Remember Vietnam? Remember when Kerry tried to paint the US in defeat and General Giap of the NVA later said they were ready to throw in the towel?
The Jerusalem Post is reporting that an unamed Hezbollah officer, interviewed on Jerusalem’s Channel 10, stated that Hezbollah would’ve surrendered if the war with Israel late last summer would have lasted 10 more days.
“The cease-fire acted as a life jacket for the organization [at the end of the Second Lebanon War],” a Hizbullah officer said in an interview aired by Channel 10 on Tuesday.
In the interview, the unnamed officer said Hizbullah gunmen would have surrendered if the fighting last summer had continued for another 10 days.
His statement sharply contrasted with those made by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah on several occasions since the monthlong war.
At the end of the war, Nasrallah said his organization had gained a “divine victory.”
The officer shown on Channel 10 said the organization’s gunmen had been running low on food and water and facing rapidly diminishing arms supplies.
The officer also said that many Hizbullah commanders were ordered to hide before the war started, and that the gunmen who remained were forced to fire Katyusha rockets from inside urban populations because of the IDF’s efficiency in destroying launchers minutes after a launch had been detected.
(Linked from The Fourth Rail).
**********
The Taliban take another blow in Afghanistan - from Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail
Coalition forces struck another blow to the senior Taliban leadership in Afghanistan. On July 23, Afghan and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops killed Qari Faiz Mohammad, the chairman of the Taliban Military Shura, or council, during a targeted raid in Helmand province. Mohammad was also a close associate of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and a chief financier for the Taliban.
Sweet.
July 31st, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Boots on the ground |
post comments
What a huge waste of oxygen Ibrahim Hooper has turned into. Hooper is the loose cannon “spokesman” for unindicted co-conspirator CAIR - the Council on American Islamic Relations. Though why they call themselves ‘American’ is beyond me, since they advocate Sharia Law for the United States and won’t denounce the suicide murders by Hezbollah or either of the two Palestinian explosion governments.
Today on CNN, Paula Zahn interviewed Hoopa and Christopher Hitchens on the Koran in the toilet fellow at Pace University in New York. Hitchens pretty much tore Hoopa a new one. This was followed by adding Dennis Prager on the show to discuss “Islamophobia” - something Prager pointed out is uniquely Islam since there are no such terms for any other religion (Christianityphobia, Judaismphobia, Baptistphobia, etc.). Prager noted that no Antique Media television showed the Danish cartoons for fear of being blown up, though putting the crucifix in urine was OK to be shown on TV and the “artist” made money on it. Prager and Hitchens pretty much diced up the wailing whine of Hoopa, pointing out in the process that CAIR is instrumental in training Americans to fear Muslims rather than criticize them. Hitchens told Hoopa several times that Islam - and Hoopa - are just going to have to get used to it.
It’s a great set of video’s to watch and you can catch them both on Little Green Footballs. This will be well worth your time.
And not to end this so dead panned, but Dr. Rusty at Jawa Report has an interesting tidbit about burka burka women in Arab countries - specifically the United Arab Emirates (didn’t we just have a row with them on doing all of our port security?). It appears that the nijab, the face covering required by Islam of it’s women, stops women from getting jobs.
In Arab countries!
July 31st, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Getting it Right |
post comments
After the recent “disagreements with the dumocrat frontrunners, Cox and Forkum commented on the situation:
From CNN: Clinton, Obama in war of words over ‘rogue leaders’.
The bid for the White House between leading Democratic hopefuls Sens. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Hillary Clinton, D-New York, is turning ugly, with Clinton criticizing Obama as inexperienced on national security and Obama firing back at what he called a “fabricated controversy.” Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are continuing an argument started at Monday’s CNN YouTube debate.The sparring began Monday at the CNN/YouTube debate, in which a viewer asked candidates if they would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea — whom the United States has called rogue leaders. …
Charles Kupchan with the Council on Foreign Relations said that Obama and Clinton were essentially saying the same thing, which is that dialogue is important. …
He noted that although the Bush administration took office vowing not to talk to North Korea or Iran, it reached a deal on North Korea’s nuclear program through negotiations and now is sitting down with Iran to talk about the violence in Iraq.
