The Cool Blue Blog

Escalation

A year ago was the start of the month-long riots in France. The violence in the mostly Muslim suburbs of Paris and other cities never really ended, they just subsided a bit.

But in recent weeks, as I've reported here, they have escalted to ambushing police, then burning busses, now burning people on busses along with the bus.

A group of teenagers reportedly forced open the doors of the bus vehicle and threw a flammable liquid inside before fleeing.

A 26-year-old French woman of Senegalese origin was unable to escape and suffered burns to 70% of her body.

About 200 vehicles were set alight in incidents around the country on Saturday, and nearly 50 people were arrested.

While many in law-enforment are calling this year-long seige an intifada, many in France are in denial that it is Muslims, and not even first-generation immigrant Muslims that are to blame. They attribute these problems to the generic "poor immigrants".

France has seen a recent rise in such attacks, a year after a wave of rioting rocked its impoverished suburbs.

Gangs of youths, many of them of immigrant descent, torched cars and clashed with police during three weeks of unrest last year.

But clearly France does not believe these are random attacks. A new law will not only prosecute the perpetrators, but also those who encourage the violence

Existing laws would be broadened to punish all those who are "involved in and encourage" such attacks, not just the perpetrators, Mr de Villepin said.

And who would those instigators be? The government must have something in mind.

The 2005 Ramadan Riots, which saw some 10,000 cars torched and 300 buildings firebombed, have been followed by a yearlong, lower-grade rolling riot - what some in the French police are calling a "permanent intifada." Nationwide, this works out to 15 attacks a day on police and firefighters, and 100 cars set ablaze nightly. And for the first time, the police are being subject to well-planned ambushes.

So when the Oct. 27 anniversary of last year's violence was met with "only" 277 torched cars, the Interior Ministry declared it "relatively calm."

Teaching and learning in Iraq

URI student awarded U.S. Army’s Bronze Star

KINGSTON, R.I. -- October 14, 2005 -- Ryan Gallucci wears a Boston Red Sox cap, a big grin, and a metal bracelet engraved with the name of a soldier who was killed in action fighting in Iraq.

He had to put his education at the University of Rhode Island on hold in 2003 when, as a specialist in the U.S. Army 443 Civil Affairs Battalion out of Warwick, he was deployed to Iraq for nearly a year.

Although his commanders had put him in for the Bronze Star, he thought it was downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal, which he received at the end of his tour. “ARCOMs were basically given to everybody so I affectionately dubbed it my ‘thanks for coming’ medal,” he said.

Only recently, Gallucci discovered that he would receive a Bronze Star for extraordinary performance of duty in a hostile environment. He was officially awarded the medal during a ceremony last month.

“It makes you feel so much better. There’s such validity in getting the award,” the URI student says.

He joined the Army Reserves in 1999, right after graduating from High School. Serving in the armed forces is a family tradition. His grandfather served in the Navy, his father in the Army, his older brother, John, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. (In fact, initially both brothers served in Iraq, John serving aboard the U.S.S. Roosevelt.)

Iraq was a mixed bag. “It was,” he says “a hell of a learning experience, but it gave me a better work ethic and a new world perspective. It made me see how the rest of the world lives and experience their way of life.”

The civil affairs unit acts as a liaison between the military and civilians to help reestablish order. Working with a six-person team, Gallucci was put in charge of restoring water, power, and public works. Although he didn’t know how to restore water, he was able to convert his knowledge of the summer in-ground pool jobs. “The filtration systems were just the same, only on a grander scale,” he says with a smile.

He oversaw the water treatment plant and electricity infrastructure rehabilitation in four Iraqi cities. He proposed, planned, coordinated and managed projects totaling over 4.7 million dollars.

He lived among the Iraqis, so if they didn’t have water, electricity or air conditioning, neither did his unit. During game number 7 of the 2003 World Series, he was on a base and able to watch the game on television. “Four of us Boston fans stayed up until 7 in the morning watching the Red Sox lose to the Yankees,” he said.

His team encountered mortar rounds, small arms fire, rocket propelled grenades (one landed within five meters of him) and improvised explosives devices. Two of the team members were injured with shrapnel. Gallucci said he lived under the constant fear of death.

He was instrumental in maintaining the security of headquarters during several protests, some numbering over 2,500 people, remaining calm and cool when several protestors broke the line and advanced toward the entrance of the building.

