A very bloody day in Baghdad. Very sad, my prayers are with the victims and their families.
It's always hard to keep an optimistic mind about the war when the media throws so much horrible stuff at you. Thank God for blogs. It's nice to hear all of the good we're accomplishing there every now and then.
I sure hope he wasn't talking about how safe Iraq was, this being Ban Ki-Moon, however, he wasn't:
And now the context:
BAGHDAD (AP) - A rocket landed near the prime minister's office Thursday during the first visit to Iraq by the head of the United Nations in nearly a year and a half, sending Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ducking unharmed behind a podium at a news conference.Oh, my first comment was somewhat on the mark:
The attack came as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government said it had been negotiating with Sunni insurgents for months, and the U.S. military said that it had released a senior aide to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on al-Maliki's request.
The rocket caused no injuries but rattled the building in the heavily guarded Green Zone, sent small chips of debris floating from the ceiling, and left a three-foot-wide crater about 50 yards away outside.
It struck right after al-Maliki, standing next to Ban, had finished telling reporters that Ban's visit was a sign that Iraq was on the road to stability.Now the right-wing blogosphere is going nuts with death wishes for Ki-Moon:
Yet more proof that prayer does not work.Oh sorry. I'm mistaken. Those are the comments over at MetaFilter about when there was a failed attack on our VP over in Iraq a few weeks ago.
No heart, no guts, no spine, no balls, no brains: there's no way on can kill people like him.
Can we get him near the blast this time, for fuck's sake?
Great news in Iraq (that you won't hear from the mainstream media, but let's not let that get us down):
The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.
Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.
The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.
Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.
The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.
My God, that's great news! Looks like the surge is working it's magic (of course, we already new that) The news is so great, I won't even let this assertion from Ace get me down:
Damn media. I guess a drop from 42 troop deaths one month to 17 the next month isn't news worthy, huh? I remember when they were telling us every time we hit a "grim milestone."Now as to that source. It's the Kuwaiti News Agency. Why is it that Drudge had to find this on a foreign outlet rather than on any American news source?
The information comes from the DoD. It was fed to the media. Why is it only a Kuwaiti outfit publishes it?
A pretty funny (read: cheesy) public service add from Iraq to recruit policemen (hat tip: Hot Air):
As Allah notes: "I wonder if it’ll earn them a single extra recruit above and beyond what they get from offering good pay."
Caught a big asshole, I mean fish, in Iraq:
The leader of the al-Qaida-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq was captured Friday in a raid west of Baghdad — his identity revealed by a fellow insurgent detained with him, an Iraqi military spokesman said.Allah has all the breaking news.
What do you know, the surge in Iraq is having a "positive impact." Reports The Financial Times:
The top US general in Iraq said on Thursday that the military surge would continue “well beyond the summer”, as leading Democrats in Congress vowed to press ahead with legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
General David Petraeus said in Baghdad that there were “encouraging signs” the military escalation in the Iraqi capital was having a positive impact...
Hmm, a General saying something good about Iraq. Why isn't the media reporting this? They seem to report every ex-General who thinks things are going poorly. It's almost as if the mainstream media is biased. But that can't be, can it? Someone would have said something!
I liked this hidden gem:
The Pentagon this week said 2,200 military police would be sent to Baghdad to help deal with the increased detainee population that is expected as US and Iraqi forces clamp down on sectarian militias.
It's always nice when we anticipate capturing so many terrorists that we need an extra 2,200 MPs to detain them.
Just hours after Gen Petraeus gave his first press conference since the surge began, Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, said the party would push legislation that would require US combat troops to leave Iraq by August 2008 at the latest, and earlier if the Baghdad government did not make more progress.They truly want us to loose in Iraq, don't they? Screw the 26 million Iraqis who could be oppressed yet again by a terroristic regime that takes over once we leave, if the Dems make GW look bad it's good for them. And what's more important than winning elections? Apparently, to the Democrats, 26 million Arabs aren't.
US officials say there has been a fall in the number of bodies discovered in the capital, and Iraqis say that in some districts families driven out by insurgent and militia threats are returning.I think that line deserves it's own story. If a few Iraqis are murdered, it's a sign of civil war. If the murder rate drops, it shows that the surge might have a "positive impact." Again, what media bias?
As additional U.S. troops continue to flow into Baghdad, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, warned that force alone would not get the job done.
"Any student of history knows there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," said Petraeus. "Military action is necessary to help improve security … but it is not sufficient."
But in his first public comments since taking over, Petraeus made it clear the surge of more than 20,000 additional combat troops won't be over any time soon. After all, he said, all those troops won't even be in place until this summer.
