The Cool Blue Blog

Face Time

The new strategy for Iraq is not just about clearing, killing, and capturing anti-democratic forces in Iraq; it's also about holding the area, making lives better and forming relationships. No longer will forces clear and move on allowing bad guys to move back in.

One story from the Al Doura district of Baghdad illustrates this

“Face time.” It seems to be a term used more by celebrities than Soldiers, but as Iraqi Army and Police go on patrols with Coalition forces, “face time” is something one unit is saying is very important to their mission of capturing the bad guys.

On what’s become a normal patrol mission in Baghdad’s northwest Al-Doura neighborhood, Company C, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Soldiers are using the results of their “face time” to help catch the enemy.

“Our presence is very important,” said Staff Sgt. Juan A. Lopez, a Bronx, N.Y. native. “The [locals] will talk to us and tell us where the caches and insurgents are, they will tell us about new people who have moved into their neighborhood threatening them.

“It’s a positive we are here everyday. That way, little by little, we can make a difference.”                                                                

On a patrol of one neighborhood in the Humvees, children were peeking out of their gates and waiving to the Soldiers through their bulletproof glass. “Wave at them, man,” Lopez told one of his Soldiers in the vehicle. “They might remember you later and say, ‘hey, I waived at that Soldier when I was a little kid.’”

Lopez, who, back in the Bronx, has a Yemeni friend who taught him some Arabic phrases, uses it to reach out to the community. When he and his Soldiers walk around the market, they are swarmed by young children. Lopez uses his limited Arabic to joke with the children.

In one of the “muhallas,” or neighborhoods, there is a thriving marketplace within what used to be a traffic circle. The locals go there to buy fresh fish, produce, clothes, shoes and other items. As recent as a month ago, insurgent activity forced a lot of them to stay away from the market. Lopez and his unit had seen some fierce fighting there. During the battle, the Coalition forces repelled the insurgents from the neighborhood.

In a way, the locals have, in casual meetings with the Coalition forces, learned to embrace them. During their cordon and search missions, the Soldiers commonly refer to the meetings as “block parties.” It’s not uncommon for the locals to ask Soldiers and Iraqi National Police officers to come in and have some tea.            

According to Lopez, his unit has captured a lot of suspects which is a direct result of their presence patrols and the bonds they make during them.

“One day, a lady told us to take someone because he was a cell leader,” he recalled. “It wouldn’t be like that if we weren’t out here. We found a lot of guys and caches because of all the tips [from the locals].”

During a recent block party, Lopez and his team searched a house owned by a married couple with a small child. When asked how they felt about being searched, the husband said he didn’t mind it because it made their community safer to have Soldiers around.   

Another important relationship they have fostered is the one they have with the Iraqi National Police.

“We can’t do everything, so that’s why we work with the NPs (National Police),” he said. “And now that the Iraqi Army is here, the [insurgents] are pulling out. It makes a difference, and that’s what they want. ”          

(Story and photo by Sgt. 1st Class Kap Kim, 2nd BCT, 1st Cav. Div. Public Affairs)

                                          

Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mother Jones

The magazine Mother Jones has published a study which proposes that the war in Iraq has increased global terrorism by sevenfold. To begin their argument, they first quote the President from a policy speech he gave at the United States Naval Academy in November of 2005

If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people.

Then they analyze his argument

The president’s argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

Clearly this is an incorrect restatement of what Bush said: It did not say that the war would reduce the overall pool of global terrorists. What it did say was that the war in Iraq keeps would-be terrorists occupied; which it clearly does. What Bush is really trying to accomplish is outlined a little later in that same speech

In the short run, we're going to bring justice to our enemies. In the long run, the best way to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East.  We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before.  In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed -- and today Germany and Japan are democracies and they are allies in securing the peace.  In the Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic movement that freed the nations of Eastern and Central Europe from Soviet domination -- and today these nations are allies in the war on terror.

So the goal is to spread freedom and defeat an enemy of both freedom and the United States.

However, I will admit that while the quote presented by Mother Jones does not state it, killing Jihadists in Iraq does in fact reduce the number of Jihadists in the world. This is must be obvious to anyone who took elementary school mathematics.

But the report tries to assert that since the number of global terrorist incidents around the world has risen since the US invaded Iraq, that proves that the war in Iraq is neither reducing the number of terrorists, nor decreased the threat to America: in fact they claim the war in Iraq has increased the threat to America from terrorism.

Indeed, though what we will call "The Iraq Effect" is a crucial matter for U.S. national security, we have found no statistical documentation of its existence and gravity, at least in the public domain. In this report, we have undertaken what we believe to be the first such study, using information from the world’s premier database on global terrorism...