It took time to readjust to life back home. At 24, he feels older than his classmates and more comfortable living off campus in Newport. He doesn’t share his war stories often, feeling a sense of disconnect with the hustle, bustle world of the average college student. However, when political science professors Marc Genest and Gerry Tyler and journalism professor Linda Levin encouraged him to talk about his experiences in their classes and he’s grateful for their interest and input.

He hopes to graduate from URI in May and is looking for a way to combine his two majors, journalism and political science. He added political science after serving in Iraq. Promoted to sergeant, he plans to complete his enlistment in 2007 and then get out. “I’ve had enough fun,” he says with a weary grin.

Department of Communications/News Bureau             
Division of University Advancement
Alumni Center, 73 Upper College Road, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881
Phone: 401-874-2116 / Fax: 401-874-7872

Media Contact: Jan Wenzel, 401-874-2116

All constitutional again

It seems that the ACLU has decided that the Patriot Act is now Consitutional

The ACLU said it was withdrawing the lawsuit filed more than three years ago because of "improvements to the law." The Justice Department argued last month that amendments approved by Congress in March 2006 had corrected any constitutional flaws in the Patriot Act.

"While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU in New York, said in a written statement.

Of course, it's also true that the ACLUs (former) position was to the Left of the American public, but to the Right of many Democratic members of Congress; especially members of the House and most especially to the whole Vermont delegation to Congress.

It turns out that 174 members of the House of Represntatives voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act, the bill that allows the US Government to go after terrorists in the same way that it was able to go after organized crime. Among those voting against the Patriot Act was Rep Bernie Sanders, the man who would be Senator from Vermont. He was joined by the likes of Representative Kucinich - the man who would be Chair of the National Security subcommittee if Democrats win the House - and Representative Peolsi, the Woman who would be Speaker and third in line for the Presidency if Democrats win the House.

On the Senate side, cooler heads prevailed in that only 10 Senators voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act, all Democrats (or "independents") and 20% of that number were from Vermont. Both Senators Leahy (the man who would be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee if Democrats took the Senate) and Jeffords.

So this amounts to every member of the Vermont Congressional delegation is to the Left of the ACLU. Now that's extremist.

I wonder if Vermonters will reelect extremists next week.

Battle in Tarin Kowt

The AP is reporting a major defeat for Islamists in Afghanistan over the weekend

NATO and Afghan troops killed 70 suspected militants who attacked a military base in southern Afghanistan, the alliance said yesterday.

Some 100 to 150 militants attacked a base north of Tarin Kowt in Uruzgan on Saturday, said Maj. Luke Knittig, a spokesman for the NATO-led force. The alliance and Afghan troops fought back for several hours, killing 70 insurgents, Knittig said, upgrading an earlier estimate of 55 dead. One Afghan soldier was wounded. It was impossible to independently verify the death toll at the remote battle site.

And you know that this was a big defeat for the enemy, because Al Jazeerah is reporting the story a little differently

70 Afghanis Massacred by NATO Occupation Forces in Uruzgan

NATO occupation forces and US-led Afghan troops killed     70 alleged Taliban resistance fighters who attacked a military base     in southern Afghanistan, while a roadside blast killed one NATO     occupation soldier and wounded eight others, the alliance said Sunday.    

Some 100 to 150 alleged Taliban resistance fighters     attacked a military base north of Tarin Kowt in Uruzgan on     Saturday, said Maj. Luke Knittig, a spokesman for the NATO occupation     forces. The alliance and Afghan troops fought back for several hours with     small arms fire, attack helicopters and airstrikes.

Seventy alleged Taliban resistance fighters were     killed, Knittig said, upgrading an earlier estimate of 55 dead. One Afghan     soldier was wounded. It was impossible to independently verify the death     toll at the remote battle site.

Now if you look, both claim to be by the AP and both use very similar phrasing, that second paragraph is identical except for "resistance fighters" in one case and "militants" in the other. So which way did the AP write the story?

You don't think the news is tailored for the customer, do you?

Do you think this has something to do with al Qaida's media campaign?

a document issued by a group linked to al Qaeda spells out new goals for America's most determined enemies and calls for a media war against the United States.

The document, which began circulating on the Internet this month, illustrates the techniques Washington's enemy is using in what President George W. Bush has called the "war of ideas."