Unreal. Not once did the ABC story mention a single one of the quotes above highlighting the success of the surge. The story closed with this carefully chosen quote:
Petraeus today did not rule out asking for even more troops down the road. He said there are no immediate requests, but that he would not hesitate to ask for more if needed.
Of course he didn't rule it out! As the original, unbiased story from The Financial Times quoted him as saying:
“Right now we do not see other requests [for troops] looming out there,” said Gen Petraeus. “That’s not to say that some emerging mission or emerging task will not require that, and if it does, then we will ask for that.”
Check out the Appeal for Courage:
This site is an Appeal For Redress in support of our mission in Iraq.The wording of the appeal is as follows:
An Appeal For Redress is an authorized means for active duty military to submit a grievance to Congress. It can be signed by Active Duty, Reserve, or National Guard military personnel.
It is authorized by DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6.
As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.You can expect this to get exactly zero media coverage, but it's a great idea by noble soldiers who understand that their mission is right and just and who realize that most of their fellow soldiers want to be in Iraq fighting for freedom.
I try not to paint a rosy picture, but it's hard not to be pleased with all of good news coming out of Iraq (unless you're a liberal). The latest:
Iraq and the world are better places with fewer freedom-hating terrorists around. Expect for this to be buried by all the MSM outlets.BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A U.S. air strike killed senior insurgents suspected of targeting American helicopters in Iraq, and the Iraqi government said 39 militants had been killed in western Anbar province in recent fighting.
The U.S. military said on Saturday the air strike took place on Friday north of Baghdad near the town of Taji, which is home to a major U.S. air base. It said weaponry, including a vehicle mounted with anti-aircraft artillery, was destroyed.
"Coalition forces believe key terrorists were killed during 1the [sic] air strike ... Intelligence reports indicated this network is responsible for threats to coalition aircraft," the military said in a statement without elaborating.
Insurgents have shot down eight helicopters since January 20 in Iraq, killing a total of 28 people, mostly soldiers. Six of those helicopters were U.S. military aircraft and two belonged to a private American security firm.
Terrorist Death Watch has the number of terrorists killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since the start of 2006 at a little over 3,000 (as of now.)
Hat tip to Ace and Ace of Spades HQ, who has this comment:
If Coalition KIA's are a useful metric for guaging [sic] the success of the terrorists (and failure of American policy), why is it that terrorist KIA's are never cited by the MSM as a metric of guaging [sic] the success of American troops?The problem is that the left just sees terrorist deaths as another reason to be against the Iraq war, after all, it was our imperialistic, oil-centric foreign policy that made them terrorists in the first place.
Power line has a brief post on the successes of the Surge:
I'm sure many of you remember not long ago when an AP headline was honestly something like, "Baghdad Quiet - Too Quiet." The MSM will always do their darnedest to portray Iraq as a quagmire that has already devolved so far into civil war that the only option is to cut and run, but at least our successes there make for funny headlines like that.We have refrained from trying to "score" the surge, for a number of reasons. But Blog of the Week Jules Crittenden has a great roundup of the news from Iraq, and it's mostly good:
Reuters loads us up on the Good News out of Iraq: too many al-Qaeda dead to count in a village in Anbar, where Iraqi security forces just kept killing them all day. US and Iraqi forces raiding into Sadr City, just messing around right now, a death squad leader here, a death squad leader there, gearing up for the big push. And the Iraqi Foreign Minister says 1,000 former Iraqi Army officers are coming back, a “sign of reconciliation.”It’s gotta be good news when it gets so quiet in Baghdad they are forced to admit it and make news out of it.
As this Associated Press article acknowledges, civilian killings in Baghdad are way down:
The Baghdad security operation has been under way less than three weeks, but it has already registered a success: a sharp drop in the number of bullet-riddled bodies found in the streets - victims of sectarian death squads.The number of bodies found so far this month in Baghdad - most of them shot and showing signs of torture - has dropped by nearly 50 percent to 494 as of Monday night, compared with 954 in January and 1,222 in December, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.
Many questions remain, but it seems fair to say, so far, so good.
Over at Daily Kos there is a vial post defending the terrorists in Iraq, you know, the "freedom fighters" who are killing the "occupation."
LGF and Jawa among others have reported this. Here's a small, vial quote from a gigantic post filled with anti-American venom:
Ugh.Writing in The Guardian yesterday, Peter Beaumont depicts the insurgents as brutal and immoral "jihadi fighters", who "use human shields and force children to run weapons for them." Meanwhile, the occupying forces are painted as benevolent bystanders, trying their hardest to combat the evil jihadis whilst sparing innocent civilian lives.