Our study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third.

OK. So how do they do that?

In order to zero in on The Iraq Effect, we focused on the rate of terrorist attacks in two time periods: September 12, 2001, to March 20, 2003 (the day of the Iraq invasion), and March 21, 2003, to September 30, 2006. Extending the data set before 9/11 would risk distorting the results, because the rate of attacks by jihadist groups jumped considerably after 9/11 as jihadist terrorists took inspiration from the events of that terrible day.

We first determined which terrorist organizations should be classified as jihadist. We included in this group Sunni extremist groups affiliated with or sympathetic to the ideology of Al Qaeda. We decided to exclude terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups, as they depend largely on factors particular to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Our study draws its data from the MIPT-RAND Terrorism database (available at  terrorismknowledgebase.org), which is widely considered to be the best publicly available database on terrorism incidents.

It's not apparent to me how this would support the claim that the war in Iraq has caused a sevenfold increase in terrorist incidents, but OK...

Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq.

But correlation does not prove causality, as the writers admit

Of course, just because jihadist terrorism has risen in the period after the invasion of Iraq, it does not follow that events in Iraq itself caused the change. For example, a rise in attacks in the Kashmir conflict and the Chechen separatist war against Russian forces may have nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

True 'nuff. So how do they make the connection?

...the most direct test of The Iraq Effect--whether the United States and its allies have suffered more jihadist terrorism after the invasion than before--shows that the rate of jihadist attacks on Western interests and citizens around the world (outside of Afghanistan and Iraq) has risen by a quarter, from 7.2 to 9 a year, while the yearly fatality rate in these attacks has increased by 4 percent from 191 to 198.

But why would this be evidence of correlation? For instance, they point out

German, French, and Dutch intelligence officials have estimated that there are dozens of their citizens returning from the Iraq theater, and some appear to have been determined to carry out attacks on their return to Europe. For example, French police arrested Hamid Bach, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, in June 2005 in Montpellier, several months after he returned from a staging camp for Iraq War recruits in Syria. According to French authorities, Bach’s handlers there instructed him to assist with plotting terrorist attacks in Italy. Back in France, Bach is alleged to have bought significant quantities of hydrogen peroxide and to have looked up details on explosives and detonators online. (Bach is awaiting trial in France.)

But Germany and France do not have troops in Iraq, nor have they supported the war in Iraq. Why would Iraq spur these people to attack France and Germany if they were not already predisposed to do so?

Another point they claim

One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United States in Muslim countries.Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world’s largest Muslim country, Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent.

But this is made up, unsourced data. I can point to data that refutes this position. For instance there's this from 2005 which would be after the 2003 "data" quoted by Mother Jones.

Muslim opinion of America is changing — for the better, according to a poll released yesterday at the District-based Heritage Foundation.

Described as "dramatic" and categorized as "the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world" since September 11, the findings reveal that pronounced Islamic distaste of the United States is waning.

Based on a survey conducted Feb. 1-6 of 1,200 adults in Indonesia — the world's largest Muslim country — the poll found that 40 percent favored U.S.-led efforts against global terrorism — up from 23 percent in 2003.

Well OK, but what about the larger Middle East

Anti-Americanism in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, which surged as a result of the U.S. war in Iraq, shows modest signs of abating....

Attitudes toward the U.S. remain quite negative in the Muslim world, though hostility toward America has eased in some countries. Many Muslims see the U.S. supporting democracy in their countries, and many of those who are optimists about the prospects for democracy in the Middle East give at least some credit to U.S. policies...

...there is modest optimism among Muslims that the Middle East will become more democratic. And even in countries like Jordan and Pakistan, where people have low regard for the U.S., many who believe the region will become more democratic give some credit to U.S. policies for making this possible. Roughly half of respondents in Jordan ­ and nearly two-thirds of Indonesians ­ think the U.S. favors democracy in their countries.

And here, finally, is what Mother Jones doesn't get: while there is only a tenuous connection, if any, between the war in Iraq and terrorist activity world-wide, there is definitely a high correlation between the US and the birthing of Democracy in the Middle East.

If there is a connection between increased terrorist activity and Iraq, then it is all about Democracy: the US encourages it and the Islamist thinks it is apostasy.

Can Mother Jones really argue that it would be better for the world had we left a sadistic, criminal dictator in control of a country because to try to bring political and economic freedom to an avowed enemy of America would stir up the anti-Democratic masses?

