The Cool Blue Blog

Emergency legislation

The Democratic Leadership chose to ignore the President's veto threat and pass an Emergency Funding bill full of surrender and pork. Then, promptly left town for Spring Break. Secretary of Defense Gates has told Congress the appropriation is required by April 15th in order to continue to support the troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the bill still has to be reconciled in committee between the House and the Senate, then vetoed by Bush, then go back to Congress so a less stupid appropriations bill can be passed.

Meanwhile, Congress is on Spring Break and the Emergency spending bill need to get bullets to the front is languishing.

Holding off on appropriating the money, is also holding off the planned offensive in the al Qaida stronghold in Diyala province. But Democrats don't care much about fighting our enemies, only Republicans.

To underscore this, Democrats have also decided that it would be a good idea to piss off Turkey; one of Iraq's neighbors, a NATO member, and US ally by passing a symbolic bill that condemns the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire almost a century ago.

Turkey vehemently denies the genocide, in which 1.5 million Armenians died during a period of several years, beginning in 1915. It contends that the deaths occurred in the chaos of war, as the Ottoman Empire was falling apart, and that many Turks were also killed when Armenians sided with Russian forces in the hope of claiming territory in eastern Turkey....

A vote in Congress would be purely symbolic, but Turks have warned that it would be felt as a bitter slap, and could cause enormous public pressure on the government in Ankara to chill its cooperation with Washington, which has strong military ties to Turkey, a NATO member...

In an effort to highlight Turkey’s opposition to a Congressional resolution, many high-ranking Turkish officials have visited Washington in recent months. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, one of them, says that the damage would be very deep if the resolution passed.

“It is only natural that the Turkish public who closely follow the issue would also react to this strongly,” Mr. Gul said in a telephone interview this week. “As the elected government of democratic Turkey, we would not be able to remain indifferent. However, I am confident that common sense would prevail at the Congress.”

Mr. Gates and Ms. Rice, in joint letters, spoke sympathetically of “the horrendous suffering that ethnic Armenians endured” and called for more study of the events. But they also noted that when the French National Assembly voted last year, the Turkish military responded by deciding to “cut all contacts with the French military and terminated defense contracts under negotiation.”

Can we afford to enrage a population from whom we need help in both stabalizing Iraq and persuing the war on terror over a matter that happened 90 years ago by people long dead?

And what ramifications might such a vote have on our troops in Iraq?

Daniel Fried, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, warned in testimony to Congress in mid-March that Turkish wrath could be so strong that Turkey might bar American access to Incirlik Air Base, in eastern Turkey, through which 74 percent of United States military air cargo destined for Iraq passes.

Secretary Gates

...chose a meeting of the American-Turkish Council in Washington, a business group that promotes American-Turkish cooperation on trade, security and cultural matters, to make a major policy speech on Tuesday. Not only did he describe Turkey as an ally that “I have long believed to be undervalued and underappreciated,” but he made a point of arguing against the genocide resolution.

“Our two nations should oppose measures and rhetoric that needlessly and destructively antagonize each other,” Mr. Gates said Tuesday.

But to a ham-handed, ireesponsible, politically deaf and blind Democratic leadership, it's just another way to ensure defeat for Bush.

Similar Congressional votes have been deferred in the past after intense lobbying. But with strong support for the resolution from Ms. Pelosi, and lingering resentment in Congress over Turkey’s refusal to let United States forces use Turkish soil for the invasion of Iraq, the bill’s prospects may have grown.

“It has 183 sponsors,” said Elizabeth Chouldjian of the Armenian National Committee of America. “It is very likely that if it came up for a vote right now, it would pass.”

And you know what? Most will not even know about or recognize the harm that passage of this bill will do.

Which is just what the Democrats want: Subversion without blame.

3rd ACR: Valorous Unit Award

Army 3rd Armored Cavalry – Valorous Unit Award

Brave Rifles! Veterans! You have been baptized in fire and blood and have come out steel! –General Winfield Scott, 1847

In the annals of American military history, there have been thousands of acts of heroism – men and women whose individual courage merited some of the nation’s highest commendations. It is sometimes forgotten, however, that the ethos of the American warrior does not lie in the individual. Heroism lies in something beyond self, which is why the United States also recognizes those units that display extraordinary gallantry in action, gallantry that sets the unit apart from other units serving in the same conflict.

Long before cities like Fallujah, Ramadi, Qaim, and Husaybah became widely known, the men and women of the 3rd Cavalry formed the nucleus of Task Force Rifles – a regimental combat team 8,300 troopers strong.

In late April 2003, the team was tasked with securing the volatile Anbar region, a vast 140,000 square-kilometer area the size of Wyoming, which includes some of Iraq’s most forbidding terrain – and some of Iraq’s most hardened and lethal insurgents. In all, the unit received more than 400 awards for individual acts of valor and 233 purple hearts for their actions in Iraq. But it was their distinguished work as a unit, in the most complex and dangerous region of Iraq, that made them so noteworthy.

Shortly after the ground invasion of Iraq began, the 3rd Cavalry arrived in Anbar and began the arduous work of securing the entire province, and laying the groundwork for future combat forces and regional development. Anbar had been bypassed on the lightning drive to Baghdad, and there was little intelligence on what could be expected.