The demonisation of the Iraqi insurgency is understandable. It is in the interests of the political elites, and the corporate media that serve them, to portray any opposition to Western imperial policies as illegitimate, terroristic and barbaric. That an imperialistic or occupying power will attempt to demonise any resistance to it is a historical universal, as writer and activist Tariq Ali points out:
"Every resistance movement against imperialism has been categorised as terrorist ‹ the Mau Mau in Kenya were demonised and brutally tortured by the British; the Algerian FLN by the French; the Vietnamese by the French and the Americans.
Today Israel’s Ariel Sharon refers to Palestinians as terrorists, Russia’s Vladimir Putin crushes the Chechens in the name of fighting terror and Tony Blair is assaulting traditional civil liberties in this country in the name of fighting terror. It’s hardly surprising that the Iraqi resistance is characterised in the same fashion."
A quick examination of the reality, however, tells a very different story. Firstly, the Iraqi resistance is overwhelmingly indigenous. According to Major General Joseph Taluto, "99.9 per cent" of militants captured fighting U.S. forces in Iraq are Iraqi. When U.S. and Iraqi soldiers ‘methodically swept through Tall Afar’ in the largest counter-insurgency operation of 2005, they killed nearly 200 insurgents and detained close to 1,000. All those detained were Iraqi. Serious analysts of the occupation have long recognised that, in Scott Ritter’s words, the "anti-US resistance in Iraq today is Iraqi in nature, and more broadly based and deeply rooted than acknowledged." In a recent article for the International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies, Stephen Zunes writes (.pdf) that "the al-Qaeda-inspired jihadists and the foreign fighters upon whom the Bush administration has focused represent only a small minority of the insurgency." The U.S. and UK governments, together with the Western media, focus disproportionately on the very few foreign fighters present in Iraq to minimise Iraqi opposition to the occupation and to delegitimise the resistance. In addition, as Zunes explains, branding the entire resistance movement "terrorists" (or by focusing disproportionately on al-Qaeda’s small role in the insurgency, thereby associating the insurgency as a whole with terrorism) enables Bush and Blair to present Iraq as a front in the "war on terror", whereas in fact it is nothing of the sort, and to "portray the US invasion and occupation of Iraq not as an act of aggression – as most of the international community sees it – but as an act of self-defence. By extension, it seeks to portray those who oppose the ongoing US occupation as appeasers or even supporters of totalitarianism and violence." According to Zunes, the number of foreign insurgents fighting with an agenda even remotely resembling that described by President Bush above constitutes "well under 5 per cent of the armed resistance."
It's a well known fact that even the greatest group of people will have terrible people in it, no matter how small of a minority they are:
These pricks got what they deserve. Will the libs now take this as an example of how the Army really does have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart, and see that the Army will not tolerate the few who slander the name of all good soldiers? No. They'll say this is some exception to the rule of the horrendous behavior of US soldiers.FT. CAMPBELL, Kentucky (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier who pleaded guilty to raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killing her family was sentenced to 100 years in a military prison, the U.S. Army said on Thursday.
Sgt. Paul Cortez, 24, was also given a dishonorable discharge. Another soldier who pleaded guilty in November was sentenced to 90 years in a military prison. Two other soldiers and a former soldier are awaiting trial for the crime.
Is Joe Lieberman finally going to jump ship and join to Republicans? It's a "remote possibility."
"Independent" Sen. Joe Liebeman [sic] receives a mini-profile titled "What Joe Wants," a key question since he is "the Senate's one-man tipping point." Republicans, the magazine says, are "courting him" and Lieberman "has been indulging in some fairly immodest political footsie."Meanwhile, Hot Air adds this bit of info from Politico:
Lieberman calls jumping to the Republican side, and tilting the Senate, "a remote possibility," which means there's at least a chance of that. Time seems to push Lieberman in this direction, as the article concludes: "Lieberman's GOP flirtation has its risks--and a time limit....The longer he waits to capitalize on his moment, the greater the danger that he'll be tagged as one of those politicians for whom having power is more important than using it."
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin claims that his side still "counts on him as a friend" even though it is "a little painful and awkward."
Last month, after Lieberman told Democratic chief Sen. Harry Reid that he had "stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time," Time's Massimo Calabresi reveals. "Lieberman has started attending again." But Lieberman also keeps in touch with Bush aide Stephen Hadley "every week or two."
It's too bad I'd rather a funded war than a split Senate, but it's good to know that if the Democrats ever get the balls to go through with their real goal of cutting off funding, they may pay the price with control.Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggested Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind…
He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.