"The people of jihad need to carry out a media war parallel to the military war ... because we can observe the effect that the media have on nations," said the document, signed by Najd al-Rawi of the Global Islamic Media Front, a group associated with al Qaeda.

It lists targets for a public relations campaign ranging from the obvious -- Internet chat rooms -- to the surprising -- "famous U.S. authors with e-mail addresses" and mentions New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and the academics Noam Chomsky, Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington.

Now in this case, Reuter's thinks that al Qaida is "Washingon's enemy" not "America's enemy" or "the West's enemy". Cute, huh?

The battle in Tarin Kowt, it seems, was fought on the ground, and is now moving into the media.

And never forget, in the media wars, you are the target.

Not fooled

Even with the Media pounding the talking points of the Left, most people seem to be able to maintain a rational head

Most Americans do not believe the Bush administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties as part of the war on terror, a new CNN poll released Thursday suggests.

While 39 percent of the 1,013 poll respondents said the Bush administration has gone too far, 34 percent said they believe the administration has been about right on the restrictions, according to the Opinion Research Corp. survey. Another 25 percent said the administration has not gone far enough.

Asked whether Bush has more power than any other U.S. president, 65 percent of poll respondents said no. Thirty-three percent said yes. Of those who said yes, a quarter said that was bad for the country. (View poll results)

And this is why the Left distrusts Democracy

You just can't make people see what's best for them,

no matter how hard you try....

CNN must be very disappointed

Mythmakers

New York Times Involved in Mythmaking

DOD asks editorial page to correct error

Oct. 24, 2006 —The Pentagon today asked the New York Times to correct an editorial, which claimed that “There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfeld’s negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals.”  Whether the Times believes there were (or are) enough troops in Iraq, it is demonstrably untrue that troop levels in Iraq are the result of Secretary Rumsfeld’s “not listening to his generals.”

Generals involved in troop-level decisions have been very clear on this matter, making numerous statements that are not new—or difficult—to find, such as extensive commentary in General Franks’s book, American Soldier.  The implication is that the New York Times either believes these generals are not being truthful, or that they are too intimidated to tell the truth. The Pentagon would vigorously dispute both characterizations.

Read what generals themselves have to say about the subject, in a Pentagon letter to the editor.

UPDATE: The New York Times has declined the Pentagon’s request to correct its editorial.

Everybody wants fences

President Bush signed into law a bill mandating a fence be constructed on the US Mexico border.

"This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure," Mr. Bush said at a morning ceremony with top Republicans in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. "It is an important step toward immigration reform."

Mexican president-elect Felipe Calderon was heard to say

"The wall will not solve any problem.

"Humanity made a huge mistake by building the Berlin Wall and I believe that today the United States is committing a grave error in building the wall on our border. It is much more useful to solve common problems and foster prosperity in both countries."

Gee, if I remember correctly, the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, not out. The deplorable conditions of Communist East Germany caused people to want to flee.

Is Calderon trying to equate Mexico to Communist East Germany?

But it turns out, Mexicans don't like illegal immigrants from south of their border either.

A poll (link in Spanish) published by the news paper El Universal shows that 50% of interviewed Mexicans are in favor of redoubling the police security in the border with 51% of the Mexicans wanting immigration with Central American citizens to the country to diminish, according to a survey published Monday by the newspaper El Universal. In the USA, 39% think the same in regards to total immigration....

...34% considers that the Central American immigrants take jobs from Mexicans. On the other hand, 46% think that they obtain jobs that the Mexicans do not want. 38% consider that it is more probable that the Central American immigrants get involved in criminal activities than the Mexicans....

According to a poll by Bumeran, in a survery of 3,180 companies, 41% didn’t want to hire foreign workers.  A respondent to the survey said he believed that the reasons for this are protectionism, unjustified nationalism, and not being sure of foreign workers talent.

Huh.

CWO Lori Hill, Kiowa Warrior

A Kiowa pilot with the 2nd Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment, Chief Warrant Office 3 Lori Hill flies an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior in support of ground troops on a daily basis. One mission, however, earned her the Distinguished Flying Cross.

CWO Hill and her lead chopper came under enemy fire while attempting to support some U.S. soldiers who were pinned on the ground by small-arms fire from insurgents.

the lead chopper came under heavy fire. She drew the fire away, simultaneously providing suppressive fire for the troops engaged with the enemy on the ground.

