr. Allawi can’t provide security. Notwithstanding the U.S. election, don’t stop now.

This post from www.belmontclub.blogspot.com illustrates the gains to be realized from utilizing Iraqi forces as part of an assault, rather than in doing it all ourselves:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/10/appointment-in-samarra-and.html

The “International Herald Tribune” describes the brigade plus attack on Samarra by US and Iraqi government forces.
http://www.iht.com/articles/541693.html
The objective of the operation was to establish government control after the city council had been disbanded under insurgent threat. Samarra is a city of 200,000 on the Tigris river about 120 kilometers north-northwest of Baghdad. It was the capital of the Abbasid caliphate in the 9th century, when palaces and gardens stretched for 30 kilometers along the river. That history is recalled in numerous archaeological relics whose massive construction make it a potential offensive nightmare. The Great Friday Mosque with its spiral minaret, for example, covers nearly 40,000 square meters – four hectares, or about 9 acres – with walls 35 feet high and walls nearly 9 feet thick. It is also the site of a replica of the the Imam Ali Mosque of Najaf, holy to Shi’ites, excepting that it is domed in blue tiles, but with the potential, like its southern counterpart, to become a massive redoubt.

The International Herald Tribune reports that an overnight assault by four American and two Iraqi battalions (for reference note that a division has about 10 battalions) took 80% of the city, killing 100 insurgents outright, and capturing the Shi’ite mosque, the city hall and a pharmaceutical factory site. The assault on the mosque itself was carried out by the Iraqi army in its first major public debut.

In a later statement, the military said that members of 36th Iraqi Commando Battalion had secured the historic Golden Mosque, a sacred Shiite shrine, to safeguard it from insurgents. They also captured 25 rebels at the mosque with weapons, the military said.

Details added by the Daily Telegraph suggests the force had specific objectives when they began the operation. “An Iraqi spokesman said 37 insurgents were captured. During the push, soldiers of the US 1st Infantry Division rescued Yahlin Kaya, a Turkish building worker being held hostage in the city.” Remaining resistance appears to be centered on the old city.

American and Iraqi troops backed by tanks and armored vehicles pushed through Samarra's old city as insurgents unleashed mortar attacks and rocket-propelled grenades from the rooftops. ... Apache attack helicopters circled the area, firing rockets at rooftops where insurgents hid as soldiers fought street by street. Several buildings were destroyed. One resident said 10 per cent of the houses in the old city had been destroyed.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the operation was that such a huge force of Americans and Iraqis achieved tactical surprise. “When the 3,500 US troops and Iraqi forces launched the attack they appeared to catch the insurgents by surprise.” Reports suggest the insurgents were caught flat-footed.

Guerrillas were seen unloading weapons and ammunition from two speedboats on the Tigris in the town, the military said. Troops opened fire and destroyed the boats. The US military said troops destroyed several mortar sites, rocket-propelled grenade teams and guerrilla vehicles as they closed in on the mosque in the city center.

The fact that the First Infantry Division and the Iraqi Army were able to keep the approach of multi-battalion forces secret from the enemy in the heart of the Sunni triangle is one of the most impressive aspects of this operation. The insurgents were surprised in a stronghold where they could expect to enjoy every intelligence advantage. Nearly as impressive was the lightning seizure of the Shi’ite shrine by the 36th Iraqi Commando battalion. If this feat were achieved in Najaf two month’s earlier it would have been the equivalent of Allawi capturing Moqtada al-Sadr and his high command in their underpants. In fact, the entire multinational operation implies a degree of coordination, command and control that speaks volumes about the degree of improvement of the Iraqi Army.

But many difficulties still remain. The “Telegraph” points out the obvious one. Will the victory last?

"Less than three weeks ago the US military entered the troubled city to reinstate its city council, which had disbanded earlier under terrorist threat. Although this was hailed as a great success at the time, insurgents quickly returned and cowed local forces when US forces left."

In that respect the earlier American operation in Samarra resembled any Israeli Defense Force incursion into Gaza or the West Bank – overwhelming but temporary. In fact, any all-American incursion into Falluja would probably have shared the same temporary character. But the American commitment to building a new Iraqi Army and Iraqi State is the bearing strategic fruit which provides the crucial difference. Imagine if the Israeli Defense Forces and a Palestinian Government Force could jointly seize a terrorist stronghold and then garrison it with a Palestinian Force. What if they could seize and hold? This is what American and Iraqi forces are achieving in Samarra; this is what can be done in October that could not be achieved in April, 2004. The view that Iraq is descending into a quagmire represents a valid concern, but it ignores three crucial achievements by US policymakers.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/back-to-future-just-some-quick.html

  1. The piecemeal defeat of the threatened Sunni-Shi’ite uprising in April by holding the Sunnis fixed while militarily and politically defeating Moqtada Al-Sadr;
  2. Rebuilding the Iraqi Army from a near-zero condition in April; and
  3. Establishing an interim Iraqi government.

Both Saddam and Sadr believed they could outmaneuver the Americans, who were, if the press is to be believed, singularly lacking in nuance and intelligence. Doubtless Zarqawi believes he can do the same. Long may he cherish that hope.