“At the end of the day, history suggests that only if we talk to our adversaries do we resolve disputes,” Kupchan said.
Actually, history suggests that we resolve disputes with adversaries only if we defeat them first (e.g., WWII), after all we’re talking about adversaries who openly advocate our demise. However, it is worth pointing out that Bush, Clinton, and Obama are all ultimately willing to talk to such adversaries as if they are rational, which is not rational.
The staging in this cartoon is inspired by the George Bellows painting Stag at Sharkey’s (1909).
These guys are good.
July 30th, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Getting it Right |
post comments
Every once in a while, the New York Times pulls its head out of its ass and writes something that makes sense to me. This article, however, was a complete surprise. The writers, of course, went to great lengths in the beginning of the article to assure their readers that they were, in fact, anti-Bush:
Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Yep, lets get that dig in on Bush to get the likeability factor past the 700 mark before we talk about what’s good.
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. (ed. - I will argue that stability IS victory. This is the “insurgency”, not the war. We won the war.)
While I won’t contend with the rest of the content of the article (which is an excellent read, by the way), I do take issue with the usual grandstanding of journalistic perfection in how they perceive wars ought to be fought. Curiously, these two journalists seem to understand dynamics, but they fail to understand that war is a dynamic - constantly.
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Ergo, the Law of Unintended Consequences eats up the al-Qaeda criminals better than we can.
The NYT’s saying something positive?
Oh wait, it’s an “op-ed”. But an “op-ed” that uses sympathetic writers.
Still. I mean I’m just surprised by it all. Most mil-blogs and conservative blogs have been seeing this potential for the last six months. Most of the dumocrat Congress gave up 3-4 months ago - before the “surge” even got out of the box. I just wonder if invertebrate Reid (”We’ve Lost!”) will read this article in the NYT. Or will he read it and just dismiss it?
UPDATE:
I just noted that Blackfive is carrying this story also in their weekly “Fishwrap” series of events accumulation. There is also great news (if you haven’t heard) that Iraq’s soccer team beat the Saudi’s 1-0 in Indonesia for the 2007 Asian Cup. On top of the current security improvements, this may lead to even more positive Iraq efforts in defining their future. And I can’t think of a more just win for Iraq than to beat the damn Saudi’s. Omar at Iraq the Model is quite happy, of course. ABC has a decent game summary here.
July 30th, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Getting it Right |
post comments
If you haven’t read or heard of this embarrassment to the human race, particularly the Army - by a Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, you can read about it here, here, and here. In a word, he’s an asshole. Clearly defined by Greyhawk (currently on Active Duty) as follows (there’s more at the link):
1. Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s story is now in the hands of his superiors. They know him and his overall worth as a soldier and will decide his immediate future. If you are fortunate enough to be someone other than one of those superiors (or his wife) you are officially relieved of concern for this asshole and his future.
2. In the meantime, something to bear in mind as his story is bandied about: Scott Thomas Beauchamp is an asshole. He either did what he said he did to a disfigured woman in a DFAC (which makes him an asshole) or he fabricated the story for reasons unknown (which makes him an asshole). This same methodology can be applied to his other war stories, too.
3. As for anything else he might have to say regarding past, present, or future events: nobody in their right mind cares what an asshole has to say.
I think the commentary on this POS is done. It’s up to the Army to, somewhat awkwardly, have to deal with this. I feel for them.
And in what I thought was great irony in Antique Media performance was this from another post by Greyhawk trying to summarize, I think, some of his thoughts on Scott Beauchamp’s dishonor - speaking of “degrees of bad behavior”:
Scott Beauchamp:
Yeah man,” I continued. “I love chicks that have been intimate—with IEDs. It really turns me on—melted skin, missing limbs, plastic noses…
…He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. …
…One private, infamous as a joker and troublemaker, found the top part of a human skull, which was almost perfectly preserved. It even had chunks of hair, which were stiff and matted down with dirt. He squealed as he placed it on his head like a crown. It was a perfect fit. As he marched around with the skull on his head, people dropped shovels and sandbags, folding in half with laughter. No one thought to tell him to stop. No one was disgusted. Me included.