A rocket-propelled grenade hit her, damaging the helo’s instrumentation, but instead of focusing on her predicament, she established communication with the ground forces and continued to provide them with aerial weapon support until the Soldiers reached safety.

As she turned her attention to the aircraft, which was losing hydraulic power, the helo took on machine-gun fire, a round crashing into one of Hill’s ankles. Still, with a damaged aircraft and an injury, she landed at Forward Operating Base Normandy, saving her crew and aircraft.

The Vice President himself pinned the Cross to CWO Hill's uniform during the award ceremony.

“We were flying along parallel to a route and we believe we ran into the ambush that they had set up,” Hill recalled.

Kiowa warrior helicopters are armed with a fixed 50 caliber machine gun, but “you have to .look into the whites of their eyes in order to shoot them” Hill said.

Vote wrong and we'll riot

In France, Jihadists who have taken up residence within the country are trying to blackmail voters to maintain the status quo whereby Islamic youths are allowed to wage war against the police unmolested

A year after one of the most traumatic episodes in modern France, the conditions that touched off three weeks of suburban rioting remain firmly in place and there is widespread fear that a new outburst is only a question of time....

"Has anything changed? Look around you -- we're all still here. Nothing to do -- no jobs, and the police still harassing us," said Kiko, 23, who has just emerged from serving a jail sentence for fraud....

"Sarko is the provocative element," said Kiko. "And if he is elected next year I warn you: people will be killed."

"Sarko" is Nicolas Sarkozy who is running for President of France on a law and order, anti-Socalist platform. He says

it is left-wing welfare policies of 30 years that have led to the crisis -- and that a liberalised economy combined with positive discrimination is the only way to provide jobs and hope.

The Socialist Party in France opposes Sarkozy claiming he is

part of the problem -- because of his poisonous reputation in the "banlieues" and his uncompromising line on law and order.

The "banlieues" being

the poor out-of-town neighbourhoods where black and Arab-origin communities are concentrated.

The fact is, Islamists have claimed certain parts of France, including the suburbs of Paris, as their own. And they are actively attempting to keep police out.

Police have raised the alarm over a recent string of ambushes in the Paris outskirts -- the latest on Sunday when a bus was torched -- and say they are increasingly the targets of physical attacks.

(More on that here)

But is such voter intimidation in France any different than the sentiment here in the US?

... whether it is hubris, loony tunes, or both, the White House’s freakish calm about the elections makes me as nervous as the hell we seem to be headed for. Therefore we should all be on alert. If for whatever reason we don’t win back Congress in November the only real answer will be to take to the streets.

There is little difference between the Leftists here, who want to appease Islamists and the Socialists in France. And both only support the Democratic process when it results in the outcome pleasing to them.

Granted, the Islamists want more time to be able to fully secure their beachead in France. But in both cases, their contempt for Democracy is rooted in the firm belief that their ideology will fix all human suffering and this whole Democracy thing just messes things up.

Case in point:

The flag of Islam should be flown over Leinster House, an Islamic extremist said tonight.

Speaking in Dublin before addressing a Trinity College debate, Anjem Choudray also reiterated controversial views that Muslim violence is justified in certain circumstances.

The British-born lawyer, 39, angered the Irish Government last year when he said that Ireland risked becoming a target for a 9/11 style attack because it allowed US war planes to refuel at Shannon Airport.

Mr Choudray said: “As a Muslim, I believe Islam is superior to every other way of life and that it can resolve all the social and economic problems that Ireland suffers from.

“And as a symbol of that, the flag of Islam should be flown over the Dáil.

“This is symbolic of the fact that all societies will be run better according to God’s law.”

Remove the word "God" and these words could have been uttered by Socialists or Communists.

And they are.

Calling James Baker

I have always been a fan of the Army paying attention to Middle Management, especially those middle managers that are fully "in the shit".

James Taranto received a letter from such an Army middle manager currently in Iraq. A sergeant on a human intelligence collection team who interacts with Iraqis on a daily basis. It is part of his job to know the pulse of the city and the people.