Very interesting developments in Fallujah.

Insurgent Alliance Is Fraying In Fallujah
Locals, Fearing Invasion, Turn Against Foreign Arabs

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 13, 2004; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Oct. 12 – Local insurgents in the city of Fallujah are turning against the foreign fighters who have been their allies in the rebellion that has held the U.S. military at bay in parts of Iraq’s Sunni Muslim heartland, according to Fallujah residents, insurgent leaders and Iraqi and U.S. officials.

Relations are deteriorating as local fighters negotiate to avoid a U.S.-led military offensive against Fallujah, while foreign fighters press to attack Americans and their Iraqi supporters. The disputes have spilled over into harsh words and sporadic violence, with Fallujans killing at least five foreign Arabs in recent weeks, according to witnesses.

“If the Arabs will not leave willingly, we will make them leave by force,” said Jamal Adnan, a taxi driver who left his house in Fallujah’s Shurta neighborhood a month ago after the house next door was bombed by U.S. aircraft targeting foreign insurgents.

Located 35 miles west of Baghdad in Iraq’s Sunni Triangle, Fallujah has been outside the control of Iraqi authorities and U.S. military forces since April, when a siege by U.S. Marines was lifted and Iraqi security forces were given responsibility for the city’s security. Local and foreign insurgents gradually gained control, and Iraqi and U.S. officials say Fallujah has become a principal source of instability in the country.

U.S. and Iraqi authorities together have insisted that if Fallujah is to avoid an all-out assault aimed at regaining control of the city, foreign fighters must be ejected. Several local leaders of the insurgency say they, too, want to expel the foreigners, whom they scorn as terrorists. They heap particular contempt on Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian whose Monotheism and Jihad group has asserted responsibility for many of the deadliest attacks across Iraq, including videotaped beheadings.

“He is mentally deranged, has distorted the image of the resistance and defamed it. I believe his end is near,” Abu Abdalla Dulaimy, military commander of the First Army of Mohammad, said.

One of the foreign guerrillas killed by local fighters was Abu Abdallah Suri, a Syrian and a prominent member of Zarqawi’s group. Suri’s body was discovered Sunday. He was shot in the head and chest while being chased by a carload of tribesmen, according to a security guard who said he witnessed the killing.

Residents say foreign fighters recently have taken to gathering in Fallujah’s grimy commercial district after being denied shelter in residential neighborhoods because their presence so often attracts U.S. warplanes. The airstrikes and the turmoil in the streets have spurred perhaps half of the city’s 300,000 residents to flee, residents and officials said.

U.S. aircraft hit Fallujah twice on Tuesday. An airstrike just after midnight destroyed the city’s best-known restaurant, a kebab house that a military statement said was used as an arms depot, citing “numerous secondary explosions.” A second strike at 4 a.m. destroyed “a known terrorist safe house” in the northeast of the city, the statement said.

Adnan, the taxi driver who moved his panicked wife and four children to another town, said attitudes toward the foreign fighters have changed dramatically since they poured into Fallujah after the Marines’ siege ended in April. “We were deceived by them,” he said. “We welcomed them first because we thought they came to support us, but now everything is clear.”

Among the tensions dividing the locals and the foreigners is religion. People in Fallujah, known as the city of mosques, have chafed at the stern brand of Islam that the newcomers brought with them. The non-Iraqi Arabs berated women who did not cover themselves head-to-toe in black – very rare in Iraq – and violently opposed local customs rooted in the town’s more mystical religious tradition. One Fallujah man killed a Kuwaiti who said he could not pray at the grave of an ancestor.

Residents said the overwhelming majority of Fallujah’s people also have been repulsed by the atrocities that Zarqawi and other extremists have made commonplace in Iraq. The foreign militants are thought to produce the car bombs that now explode around Iraq several times a day, and Zarqawi’s organization has asserted responsibility for the slayings of several Westerners, some of which were shown in videos posted on the Internet.

There was another digital display of a beheading on Tuesday. The victim apparently was a Shiite Muslim Arab, and the group that said it posted the video identified itself as the Ansar al-Sunna Army.

Abu Barra, commander of a group of native insurgents called the Allahu Akbar Battalions, said: "Please do not mix the cards. There is an Iraqi resistance, a genuine resistance, and there are other groups trying to settle accounts. There is also terror targeting Iraqis.

President Bush, he said, "knows that and so does the government, but they purposely group all three under the tag of ‘terrorism.’ "

Barra and other insurgent leaders said the “genuine resistance” is a disciplined force that restricts its attacks to military targets, chiefly U.S. forces. It is motivated, they say, by Iraqi nationalism and humiliation over what it regards as a foreign occupation.

“The others,” Barra said, “are Arab Salafis who claim that any Iraqi or Muslim not willing to carry arms is an infidel. They are the crux of our ailment. Most of them are Saudis, Syrians” and North Africans. Salafism is a strain of Islam that seeks to restore the faith to the way it was in the days of the prophet Muhammad, 14 centuries ago.