And I don't know if Mother Jones noticed or not, but the first attack on the US mainland came at a time when we were at "peace": we were not in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Mother Jones sums it up

Our study shows just how counterproductive the Iraq War has been to the war on terrorism. The most recent State Department report on global terrorism states that the goal of the United States is to identify, target, and prevent the spread of "jihadist groups focused on attacking the United States or its allies [and those groups that] view governments and leaders in the Muslim world as their primary targets." Yet, since the invasion of Iraq, attacks by such groups have risen more than sevenfold around the world. And though few Americans have been killed by jihadist terrorists in the past three years it is wishful thinking to believe that this will continue to be the case, given the continued determination of militant jihadists to target the country they see as their main enemy. We will be living with the consequences of the Iraq debacle for more than a decade.

The question is this: given the determination of militant jihadists to target our country, does Mother Jones really believe that the threat would be less had we not gone into Iraq? To me, that proposition is absurd on its face.

What's more, Iraq had we left it alone, would have been one more state sponsor of terrorism: now it is one less. And it directly because of our invasion of Iraq that there is a fledgling hope of freedom and democracy in Lebanon.

Whether or not Iraq has stirred up Jihadists, the fact is the US has stirred up desire for freedom, both political and economic.

 

And I think that's worth the price.

1st Lt. Michael McCarty

First Lt. McCarty’s platoon was patrolling in the Adhamiyah district of Baghdad on Nov. 20, 2004, when a group of insurgents attacked. As the enemy fighters inflicted a massive assault on the 26-man team, McCarty directed a counterattack. At one point, McCarty charged and destroyed an enemy machine-gun team without any support. In all, his team stopped an enemy three-man machine-gun team and a force of about 75 insurgents. McCarty’s actions prevented the capture of an Iraqi police station. On Feb. 4, 2006, McCarty was awarded the Silver Star Medal. He was previously awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal with Valor.

More good news from the front

A few more stories of hope for Iraq hit the major news outlets. The first is from USA Today

The number of extremist attacks in Baghdad has declined over the last two weeks since a new security plan took hold, although the relative lull may be short-lived, the U.S. military said Monday.

Bombings on Monday that killed more than 40 Iraqis demonstrated that extremists were still staging attacks aimed at grabbing headlines, but the overall number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops has fallen, said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a spokesman for the U.S. military.

Reinforcements began arriving last month as part of President Bush's plan to expand the U.S. force by 21,500. They have joined with Iraqi forces to provide a 24-hour presence in some violent neighborhoods where troops previously had patrolled only by daylight. New roadblocks and house-to-house sweeps have targeted sectarian militias.

Garver said there had been fewer attacks in the past few days. He declined to provide statistics.

"We also look for the enemy to look for opportunities to attack back," Garver said. "They still want to launch spectacular attacks to embarrass the government."

Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, warned last month that it could be late summer before it becomes clear whether the new security plan is working.

Garver said there has been a decline in reported sectarian kidnappings and apparent murder victims in the Baghdad morgue. The average number of bodies brought to the morgue a day has dropped in the past week to 10 from 50 to 60 a month ago, the Associated Press reported.

Mohamed Al Daiyni, a member of Al Tawafek, the largest Sunni coalition in the parliament, said violence was down because "all the fighting groups are hiding."

Good. Clearly they will remain in hiding so long as security remains.

The other story is from the Christian Science Monitor

many Iraqis say they have seen some positive steps in the days since the surge officially came into effect last Thursday. And not just because several hundred Iraqis are reported to have been able to return home, or that the daily average of 50 dead bodies on the streets has dropped to single digits in recent days.       

"People are very, very happy," with the replacement of a commando unit that refused to go after Shiite militiamen by a regular          Iraqi Army unit in the southeast district of Zafaraniyeh, says a resident who could not be named.       

      

"When they came 10 days ago, there was chaos and killing. Since then, I have not heard of a single person being killed," says          the resident. It is the new Iraqi commander who is making the difference.       

      

"He came and took the Shiite and Sunni clerics to lunch and told them: 'I am not a sectarian man, and all should be under the law, Sunni and Shiite,' " says the resident, quoting the new commander. " 'If you help me, we will help you. If you don't cooperate with me, you will be breaking the law, and I will crush you.' "

      

That commander has "made many changes and tells people he will be responsible for supplying all families with cooking fuel," says the Zafaraniyeh resident. He has also marked each official checkpoint with a large number – so people can more easily spot fake checkpoints – and his Iraqi forces are searching every vehicle, including police convoys. On Friday, a joint US-Iraq checkpoint there snagged a "police" colonel who proved to be an imposter after calls were made to the Ministry of Interior to check his identity.