“I hope we don’t get to that point,” Lieberman said. “That’s about all I will say on it today. That would hurt.”
Sounds like the chlorine car-bomb craze is catching on amongst terrorists in Iraq:
BAGHDAD, Feb. 22 — American troops on a raid near Falluja discovered three car bombs under construction in a bomb-making factory that appeared intended to be used with chemicals, the chief American military spokesman in Baghdad said today.And liberals just can't get it into their pee-sized brains that if we cut-and-run out of Iraq, it won't be long before blood-thirsty terrorists come over here and start setting these bombs off in our streets. This is scaremongering, it's reality and common sense. Iraq is a target-rich environment full of American troops, and yes it has acted like a magnet for terrorist the world over - but that's a good thing. By smoking them out of their various homes and bringing them all to fight in one theater we increase our chances of victory.
Five of the buildings raided by American forces were packed with munitions and chemicals, he said.
The discovery follows three gas attacks in the past month in which insurgents used truck bombs to deploy chlorine, a greenish gas that burns the skin and can be fatal after just a few deep breaths. The latest such bombing on Wednesday in southern Baghdad killed at least two people and wounded 32 others, many exhibiting symptoms of chlorine exposure.
The spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, described the materials found in the raid as 65 propane tanks and ordinary chemicals, but he did not say any chlorine gas was found. He said the troops found “five complete buildings full of these various types of things to include car bombs that were being assembled and put together with propane tanks.
First Britain, now Denmark. The coalition is hardly crumbling though, as the left would have you believe (you know, the same left that told you there was no coalition). Brtain feels that its presence is no longer necesary in Iraq, the area that they're policing having made so much prgress, and Denmark's mandate is up:
Denmark will withdraw its troops from Iraq by August, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said.The troops, numbering about 460, will be replaced by a unit of nine soldiers manning four observational helicopters, he said.
It comes as Tony Blair announced a timetable for reducing British troop numbers in Iraq from 7,100 to 5,500.
Most Danish troops are based in the southern city of Basra, where they operate under British command.
The mandate for Danish troops to serve in Iraq is due to expire in June.
So, here are some interesting poll results:
In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.
The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.
- By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.
- By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
- Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.
- While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.
- By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."
- When asked which statement best describes their position on the Iraq War, voters are evenly divided (50 percent - 49 percent) between positions of "doing whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country," and positions that call for immediate withdrawal or a strict timetable.
- 27 percent said "the Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."
- 23 percent said "while I don't agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."
- 32 percent said "whether Iraq is stable or not, the U.S. should set and hold to a strict timetable for withdrawing troops."
- 17 percent said "the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq."
The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent). Public Opinion Strategies "scored the best win-loss record among the major polling and media firms in the 2004 election" and was named Pollster of the Year in 2002.
Good to know that the Dems have no mandate. Not that this will change there behavior. Hat tip to wizbang!
Here's a spin on Britains' pullout that I never would have thought of. Who knows, maybe it's true:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's announcement that British troops will begin withdrawing from Iraq would appear to be bad news for the Bush administration.
Blair said today that Britain will cut its forces in Iraq to 5,500 by summer, down from 7,100 currently. And additional cuts to as few as 5,000 British troops in Iraq are possible by the end of summer, Blair said.
But in an exclusive interview with ABC News, Vice President Dick Cheney said the move was actually good news and a sign of progress in Iraq.
"Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.
"In fact, I talked to a friend just the other day who had driven to Baghdad down to Basra, seven hours, found the situation dramatically improved from a year or so ago, sort of validated the British view they had made progress in southern Iraq and that they can therefore reduce their force levels," Cheney said.
Of course, they don't explicitly state it, but I'm assuming that they're saying Britain is pulling out of Iraq to protect the Prince, which to me, is bullshit. Like there aren't other strings that Harry's father could have pulled rather than convincing Tony Blair to leave Iraq entirely. Yeah. Bullshit.Britain's official policy on Iraq is that its troops will leave as soon as they can hand control over to Iraqis. But there is one particular soldier who, according to a crescendo of British newspaper reports, does not seem quite so replaceable.
Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne and second son of Prince Charles, is an army officer, reportedly with a hankering to be treated as just another soldier in line for rotation in southern Iraq.
The Ministry of Defense has dismissed the idea as speculation, but newspapers have already started speculating on a different tack — not so much about whether he will be deployed in Iraq as about his security if he does go. He would, one report said, be a "bullet magnet" in an area where British troops confront what the authorities here call Iranian-backed Shiite insurgents.