Ignore for a moment whether those stories are true or not, and read this one:
Not long into their stay, two of the soldiers appeared at the base one day with animal carcasses. They’d found a dead goat and a dead cat somewhere and started slicing them up. Someone took a photo of a soldier pretending to have sex with the goat’s head. “Then they cut off the cat’s head and shoved it on the top of a soda bottle,” England says.
For several weeks, the decaying animal heads provided entertainment for the soldiers. “Someone put sunglasses on them, and put the rifle next to the heads and took a picture. Some soldiers put a cigarette in the cat’s mouth,” she says. The soldiers stashed the severed heads in their rooms.
“It was funny,” England says. “So funny.”
That’s a true story - and Beauchamp’s stories reminded me in some way of that account. I’m not even suggesting that story inspired him, just that they sound like tales told about the same type of people.
That comparison story, by the way, is one told by Lynndie England of her fellow soldiers’ actions immediately prior to their arrival at Abu Ghraib. They were certainly on there way there, you might say.
Antique Media has hardly recognized this. While they are still upchucking the Abu Ghraib story as though it was last week and the entire “military-industrial complex” was, and still is, involved, a quick Google of Scott Beauchamp’s name returns a plethora of blogger’s URL’s, but nearly none - zip - of Antique Media links. To Antique Media, it’s just not a big deal that a POS like Beauchamp writes what he does about soldiers but Lynndie England makes them go crazy - in a prison. Perhaps there’s a little more than just a “bias” about our military that Antique Media carries.
July 29th, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Getting it Right |
post comments
Welcome to the the West ladies - you want to westernize? Then leave the guys at home.
Arab princesses kicked off British Airways plane to jeers and whistles after refusing to sit next to male strangers.
Three Arab princesses were thrown off a packed British Airways flight after refusing to sit next to male passengers they didn’t know.
The dispute - in which the three princesses from the ultra-conservative Qatar royal family demanded segregated seating - left the London-bound plane delayed on a baking Italian runway for nearly three hours.
Furious passengers whistled and clapped as the row intensified before the captain eventually ordered the women to be escorted off the plane.
The princesses, wearing traditional Arab dress, were returning from a day’s shopping in Milan. They arrived at the city’s Linate airport and boarded Heathrow-bound flight BA 563, which was due to take off at 4pm on Thursday.
The women, all relatives of the oil-rich emir of Qatar, Bader Bin Khalifa Al Thani, were booked into business class in a party of eight which included the emir and an entourage of cooks, servants and other staff.
After passengers had fastened their seat-belts and the plane had taxied on to the runway, two male passengers in the entourage got up to protest about where the women were sitting.
According to the customs of Qatar and other Gulf states, women are not allowed to mix with men who are not relatives.
Cabin crew tried to rearrange the seats but passengers travelling together refused to give up their allotted places. The captain tried to mediate but after more than two and a half hours of wrangling he ordered the bulk of their royal party off the plane.
It is understood that five of the eight - including the princesses and the men who left their seats to protest - were removed.
Police and diplomats from the Qatar consulate in Milan were also called in before the plane eventually took off. The rest of the Qatar party left Milan later on an Alitalia flight.
A BA spokesman said: “The people were offloaded because they failed to comply with safety instructions when the aircraft was taxiing. Two passengers stood up and refused to sit down.”
A spokesman at the Qatar embassy in Rome said: “This was a private matter and we have nothing to say.”
Awww… poor wittle babies…
July 29th, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Humor |
post comments
I mentioned Michael Totten previously as a great blogger to get an up close look at Iraq - and actually a lot more than Iraq since he has reported from many places - a real world traveler. But regarding Iraq specifically, Totten had written a previous post alluding to near boredom while on patrol with some good soldiers - experienced soldiers, many on second and third tours. One of the comments Totten received became worthy of a post itself - and I thought it worthy to re-print. Michael is currently embedded with the 82nd Airborne near Baghdad.