Let me speak slowly to the Democrats and Republicans who 1) have condemned the new security plan for Iraq before it even got started and 2) are working hard to make sure the new initiative is a failure:

Americans do not want to be defeated in Iraq.

The plan will work so long as security is maintained and rebuilding is allowed to occur.

The US military will be needed to help maintain security and can leave when Iraqi security elements are trained enough to do it on their own.

OK? Got that? Surrendering we expect from Democrats and we celebrate those who are not inclined to run away. That's why I pointed out those in the House to bucked the leadership on this issue: Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia and Representative Gene Taylor of Mississippi. And of course we can not forget Senator Lieberman of Connecticut.

But we do not expect, and will not tolerate it of Republicans. And the Victory Caucus is watching

House Republican leaders and conservative activists are targeting critics of President Bush's plan to send more combat forces into Iraq -- and some GOP lawmakers are on the hit list.

Amid a mounting campaign in Congress to limit Bush's military options, conservatives led by talk show host Hugh Hewitt have created an advocacy group designed to counter the anti-war MoveOn.org. And its first round of targets will be the 17 GOP lawmakers who voted for last week's Democratic resolution in the House opposing the troop increases.

First in the sights of the new Victory Caucus is Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., whose district includes Orlando.

While Hewitt carries considerable sway among conservatives, the fledgling Victory Caucus starts out with little of the money and prominence of MoveOn.org, now nationally entrenched as a liberal interest group.

At the same time, House Republicans are hitting Democrats who represent districts Bush won in hopes of preventing a congressional majority that would restrict money for Afghanistan and Iraq. The GOP is flooding those districts with news releases and e-mails warning that Democrats are undermining U.S. troops.

Let me repeat: Americans do not want to lose in Iraq. Whether we live in a Blue state or a Red state, we will attempt to punish at the polls all those who will not even allow the new security measures to work.

And that's the bottom line.

An unusual Iraq story

Headlines in various media outlets include the usual stuff

The BBC

Fresh violence rocks Iraq capital

The US military in Iraq says another five American soldiers have been killed by insurgents in the past day.

CBS News

2 GIs Killed In Iraq Attack

Insurgents Send Suicide Bomber To Combat Post Near Baghdad, 34 Iraqis Die In Attacks

The LA Times

Insurgents strike U.S. outpost in Iraq

Two troops are killed and 17 wounded in an assault north of Baghdad.

And even the Washtington Times

Crackdown in Iraq spurs violent day

But few outlets carry this, more hopeful AP story which was carried by Worcester Telegram

Baghdad’s quiet, at least for now

NEWS ANALYSIS

By Robert H. Reid THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq—  U.S. troops rolled into Baghdad primed for a showdown with Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. But most of the shooting has come from Iraqi police firing weapons in the air to clear the way for their convoys.

That doesn’t mean the extremists have given up or that Baghdad is on a course toward calm. At least 63 people were killed and more than 120 injured in car bombings yesterday.

Nevertheless, the capital has been relatively quiet since the operation began Wednesday.

But it also appears that all the players — the Iraqi government, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias — are saving their resources for the next and perhaps climactic round — the civil war that could break out once the U.S. push is over and American troops begin to pull out.

“The Sunni resistance needs to keep its powder dry for the internal war that commences when we go,” said retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, a prominent writer on military affairs. “The Shiites are waiting to see if we push them the way we have pushed the Sunni population.”

As evidence, U.S. officers report an influx of Sunni militants into Diyala province and other areas around the capital, apparently insurgents moving temporarily from Baghdad so they can live to fight another day.

In Baghdad, Shiite militiamen, too, have largely put away their weapons. But they can still be seen milling about on the streets of neighborhoods like Hurriyah, scene of bloody sectarian purges three months ago, and seem certain to reassert themselves when the crackdown is over.

Most importantly, the Shiite-led government appears to be stalling on key U.S. demands, including a quick military move into the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City, where an ally of the prime minister holds sway.

That raises questions about whether the much-advertised U.S.-led security crackdown will deliver on expectations and set Iraq on course for a stable, functioning society.

Clearly that will not happen without American resolve: a resolve that is being eroded daily by the Democratic Leadership in Congress. A major part of the new plan is to hold the areas and do reconstruction with US Military elements embedded with Iraqi Army and Police providing long-term security. The whole idea is to kill, capture, or drive underground insurgent forces. And as long as a security presence is maintained long enough for reconstruction occur, the benefits of a strong central government will become apparant to the locals who will learn they do not need militias for protection and there is no benefit to them for joining the Islamists.

But for political reasons, Democrats will not see the plan; they refuse to acknowledge its existence and try to convince people its the same old, same old.