This breakneck pace with which we're trying to push the responsibility for governing and securing Iraq is irresponsible and suicidal. It's like throwing a brick on a house of cards and hoping it holds up. The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)--a joint term referring to Iraqi army and Iraqi police--are so rife with corruption, insurgent sympathies and Shia militia members that they have zero effectiveness. Two Iraqi police brigades in Baghdad have been disbanded recently, and the general sentiment in our field is "Why stop there?" I can't tell you how many roadside bombs have been detonated against American forces within sight of ISF checkpoints. Faith in the Iraqi army is only slightly more justified than faith in the police--but even there, the problems of tribal loyalties, desertion, insufficient training, low morale and a failure to properly indoctrinate their soldiers results in a substandard, ineffective military. A lot of the problems are directly related to Arab culture, which traditionally doesn't see nepotism and graft as serious sins. Changing that is going to require a lot more than "benchmarks."

In Shia areas, the militias hold the real control of the city. They have infiltrated, co-opted or intimidated into submission the local police. They are expanding their territories, restricting freedom of movement for Sunnis, forcing mass migrations, spiking ethnic tensions, not to mention the murderous checkpoints, all while U.S. forces do . . . nothing....

For the first six months I was in country, sectarian violence was classified as an "Iraqi on Iraqi" crime. Division didn't want to hear about it. And, in a sense I can understand why. Because division realized that which the Iraqi people have come to realize: The American forces cannot protect them. We are too few in number and our mission is "stability and support." The problem is that there's nothing to give stability and support to. We hollowed out the Baathist regime, and we hastily set up this provisional government, thrusting political responsibility on a host of unknowns, each with his own political agenda, most funded by Iran, and we're seeing the results.

In Germany after World War II, we controlled our sector with approximately 500,000 troops, directly administering the area for 10 years while we rebuilt the country and rebuilt the social and political infrastructure needed to run it. In Iraq, we've got one-third that number of troops dealing with three times the population on a much faster timetable, and we're attempting to unify three distinct ethnic groups with no national interest and at least three outside influences (Saudi Arabian Wahhabists, Iranian mullahs and Syrian Baathists) each eagerly funding various groups in an attempt to see us fail. And we are.

If we continue on as is in Iraq, we will leave here (sooner or later) with a fractured state, a Rwanda-waiting-to-happen. "Stay the course" and refusing to admit that we're screwing things up is already killing a lot of people needlessly. Following through with such inane nonstrategy is going to be the death knell for hundreds of thousands of Sunnis.

We need to backtrack. We need to publicly admit we're backtracking. This is the opening battle of the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We cannot afford to lose it because of political inconveniences. Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000 American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a military that's fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction. Reassure the Iraqi people that we're going to provide them security and then follow through. Disarm the nation: Sunnis, Shias, militia groups, everyone. Issue national ID cards to everyone and control the movement of the population.

If these three things are done, you can actually start the Iraqi economy again. Once people have a sense of security, they'll be able to leave their houses to go to work. Tell your American commanders that it's OK to pass up bad news--because part of the problem is that these issues are not reaching above the battalion or brigade level due to the can-do, make-it-happen culture indoctrinated into our U.S. officers. While the attitude is admirable, it also creates barriers to recognizing and dealing with on-the-ground realities.

This solution is probably untenable because of the political situation inside Iraq. I mean how would it look to the ordinary Iraqi on the Street if all of a sudden the US just too over the government and injected another 400,000 troops. I'm pretty sure there would be riots.

But that doesn't mean that the James Baker team shouldn't add this to the list to be considered.

One thing that is clear is that the fact that tribal affiliation trumps dedication to one's country is a problem that needs to be solved. As is the fact of "casual corruption". The Sergeant has some great insights into what the problems are if not the solutions.

It is also clear from the sergeant's description is that the situation is more nuanced than the Democrats would like to admit. Simply setting up a timetable for withdrawal and forcing the Iraqi's to "stand up" does not address the realities of the political fragility which the sergeant notes is a big part of the problem.

And leaving Iraq before the Iraq government can stand up would result in failure, and as the sergeant correctly observes

failure in Iraq would be worse than a dozen Somalias, and would render us as impotent and emasculated as we were in the days after Vietnam. There is a global cultural-ideological struggle being waged, and abdication from Iraq is tantamount to concession.

The Democrats have never proposed anything real, but they had better start. In the past they have either aped the Administration's position while calling it their own, or simply repeated the mantra, "strategic redeployment" which means for our troops to be anywhere but Iraq.

We need Democrats to be helping to think about real solutions to bring about success in Iraq. Because this more than being just about them. It's about all of us.

And if they gave up the quest for power for a moment and started being part of the solution for the sake of the country, they might just find they get a chance at power too.