From Steve B, who has his own blog called Educated Soldier:
Having served with an infantry battalion much like the one subjected in the post during a year in Ar Ramadi when Ar Ramadi was at its most conflicted, I can assure you that the violence is not as you might expect. Our unit suffered pretty massive causalities during our year. However, we patrolled every single day of that year. Those patrols lasted many hours. And, typically, even in then “chaotic” Ramadi, most patrols followed the same peaceful format as the one described in Mr. Totten’s post.Even in the worst places, day-to-day activity is mundane and quiet. When attacks occur, they do so viciously. In my case, these resulted in my unit’s heavy causalities. Nonetheless, I rarely patrolled in fear. I knew that on most days, our patrol would result in an absence of action. Again, this was in a city considered to be one of the most violent of the war. This peculiar dynamic of the situation in Iraq is lost on Big Media.
It’s not totally their fault either. They can’t be privy to such conditions because most Big Media types don’t patrol everyday, get to know the citizens, or understand the social dynamics. They are reactive types instead of proactive. But we can’t necessarily expect them to be otherwise.
I just wanted to do my part to make everyone aware that Mr. Totten is not reporting the exception, but is instead becoming aware of the “rule.” I base this on my two years experience in the country, on the streets. I implore you to trust my judgment and, because of it, trust Mr. Totten’s assessment as well.
Ramadi is not the environment today that Steve served in. It is certainly considered a success story and a pleasant surprise. Perhaps even some of that “Law of Unintended Consequences” stuff worked in Ar Ramadi also.
But Steve suggests the Antique Media can’t do a decent job - generally because they are mostly reactive than proactive. Ok. I’ll agree. But the reactive “opinions” aren’t any more intelligent than their reactive reporting. Steve may understand their difficulties but the Antique Media doesn’t have a clue about their own shortcomings. Kind of a spin on the old country overwork ethic - “Don’t worry about the mule, just load the wagon.” Don’t worry about the content, just write something - anything.
Thankfully, Totten and other independent embeds don’t see it that way.
Don’t forget - Michael Totten supports his own embeds. He’s not funded by the Antique Media. If you can help him out, go here.
July 27th, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Getting it Right, Boots on the ground |
one comment
Harry Reid’s take at the policy level - i.e. the political events - in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post:
“On reading the July 21 editorial “The Phony Debate,” it became clear why The Post’s editorial writers have been such eager cheerleaders for the Bush administration’s flawed Iraq policies — the two share the same disregard for the facts en route to drawing dubious conclusions.
The editorial was an inaccurate commentary on the nature of the Senate debate, the reality in Iraq and the president’s stubborn adherence to failed policies.
Your editorial wrongly asserted that “a large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission.” While a majority of the Senate voted again last week for a plan that would keep U.S. forces in Iraq for counterterrorism and troop protection and launch a diplomatic effort to help stabilize the region, Democrats were joined by only a handful of courageous Republicans — far from a majority of Republicans and not enough to break the Republican leadership’s filibuster. And if the president truly supports changing course, as your editorial implied, he needs to do much more than tell us “it’s a position I’d like to see us in” — he must drop his irresponsible veto threats and tell Republican leaders to stop blocking votes on proposals to carry out this change.
Finally, it was disingenuous to assert that Democrats are using Iraq to stir voters’ passions; the American people are sufficiently disappointed on their own. Three-quarters of Americans recognize that the war is going badly, three out of five support further funding only if it includes a timetable for transitioning the mission, and nearly all expect their president to work with Congress to do something to change course.”
HARRY REID
U.S. Senator (D-Nev.)
Given that invertebrate Reid has already thrown in the towel (”We’ve Lost!”), it seems unlikely that he would have anything good to say about Iraq. His “truths” are borne with the same ideaology of a hungry dog smelling food. Doesn’t matter what the food is, eating it is supreme - though it may be laced with poison. His inept attempt to show “solidarity” with “courageous Republicans” (conservatives call them RINO’s) is as disingeneous as his claim that dumocrats aren’t using Iraq to stir voters passions. He is a product of the same media he criticizes - he knows no more of the situation in Iraq than any other policy based (i.e. political) Congressman or most of the “three quarters” of Americans that think the war is going badly. Their source is ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuter’s, AP, or FOX (sorry, I don’t see FOX any diferent than the other members of Antique Media).