Clearly most media outlets are complicit.

For now, however, Baghdad is calmer than it has been for months. Weeks ago, police were finding 50 or more bullet-riddled bodies in the capital every day. That figure has dropped to below 10 a day since the crackdown began last Wednesday.

And unless Congress intervenes, it will stay calm in each area the new security elements move into: Areas which will increase daily unless Democrats stop the progress.

Now you do the Google search for this story. And not only will you find that it is carried in now major outlets (the biggest one I could find is in the Military Times (Army, Air Force, etc) but you will also find two different versions: one less hopeful than the other.

Still, it reflects a growing reality that larger media outlets, and most Democrats, deny.

What the people say

I have pointed out before the perilous waters in which anti-war politicians wade. At that time I pointed to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll and said, in part

52% would not cut funding for the war as many Democrats are proposing. And most dangerous for Democrats, 63% of Americans want Bush's plan to succeed in Iraq. If Democrats leave the impression that they were the ones who caused the plan not to succeed, they will likely pay a heavy price at the polls in 2008.

What's more, the poll said

48% of Americans believe that Democrats want the Presidents plan to fail; only 32% believe Democrats want Bush to succeed.

Well, some new polls are out there and it reinforces and gives new warning to those who are putting themselves in a position where their political fortunes depend on failure in Iraq. The first is an AP-Ipsos poll which indicates growing support for the new strategy in Iraq

The president nudged support for the troop increase to 35 percent from 26 percent in early January. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed still oppose the increase.

The growth probably comes from people who don't not take the main stream media as the fount of all truth and have heard the success stories.

And if you think 35% is not so good, consider that this AP-Ipsos poll taken February 5 thru 7 show that only 34% of the people approve of the job Congress is doing: 58% disapprove of the job Congress is doing. And since January, that means they disapprove of what Democrats are doing.

Meanwhile, a new IDB/TIPP poll, more people think that it is very important to win in Iraq than did just a few months ago. Interestingly, its of importance to Democrats, Independents as well as Republicans. I wonder if it was the Iraq Study Group's report that convinced them.

What's more people are hopeful that America will succeed in Iraq: They are not invested in us losing in Iraq: a position many Democrats and some Republicans have found themselves in.

From Investor's Business Daily

As we've noted on several occasions, Democratic talk of "redeployment" has encouraged terrorist groups around the world.

Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, said before the 2006 vote: "Americans should vote Democratic," adding that "it is time the American people support those who want to take them out of the Iraqi mud." The statement could have come from Murtha, Kerry, Hillary or any number of Democrats.

We find it scary that the Democratic and terrorist game plans are indistinguishable.

So do I. But what's worse is that two years before an election, people are taking positions on the war in Iraq that may not be important a year from now. And if all these people are saying things like "the war is lost" and "there's no way to win, we must retreat" doesn't their future political life depend upon being right? Doesn't their political hopes depend on not looking like a surrender monkey?

Wouldn't their political aspirations be worse for these folks if the plan succeeds?

Clearly.

So how can you vote for someone who says they want a job as a public servant if that someone is willing to put themselves above the country?

And before Congress get all high and mighty, I would point to one more poll: A USA Today Poll from Feb 13th

The poll of 1,006 adults taken nationwide between Friday and Sunday found 30 percent of respondents approve of the way Democrats are responding to the situation in Iraq, while 27 percent approve of congressional Republicans.

Among strategies under debate in Washington is a plan to bring all U.S. troops back from Iraq by the end of 2008. Sixty-three percent of respondents agreed. However, 58 percent were opposed to denying funding for additional troops, the newspaper said.

...70 percent said how their congressmen vote on the Iraq issue would affect their voting decisions in the next congressional election.

No wonder Congress is so schizophrenic. There is no clear direction to the wind. So some are betting against success.

And what's in the best interest of America and not breaking faith with the people we've sent into harms way is simply not enough to help most politicians make a decision on what in the world they should do...

But I predict this: people who are too quick to surrender to the enemy will not gain the trust of Americans in the long run.

2nd SBCT in Adhamiyah and other orphaned stories

Dispatch from Adhamiyah

Clearing operations continue in Adhamiyah

Saturday, 17 February 2007

CAMP LIBERTY — The Iraqi Security Force and Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldiers began clearing operations in the Shaab and Ur neighborhoods of the Adhamiyah security district Wednesday.

“We’re conducting detailed searches in areas that are known, or suspected to harbor terrorists,” said Col. Steve Townsend, commander of the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division. “All areas will get thorough assessments – patrol down every street, talk to every shop owner and engage the populations at every opportunity to get atmospherics of the area.”      