“It is the Zarqawis and his Salafi group who are going to lead Fallujah, Samarra, Baqubah, Mosul and even some parts of Baghdad to disaster and death,” Barra said.

Such worries are encouraged by U.S. and Iraqi officials, who together have mounted offensives in recent weeks to reclaim areas held by insurgents. U.S. forces have led battles to take Najaf, Tall Afar, Samarra and, last week, a string of towns southwest of Baghdad. The operations are intended to establish government control over the entire country before nationwide elections promised for January.

But they also serve, officials say, as a psychological lever on Fallujah, long considered the toughest insurgent outpost.

“The pressure is certainly going up, both as a result of our airstrikes and as a result of their seeing Najaf, Tall Afar, Samarra giving a sense this whole thing is serious,” a senior U.S. official in Baghdad said. “There’s a lot of fear in Fallujah.”

Many residents say the same. A delegation of six prominent Fallujans began negotiating with Iraq’s interim government late last month. But senior government officials said it was only after the Oct. 1 assault on Samarra that the Fallujah delegation approached the task with new zeal.

The proposal the delegation took back to Fallujah calls for surrendering control of the city to the Iraqi National Guard. U.S. forces would remain outside the city unless the lightly armed government forces were attacked.

But first, all foreign fighters must leave the city, and the foreigners are adamantly and publicly opposing the plan. Their representative voted against it in a meeting last week of the city’s ruling mujaheddin shura, or council of holy warriors, which supported the peace proposal, 10 to 2. The local insurgent who cast the other negative vote was later persuaded to change his mind, residents say.

Foreign fighters already are blamed for violating a cease-fire in April and prompting a Marine offensive that killed hundreds. Dulaimy said a Syrian was slain by local insurgents “after he fired on American forces during the last truce.” In remarks broadcast from one of the city’s main mosques on Thursday, an insurgent negotiator, Khalid Hamoud Jumaili, said a city of several hundred thousand should not be sacrificed for a handful of foreign fighters.

Meanwhile, U.S. forces kept up military pressure Tuesday in several nearby cities. Marines raided eight mosques allegedly used as armed bases in Ramadi, a provincial capital about 25 miles west of Fallujah, and called in airstrikes in the town of Hit, about 60 miles to the northwest.

“I think there is unquestionably a fissure and there are probably several different splits based on different groups,” said the U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because his remarks were not cleared by Washington. But “whether any of the townspeople have enough force to make this fissure into something that changes the complexion of things” remains to be seen, the official said.

The assault on Samarra was mounted after a more unified local establishment headed by tribal leaders failed in a similar bid to eject a far smaller band of insurgents and foreign fighters than are holding Fallujah, the official noted.

Maki Nazzal, a Fallujah native who travels into the city frequently as an aid worker, said substantial support remains for the foreigners, especially given the number of civilian casualties caused by U.S. airstrikes.

“Not all the people in Fallujah want these people to leave,” Nazzal said. “They always have the explanation of Americans bringing people from Spain, Salvador, Poland and over the world to help them and why can’t our brothers help us?”

Some foreign fighters already have left, at least for now. The fighting Tuesday in Hit erupted as Marines pursued insurgents who had recently arrived in the city from Fallujah, residents said.

“There are Arab fighters and Iraqis too,” said Omar Jabbawi, 23, an engineering student at Anbar University. “They are supplied with modern weapons which even the modern army didn’t have. They killed some of the people the moment they came, saying that they were spies for the Americans.”

The blend of insurgents held the town, some patrolling a street of shuttered stores, others praying on the sidewalk.

“Most of the people of the city knew that after Fallujah, the fighters will come to Hit because it is an open city and has many wide woods in which maneuvering is easy,” said Abeer Fadhill, 32, a traffic policeman.

A woman in Hit said one fighter had said they had come to liberate Hit as they had Fallujah.

“We don’t want to be another Fallujah,” said the woman, 45, who gave her name as Umm Hussein. “Ramadan is coming, and we don’t have any will to lose a father, a son, a relative or even a friend. Let them leave in peace and fight in a desert away from houses and people.”

Some good numbers from the Brookings Institute:

Also, some intercepted communications from Al Queda show they think they are losing:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006943.php

All and all, some good stuff, which it would be nice to see one or two stories on…

LMAO@this thread.

Damn, it’s been a year and a half, hasn’t there been any good news in all that time… :wink:

Well maybe it is good news, but do you really think it will make any difference?

Right wingnut websites proclaim Freedom Is On the March!

Gee, I’m convinced…

[quote]vroom wrote:
Damn, it’s been a year and a half, hasn’t there been any good news in all that time… ;)[/quote]

Yeah, I saw this coming - should have pulled up a more recent thread. Oh well.

At any rate, I think the captured intelligence from the Al Queda memo (and posted by centcom, that known “wingnut” website) is the most interesting stuff. They’re losing the war of attrition, and they seem to know it.

al Zarqawi is a little like Che Guevarra. A symbol, but a military failure (unless “success” is defined as killing women and children, setting off remote bombs and not knowing how to operate his machine gun).