The DOD has not done a very good job of Public Relations - in large part due to the desire on the DOD’s insistence to not appear one-sided or biased. And to be clear of the “political” charge. That is changing, though ever so slowly - we now have Gen. Petraeous running the show and he likes to talk. And he likes his subordinates to talk. The DOD still holds itself to a higher standard - in fact their structure in reporting information is basically ho-hum and appears pretty boring. The devil is in the details we get which overcomes 90% of what’s reported by antique Media. For instance, we now have “Blogger Roundtables” (see the last edition here) that (for all of Glenn Greenwald and Mr. Silverstein’s dislike of hearing from boots on the ground) give us a particular insight of what is working and what is not from both a short term and long term perspective of recent history.
None of what is blogged on conservative blogs and milblogs bears any resemblance to invertebrate Reid pronunciations about defeat and justifying timetable demands. The data simply doesn’t agree with the cut-and-run crowd. And that’s a clash in perception, for me. We have two main sources of information - Antique Media and Alternate Media - Alternate Media including milblogs, some conservative blogs, the DOD channels (Multinational Forces in Iraq, Blogger Roundtables, etc.), and some secondary news channels (PMI, a new one created by Bill Roggio, et al). When I weigh the information from Antique Media with the Alternate Media sources, two things jump out - bias and facts.
Milblogs have a bias, surely. As much of a bias that any left wing, hate-America-for-what-it-is blog portrays. But the incredibly large difference in the two types of blogs comes, not from the opinions of each side, but from the facts presented. As much as I can stand it, I read left wing blogs to see what the other side is thinking (or, more correctly, how they insult reason). The overwhelming issues on left wing blogs all seem to gell around party politics (dumocrats are the saviours) and conspiracy theories. Both of these issues seem to have a total vacuum of facts in play to advance their worth. While both the left and conservatives play with polls to justify their outcomes, polling data always seems to be skewed based on the writers interpretations (I’d like to include myself on that). Eliminating the polling justifications leaves me empty handed in trying to understand what it is the left doesn’t understand.
What I have found in the milblogs is a repetition of discussing the facts. There is certainly some interpretation of what the facts portend the future to be but that plays out as well (Bill Roggio’s The Fourth Rail is very good at this), generally holding up the writer’s predictions. But a consistent theme of discussing the facts is what keeps me going back to those sources. They have facts - though quite different in most cases to what is articulated by the Antique Media. Or, to be more accurate, what isn’t articulated by the Antique Media. But the information is not presented in any high-handed fashion. It’s generally boring without the sensationalist claims that one reads on the left or from the Antique media. To be sure, the facts aren’t always what one likes to hear but it isn’t hidden. When it’s going badly, that’s reported as well.
I am listing some of the blogs I read (a more complete list is on the sidebar). But these blogs consistently have useful information that is generally never reported in the Antique Media.
Blackfive
The Fourth Rail
Michael Yon
Small Wars Journal
The Counterrorism Blog
Acute Politics
Badgers Forward
Victory Caucus
Michael Totten
Acute Politics and Badgers Forward are active duty personnel currently in theater in Iraq. Of course, Michael Yon seems to be constantly embedded in Iraq. And what great dispatches he has. Michael Totten has just arrived for another embed and has this for his latest.
Enjoy.
July 27th, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Getting it Right, Boots on the ground |
post comments
Several posts ago I noted a poll by a British firm, ORB, that indicated Iraqi’s seemed to be gravitating toward a position that would allow their country to find a balance - without us involved. Now comes a Pew Research poll (probably almost as good as a Rasmussen poll) that Dafydd, at Big Lizards, had some comments on:
Pew Research, which has been polling the world about its hatred of America for decades, has detected a fascinating trend: Since 2002, Moslem support for Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and suicide bombings has plumeted — by more than 40% in some countries. At the same time, their sense of personal and national well-being has risen dramatically; the two measurements are not completely unconnected.
2002 is likely when support for radical, militant Islam hit its peak worldwide: The 9/11 attacks had just percolated down to the level of the individual Achmed in the street, making the Moslem street believe that bin Laden was the “strong horse.” Then the Taliban was crushed, enraging the street at the unfairness of life and frightening them about the march of the crusaders. And we had not yet done anything to raise Moslems up out of tyranny and poverty. It’s easy to picture half the ummah marching towards Mecca chanting “solidarity forever!”