Soldiers from the 3rd SBCT and elements from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Infantry Division are working closely with the Iraqi Security Force to clear these designated areas in order to better secure this section of Baghdad.  They are also working to significantly reduce sectarian violence and diminish tensions through engagement of political, security forces, tribal and religious leaders. 

As troops in this joint effort conducted continuous searches, senior officers from the 3rd Battalion, 4th Brigade, 1st National Police Division met simultaneously with neighborhood advisory council members, sheiks and civic leaders to further explain the search operations of the security plan and garner their support for continued security improvements in the area.      

Current clearing operations searched more than 3,000 structures resulting in five suspected terrorists detained, numerous pistols, rifles, AK-47s and more than 2,900 small arms fire munitions recovered. 

Earlier operations in the area this month focused solely on conducting targeted raids to help transition control of this security district to the 82nd Airborne Division’s ‘Falcon Brigade’ and Iraqi security forces, as well as set the stage for the current clearing operations. The conclusion of these targeted raids helped set the stage for quickly establishing combat outposts and joint security stations aimed at increasing the overall security of the neighborhoods.      

These previous raids resulted in 23 detainees and multiple caches found, yielding numerous smalls arms, munitions and confiscation of anti-Iraqi propaganda.

As of this report, clearing operations continue in the Adhamiyah security district.

Dispatch from Ramadi

21 suspected al Qaeda terrorists detained

Saturday, 17 February 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq –Coalition Forces detained 21 suspected terrorists during raids targeting foreign fighters and the al-Qaeda in Iraq network Saturday morning. 

During operations in Ramadi, Coalition Forces targeted terrorists with  ties to al-Qaeda’s senior leaders.  The raids netted a suspected leader of improvised explosive devices and sniper cell networks in the Ramadi area.  Seven others suspects were detained, including three believed to have close ties to senior al-Qaeda leaders and a foreign fighter facilitation network.

Coalition Forces also detained 11 suspected terrorists including an alleged senior level vehicle-borne improvised explosive device cell leader in the Baghdad area.  Intelligence reports indicate one of the suspected terrorists is involved in anti-Coalition Force activities, including the procurement of weapons and supporting foreign fighters.

The suspected senior-level VBIED cell leader was detained with two of his associates in a Baghdad hospital.  The hospital administration was very helpful during the operation and the detention occurred without incident or damage to the facility.

In Karabilah, two suspects were detained with alleged ties to a foreign fighter facilitation network. Coalition Forces are working diligently to eliminate foreign terrorists and al-Qaeda supporters who are trying to hijack the development and building of a new stable and peaceful Iraq.

From StrategyPage

...most people believe al Qaeda in Iraq is finished. After boasting last Fall that they would establish a safe zone in western Iraq, and failing to do anything close to that, the Islamic terrorists lost whatever credibility they had left. Most of the terrorist bombings these days are the work of Iraqi Sunni Arab organizations, who still believe that if you make the Iraqi Shia Arabs mad enough, they will get so nasty that neighboring Sunni Arab nations will feel compelled  to invade. This plan has split the Sunni Arab nationalists, mainly because the invasion shows no sign of happening, and the brighter terrorists point out that the Saudi army is unlikely to win against the Americans. In a trend that began two years ago, Sunni Arab factions are continuing to battle each other. U.S. troops stand aside when they encounter "Red-on-Red" fighting, then deal with the winner....

While the number of terror bombings has been declining in the past year, the crime rate has not, and most people in central Iraq are looking forward to the "Battle for Baghdad." Brigades of troops are arriving from the Kurdish north and Shia south, and more American troops can be seen on the streets. There are more raids in Baghdad. But all the average Iraqi wants is safer streets, fewer kidnappings and a little peace and quiet. Realizing that that kind of paradise is not likely to be found in the Middle East, Baghdad has been suffering a major brain drain in the past year, with the most educated fleeing for foreign countries. Europe and North America are preferred destinations, but any place with a lower crime rate will do.

Another story from Ramadi,

Police in Iraq see jump in recruits

Posted 1/14/2007 11:50 PM ET

By Rick Jervis, USA TODAY

RAMADI, Iraq — The U.S. military is reporting a dramatic and unexpected increase in the number of police recruits in Anbar province, the center of Sunni insurgent activity in Iraq.

In the past two weeks, more than 1,000 applicants have sought police jobs in Ramadi, the provincial capital. Eight hundred signed up last month in Ramadi, said Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.

Those figures compare with only "a few dozen" recruits in September, the U.S. military said....

