Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Is it Possible? The Liberal Brookings Institute Documents GOOD News in Iraq?







Yes, it seems to be true that both Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, two Iraq war critics have reported a great deal of progress in Iraq...that’s “good news” to Americans, maybe not so much, for committed hardcore Leftists.

In a piece entitled A War We Just Might Win, which appeared in Monday’s (July 30th) NY Times, they said; “In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

“The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”

“After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

“Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

“Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.”


Read the entire article HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

50 “Iraqi Civilians (a/k/a Insurgents) are Killed in Iraq, While Six More Gitmo Detainees Join Hunger Strike!


As the AP might report, “As the U.S. continues this illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation peopled by adherents of “the religion of peace,” FIFTY Iraqi civilians, many of them celebrating in traditional Iraqi style by firing automatic weapons into the air, or at American servicemen, were brutally gunned down by U.S. forces in central Baghdad.

“Meanwhile six more Gitmo “detainees” (a/k/a Taliban and al Qaeda fighters picked up off various battlefields in Afghanistan) have joined a “hunger strike” there to highlight American mistreatment.

“This brings to 11 (counting five who are currently being force-fed) the number of detainees engaged in this hunger strike.

“Navy Commander Robert Durand, a Guantanamo Bay spokesman, heartlessly claimed, “The hunger strike technique is consistent with Al-Qaida practice and reflects detainee attempts to elicit media attention to bring international pressure on the United States to release them back to the battlefield," implying that the hunger strike is an attempt to build public sympathy and opposition to the detention center, which on Thursday marks its fifth anniversary of existence.

“The U.S. and Britain continue to thumb their noses at the rest of the world (and many of their own citizens) who sympathize with both the adherents of “the religion of peace” and with the sovereign Iraqi people who’d all, no doubt rather still be living under the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein than face the humiliation of having foreign troops (Dhimmis & Infidels) daring to shoot Iraqi revelers merely for firing automatic weapons at coalition forces.”




In photo above: A U.S. military Apache helicopter flies as smoke rises over Baghdad's Haifa Street area, Iraq, Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2007. Iraqi soldiers backed by U.S. troops battled gunmen in central Baghdad Tuesday.

Sunday, December 31, 2006

As Saddam is buried, a new milestone in the war in Iraq is reached


On the same day Saddam Hussein was buried in his hometown of Tikrit, the U.S. announced the deaths of two U.S. soldiers bringing the toll on the U.S. Military to at least 3,000, as this war approaches its fourth year.


The moonbats claim, "It's official that G W Bush is now responsible for more American deaths than Osaam bin Laden."


Of course that's utter nonsense, on both points.


For one, G W Bush is no more or less responsible for prosecuting the wart in Iraq than were the 98 Senators who signed onto the Bush Doctrine in October of 2001, nor the Congress that gave the administration the carte blanche it needed to prosecute this war.


Moreover, the "war" in Iraq ended in less than a month when Saddam Hussein's forces were defeated.


Since that time, the Kurdish north has moved on in relative peace and grateful prosperity, while the Sunni minority, angry at their being displaced from control of that country and fearful of resentful Shiites have been at each other's throats.
<
Iran's Persian Shiite population has seen an opportunity to increase its influence over that region, something the U.S. cannot allow to happen.
<
On the other side of that inane statement, Osamma bin Laden isn't responsible for the nearly 3,000 deaths of 9/11/01, it was most likely al Zawahiri who was the planner behind 9/11/01.
Moreover, what we've learned since 9/11 is that the War on Terror (WoT) is not a merely fight against al Qaeda, or even "radical Islam," it's a war between Sharia-based Islam and the West. Of that there is no doubt.
<
All one need do is to look around the world today and observe the many ethnic clashes. In Kashmir traditional Sharia-based Muslims (NOT al Qaeda) clash with Hindus. In Darfur, in the Sudan, traditional Sharia-based Muslims are systematically raping and killing the non-Muslims of the Sudan. In Kosovo, traditional Sharia-based Muslims initiated that conflict by engaging in the first genocide in that region. In Indonesia, traditional Sharia-based Muslims clash with Catholics and throughout Europe traditional Sharia-based Muslims are now clashing with Europeans and claiming that they will not stop pushing until Sharia Law is the law over all of Europe.
<
With that in mind, there are two kinds of Westerners today, those that understand that the WoT is actually a war between Medieval, Sharia-based Islam and the modern West and those who don't.
<
As a matter of fact, it's a war that's been building for decades and one that has been waged by the Arab-Muslim world against the West, in earnest (full-time) since about 1991.
<
Those who refuse to believe that, even those who cling to some hope of a negotiated settlement are, wittingly or not, friends (or at least "useful idiots") of the jihad. There is no way for traditional Sharia-based Islam to peacefully co-exist with what it sees as the "decadent and immoral West."
<
There is no chance for any kind of negotiated peace, there is no backing away from this growing global war between two competing ideologies.
<
Check out http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/ for one of the best documentaries on the subject.
American Ideas Click Here!