-snip-
It’s a sea change, and it’s still accelerating:
Muslims around the world increasingly reject suicide bombings and other violence against civilians in defense of Islam, according to a new international poll dealing with how the world’s population judges their lives, countries and national institutions.
A wide ranging survey of international attitudes in 47 countries by the Pew Research Center also reported that in many of the countries where support for suicide attacks has declined, there has also has been decreasing support for al-Qaida leader Osama bin-Laden.
The 95-page survey found that surging economic growth in many developing countries has encouraged people in these countries to express satisfaction with their personal lives, family income and national conditions, said Andrew Kohut, the center’s director.
“It’s a pro-globalization set of findings,” Kohut said.
Globalization - something that the dumocrats don’t have a clue on. From the Patriot Post quotes:
The Dow Jones closed at a record 14,000 yesterday; the U.S. economy continues to grow; and, according to the Institute for Global Economic Growth (IGEG), the whole of planet earth is not such a bad place to live after all, either. In fact, according to Institute Chairman Richard Rahn, the world this past year actually became a better address to call home. Not only is widespread economic growth happening but also the rate of growth of the world gross domestic product has reached five percent per year. At this pace, per capita income is set to double in 15 years, and nearly every country in the world is rising with this tide. As if this promising news weren’t bad enough for the naysayers, the IGEG reports increases in literacy rates, improvements in life expectancies and decreases in the percentage of the planet’s population suffering from malnutrition.
On the other hand, just to be fair, there is some bad news. Rahn warns of a dangerous threat to the world’s well being. Identified by initiatives calling for increased taxes and government-controlled “enterprise,” this hazard could spell ruin for the world economy. Perhaps you will recognize the threat—it goes by the name of the U.S. Congress.
Yep - it’s the economy stupid (have we heard that before?).
UPDATE:
Speaking of the Rasmussen Report, A recent survey (July 16-17) indicates that 80% of Americans think the terrorists will be as strong or stronger if we withdraw the troops:
The survey also found that 39% say the terrorist will be stronger than they are today if U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq. Forty-one percent (41%) say the terrorists will remain as strong as they are today while just 12% believe the terrorists will be in a weaker position.
Meanwhile, 38% think that our own country will be less safe if we withdraw and an equal number say it will make little or no difference:
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of American adults believe that the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq will make the U.S. less safe than it is today. Another 38% disagree and say it will have little or no impact. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 17% believe that withdrawing troops from Iraq will make the U.S. safer.
As you would expect, there are significant partisan divides on this point. Democrats are evenly divided. Twenty-four percent (24%) say a troop withdrawal will make the U.S. safer. Another 24% of Democrats say withdrawing the troops from Iraq will make the troops less safe while 41% expect the nation will remain about as safe as it is today.
The information war is obviously being won by al-Qaeda at the moment.
July 25th, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Getting it Right |
post comments
I was late getting to the blog tonight but found a few interesting topics.
Ward Churchill, who called the victims of 9/11 “little Eichmann’s”, was fired today from the University of Colorado.
“The decision was really pretty basic,” said university President Hank Brown, adding that the school had little choice but to fire Churchill to protect the integrity of the university’s research.
“The individual did not express regret, did not apologize, did not indicate a willingness to refrain from this type of falsification in the future,” Brown said.
Brown had recommended in May that the regents fire Churchill after faculty committees accused him of misconduct in some of his academic writing. The allegations included misrepresenting the effects of federal laws on American Indians, fabricating evidence that the Army deliberately spread smallpox to Mandan Indians in 1837, and claiming the work of a Canadian environmental group as his own.
“The decision was really pretty basic”. That says it for me. So why did it take so long?
Thanks anyway U of C. Now just go away Churchill - the world doesn’t a fake Indian. Real ones actually contribute to society.
*******
And here’s some lurid protesting via the Breasts not Bombs and Code Pink sicko’s in (where else) San Francisco as Blurbery Clinton opens up her new campaign headquarter digs. Little Green Footballs had the link. The dumocrats had to be embarrassed. Warning: if breasts offend you, don’t take the link.