U.S. commanders attribute the sudden increase in police applicants to the support of local tribal leaders and a deepening rift between Sunni tribesmen and extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"They've seen enough of the murder and intimidation," Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, commander of U.S. forces in Anbar, said of tribes in the Ramadi area.

One catalyst: the murder of a popular sheik in August. Tribal leaders blamed the death on al-Qaeda and formed a force to battle the terrorist network.

The force's leaders agreed to have their fighters join the ranks of local police under a deal U.S. commanders helped broker, said Lt. Col. James Lechner, deputy commander of the 1st Brigade.

The U.S. military said Sunday that it had secured the support of four tribes in Ramadi after a month-long security operation there. In western Anbar, police ranks grew from zero a year ago to more than 3,000 today, said Col. William Crowe, the U.S. commander there.

Local tribes came to recognize that al-Qaeda's message was just "anarchy and chaos," Zilmer said. "It just took some time to settle in."

And in yet another sign that the rules of engagement have changed comes this story from Baghdad

A U.S. military spokesman on Thursday hailed a joint American-Iraqi raid on Baghdad's leading Shiite Muslim mosque as proof of that the Baghdad security plan is being applied evenly against all sides of the country's sectarian divide.

The raid, which took place Wednesday, angered the mosque's imam, who took the unusual step of canceling Friday prayer services at the historic Baratha mosque, where, Shiites believe, Muhammad's son-in-law, Ali, converted a Christian missionary to Islam in the seventh century.

Sheik Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a member of parliament from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, denounced the raid, which the U.S. military said had turned up a cache of illegal weapons. The Supreme Council is one of Iraq's largest political parties and part of its governing coalition.

Searching mosques has been a particularly sensitive issue since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. In delivering the decree that legalized the security plan earlier this week, Iraqi army Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar said soldiers would enter mosques only if they were used "for illegal purposes" or to protect citizens from harm.

In a statement released Thursday afternoon, the U.S. military said the mosque was raided "during operations targeting illegally armed militia kidnapping, torture and murder activities." It said the mosque was used "to conduct sectarian violence against Iraqi civilians as well as a safe haven and weapons storage area for illegal militia groups."

Sunni Muslims have reported being held and beaten in the mosque, but little had been done about it before. The Supreme Council's armed wing, the Badr Organization, has been accused of kidnapping and torturing Sunnis.

The statement said U.S. forces had provided protection around the mosque while Iraqi soldiers entered it with the cooperation of its security guards.

Three Russian PKC machine guns and 80 assault rifles were seized, the statement said. No one was detained and no injuries were reported.

Meanwhile, in the US House of Representative, Democrats attempt to obscure their real motivations. From The Washington Post

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

This is what the new Majority Party calls leadership.
 

White Flag Republicans

On the House floor yesterday, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said

"Listening to this debate today and to the opposition to the 'surge' being espoused by the Democratic majority I have begun to wonder . . . What if? I have made it clear that I support the 'surge' and the president's new strategy. My Democratic friends have made it clear that they oppose the 'surge' and the president's new strategy, and that is their right. At this moment, a majority of Americans appear to be with the Democrats. But what if? What if they're wrong? What if you're wrong? What if the 'surge' and General Petraeus and our brave men and women in Iraq succeed?"

I have pointed out that while Americans don't necessarily like the situation in Iraq, they most definitely do not want to lose.

But there are a group of Republicans who think they are being politically savvy, but what they are really doing is betting against the President, General Petraeus, and the troops fighting in Iraq. They think they are saving their jobs.

Americans don't want to lose in Iraq. And the fact of the matter is, the new plan may very well succeed. And one thing every politician knows is that success has a whole lotta fathers.

Whether on not the new plan succeeds, we will remember the names of those who turned their backs and showed cowardice when the chips were down.

The vote in the House takes place today, and as of this moment, those Republicans who will vote for failure; the White Flag Republicans; the Move-On Republicans shall be named.

NRCC Chairman Representative Tom Cole

Representative Roscoe Gardner Bartlett

Representative James T. Walsh

Representative Walter Jones

Representative Wayne Gilchrest

Representative Michael Castle

Representative Richard (Ric) Keller

Representative Philip Sheridan English

Representative Ronald Ernest Paul

Representative Frederick Stephen Upton

Representative Thomas M. Davis

Representative Mark Kirk

Representative Howard Coble

Representative John J. Duncan Jr.

Representative James Ramstad

Representative Steven C. LaTourette

Representative Thomas Petri

Representative Bob Inglis

Representative Timothy V. Johnson

Now to be fair, I would identify a group called the White Flag Democrats, but it will be easier to enumerate those who are not surrender monkeys. And once the vote is in, I will do just that if there are any.

I will also add to the list (or remove from the list as appropriate) of White Flag Republicans as new information becomes available.

Today, they will identify themselves.

UPDATE: The votes are cast. Seventeen Republicans voted for the non-binding resolution. I have corrected the list above to remove two (strikeouts) and add three (bolded).

It turns out two Democrats voted with 180 Republicans in a futile attempt to defeat the resolution that bets against the soldiers in the field. And as promised, I will name the brave:

Representative Jim Marshall of the great state of Georgia

Representative Gene Taylor of Mississippi

Which just goes to show, not all Democrats are delusional.

Task Force 145 hunting

After successfully bringing down al Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Task Force 145 got a new job almost immediately: Kill or capture al Qaida in Iraq's new leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

Last week, they caught a break: They captured one of his aides

Iraqi security forces detained an aide to the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq in a raid early Thursday at a gas station south of Baghdad, state-run television and a security official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the aide to Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was one of two men arrested in the dawn raid.

This may have resulted in an operation yesterday that killed another of Masri's aides, and almost killed the man himself

According to Iraqi state television, Masri was hurt in a clash with Iraqi security forces in Dhuluiyah, north of Baghdad. He is said to have escaped....

According to news agency reports, security sources said a senior aide to Masri, Abu Abdullah al-Majemaai, had been killed in the battle.

The US Military has neither confirmed nor denied the report and it must be said that information coming from the Iraqi Information Ministry about such things has often been unreliable.

Regardless, one fact remains: as long as al Masri breathes, Task Force 145 will be breathing down his neck.

It's just a matter of time....

Really Gone

It has been confirmed; Moqtada al-Sadr has fled the scene, though the crew he left behind in Iraq isn't putting his departure in quite those terms.

An adviser to Iraq's prime minister said Thursday that radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is in Iran, but denied he fled due to fear of arrest during an escalating security crackdown.

Of course, just yesterday they were not only denying he had left, they were denying that he would ever leave.

"This news is false," said Abdul Razzaq al-Nidawi, a senior al-Sadr spokesman reached by telephone in the province of Diwaniya. "Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr is still in Najaf and he did not and will not leave the city."

..."They want to harm the Sadr movement by suggesting that Moqtada al-Sadr is being paid by Iran, and then, under the pretext of him being an agent and a collaborator with Iran, which is impossible . . . they want to hunt him down," he said.

Well, he is paid by Iran and gets his weapons, training, money and marching orders from Iran. And if that knowledge hurts the image of the thugs he commands, so much the better.

But why it is that Junior al Sadr feels safe in Iran is a mystery to me. Because, it seems, that Iran is getting a taste of it's own medicine.

At least 18 people were killed when a car bomb exploded near an Iranian military bus Wednesday morning in the southeastern Iranian border town of Zahedan, officials reported.
 
An undetermined number of people were wounded in the bombing.

A witness said the car blew up as soon as the bus, which belonged to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, arrived to pick up military personnel at the barracks.

Two motorcycle riders reportedly fired shots at the bus, forcing it to stop near the car bomb, which was then detonated by remote control, a witness said. Zahedan is located along the Iran-Pakistan border.

I wonder who did that? (terrorists) Oh and that's just the latest news. Recently

A senior nuclear physicist involved in Iran's nuclear program has died under mysterious circumstances two weeks ago....

Professor Ardashir Hosseinpour, was a world authority on electromagnetism. He was until recently working in one of the central processing sites in Iran's nuclear program. Professsor Hosseeinpour was working on enrichment of uranium at the facility in Isfahan.

The physicist died January 18, but news of his death was only reported six days later in two Iranian media outlets.

Too bad, so sad. I won't miss the guy.

But I wonder, who did that? (Well you could blame the joos, but they are just the Little Satan)

Perhaps all this, and the fact that Iran's economy is falling apart, is having an effect

Iran's hard-line president, who has berated the United States and refused to compromise on his nuclear program, is now softening his tone, saying Monday he wants dialogue rather than confrontation in Iraq. Tehran also denied it gave sophisticated weapons to militants to attack U.S. forces.

Gee, what do you think al Sadr's life is really worth to Iran now that the US Military, now with improved Iraqi political support, is kicking ass and taking names to the extent that he had to flee the country. Do you think maybe, just maybe, Iran will hand al Sadr's head to the Americans if it means the US might, say, ease some of the banking restrictions, or help to stop people blowing shit up in Iran?

Maybe. The Iranians have to do something. Making al Sadr really gone could help.