Right. “If” breasts offend you. Sure.
And nobody’s taking the link. Right?
********
Michael Totten is embedded in Iraq now and is with the 82nd Airborne. His latest post is gonna make me write one about how good things are going in many other parts of Iraq.
One reason? -
Just to the right of my knees were the feet of the gunner. He stood in the middle of the Humvee and manned a machine gun in a turret sticking out of the top. I could hear him swiveling his cannon from side to side and pointing it into the trees as we approached the urban sector in their area of operations.
This was all purely defensive. The battalion I’m embedded with here in Baghdad hasn’t suffered a single casualty – not even one soldier wounded – since they arrived in the Red Zone in January. The surge in this part of the city could not possibly be going better than it already is. Most of Graya’at’s insurgents and terrorists who haven’t yet fled are either captured, dormant, or dead.
Very interesting. And there’s some great kid pictures in the post. Some of them just make you melt.
*******
Finally, doctor’s in France have determined that a man with almost no brain is leading a normal life. Could it be Jacques Chirac incognito?
Nah. This guy’s IQ is too high to be Chirac.
July 25th, 2007
Posted by
bit |
News |
post comments
We have lost a good one this time. But what he did while alive will live on for many years to come. Gen. Wayne Downing, 67, was one of America’s best military men in history, having developed and commanded the entire Special Operations Forces thinking and the Army Rangers, of which he was not only a member, but was also the soul. Michael Yon has an excellent dispatch on General Downing here. I read all I can of Michael Yon and I well remember this part:
Among his many other accomplishments, General Downing had commanded the 2nd Ranger Battalion, one of the most difficult and prestigious jobs in the entire military. Today, LTC Erik Kurilla, formerly commander of the Deuce Four and totally recovered from his last gunshot wounds, is now commander of 2nd Ranger Battalion. Small world.
You can read about Ltc. Kurilla here - and it’s well worth it.
Blackfive also noted Gen. Downings passing.
While General Wayne Downing is gone, what he has left us with is immeasurable. Thank him for his service.
July 24th, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Boots on the ground |
post comments
Still on the British news link, there’s a new poll out from a UK reasearch firm called ORB that has some interesting findings. The pollsters did face to face interviews with over 5,000 people over 18 throughout Iraq (all 18 districts). The only down side is that the poll is a little stale - it was done in early February. But some of the results have a definite “say what?” factor - like only 27% of Iraqi’s believe they are in a civil war and 18% don’t see it happening at all:
Carried out amongst a nationally representative sample of 5,019 Iraqi adults aged 18 years+ and coming just days before the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the poll reveals that despite the large number of civilian deaths each month, largely as a result of militia activity, only 27% believe that their country is actually in a state of civil war. Opinion here is clearly divided, as 22% feel “we are close to a state of civil war but not yet in one” while 18% argue that the country is “still some way from civil war”.
I don’t think a whole lot of polls like this, not because they are irrelevant when done but because they become irrelevant in a short time. 5 months ago the situation on the ground was very “pre-surge” and Baqubah was al-Qaeda central. Today Baqubah is returning to normal and the dumocrats are still wanting to announce defeat and abandon Iraq. I think a poll in August - with more relevant reporting - would show even more positive numbers.
Especially interesting is the result of attitudes regarding Multi-National Forces withdrawing:
Regionally there are also significant differences in attitudes regarding the security situation and the influence of Multi National Forces (MNF). Nationally a small majority (53%) feels that the security situation in Iraq will get better in the immediate weeks following a withdrawal of the MNF. A quarter (26%) believes the situation will deteriorate with the remainder predicting no change or answering “Don’t know.”
It is in the South where people most strongly believe that the withdrawal of the MNF will see the security situation improve. By a ratio of nearly seven to one the Shia dominated South feels that the situation will get “a great deal/little better” (69%) rather than “worse” (10%). In the Sunni North however opinion is more evenly divided – 46% feel it will get better and 37% feel it will get worse.
Hmmm… looks like an opening. I wonder whose gonna use it first.
Like I said, it’s kinda stale. A lot has happened since February.
July 23rd, 2007
Posted by
bit |
Getting it Right |
post comments