The mission ran the gamut of military operations – from security patrols to reconnaissance to capturing and killing former regime elements – throughout Anbar, including within the infamous Sunni Triangle. The team caught several high-value targets, including members of the mostwanted “deck of cards.” Task Force Rifles was also responsible for numerous activities outside of usual combat operations: opening Iraqi police stations, courthouses, and prisons; securing mass-grave sites; building schools; and distributing food (49,000 humanitarian daily rations) and economic assistance ($60 million to 40,000 civil servants).

Fat chance

Britain is going to the UN to try to get Iran censured by the Security Council for taking 15 sailors hostage

For even daring to take such action, Iran recinded its promise to release the one female sailor it has abducted.

What are the chances that the UN will act?

...Security Council diplomats said the brief press statement circulated by Britain's U.N. Mission is likely to face problems from Russia and others because it says the Britons were "operating in Iraqi waters" — a point the Iranian government contests.

Right. And, consider this piece written by Robert Mayer

Foreign Policy's Passport blog has a post up about how the UN Human Rights Council has become a complete joke, a shadow of its supposed ideals. It writes about latest developments this week in Geneva:

In Geneva this week, any pretense of utility or fairness that clung to the United Nations Human Rights Council finally evaporated. By a decisive margin, the Council voted to end its examination of Iran and Uzbekistan despite worsening human rights records in both countries. Japan, South Korea, and Brazil were surprising votes in favor of the free passes; they had been supported more predictably by Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and Azerbaijan.

Ironic given that Iran and Uzbekistan are perhaps some of the worst human rights violators in the world...

In nearly a year, here is a brief list of some of the Human Rights Council's greatest accomplishemnts:

• Successfully condemned one country only, Israel.
• Repeat the above seven more times.
• Voted on June 30, 2006, to review Israeli human rights abuses at every council session.
• While investigating the Israeli-Hezbollah war, it announced that, "the Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe [its charter] as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel." No bias here.
• Cuba is mounting a campaign to eliminate the council's ability to even investigate human rights.

Clearly, abducting these British sailors, violating the Geneva Conventions, and jailing anti-government bloggers are not Human Rights abuses according to the UN.

You know, the UN is supposed to be the place where countries come to settle disputes such as this current hostage situation so they do not become a flashpoint for war. But in each and every case where they are called upon to do their job, they fail.

And their failure can cost lives.

Surrender is not an option

Ed Morrissey today points to a petition that allows those who are opposed to the irresponsible way the Democratic leadership has handled the Emergency Supplemental Approriation for Iraq and Afghanistan to have their voices heard.

OK, so the petition is located at a McCain for President web site; a person for whom I am unlikely to vote. And yes, if you leave your email and zip code you are likely to get campaign material from McCain in you letter boxes: real and virtual.

BUT, it does express a sentiment with which I agree

• The supplemental appropriations bill that passed the Senate on March 27, calling for a date certain withdrawal from Iraq, is nothing more than a guaranteed date of surrender.
• It is a refusal to acknowledge the dire consequences of failure, in terms of the stability in the Middle East and the resulting impact on the security of all Americans, whether home or abroad.
• Democrats have chosen the politically expedient position of failure rather than putting aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our nation and the values upon which this nation rests.
• We the undersigned remain steadfast in our support for the war against terrorism and mindful of the consequences of failure in Iraq, even if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refuse to acknowledge those consequences.
• We support our troops and the new strategy and believe it should be given the opportunity to succeed. American national security interests are directly at stake. Success or failure in Iraq is the transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security. People say they want to defeat the terrorists, but if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.
• If we leave Iraq based on an artificial timetable, al Qaeda will be free to plan, train for and conduct operations from Iraq just as they did in Afghanistan before 9/11.

So I signed.

You might be interested as well.

Compromise on a Timetable for withdrawal

Democrats want to start withdrawing troops from Iraq starting in four months. Republicans don't want a timetable at all. Sitting here in my pajamas, I offer a compromise.

Democrats (and Leftists) are always using a comparison to World War II; as in "The war in Iraq has lasted longer than US involvement in World War II". And I think part of their problem is that they use historical heuristics rather than historical accuracy when they devise policy statements. So before I can make my proposal, we have to set the historical record straight.

As Ari Berman, writing for The Nation correctly points out

Germany declared war on the US on December, 11, 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor. The US announced victory in Europe on May 8, 1945. That's one thousand, two hundred and forty-four days.

But that was only the end of Major Combat Operations in Europe (not World War II) and the correct comparison in Iraq would be how long it took us to capture Baghdad. Major Combat Operations in Iraq began on  March 20th, 2003 and ended on  April 9th, 2003. Bush announced the end of Major Combat Operations on May 1st. So to be generous, we'll use that date. That would be 42 days.

So in Iraq, the Evil Rumsfeld took 42 days what it took the noble Henry Lewis Stimson 1244 days during WWII. (And that was just to end the war in Europe).

Now, the occupation of Germany lasted another ten years. The "Agreement on Control Machinery in Germany" was signed by Russia, France, Britain and the US on 14 November 1944. This began the official Allied Occupation of Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany (aka West Germany up until 1990) came into existence in May 1949 four years after the occupation began. That would be the equivalent in Iraq today of when the permanent Iraqi Government was elected in October of 2005.

So the evil George Bush did in 2 years what the hero FDR took 4 years to do.

But we still aren't done.

West Germany, or the FRG was declared "fully sovereign" on 5 May 1955; for Democrats and Leftists that's ten years after Major Combat Operations ended.

And in case you think the occupation to sovereignty was a cake walk, consider

In the months and years following the end of the World War Two, Allied forces faced a series of bombings and attacks in occupied  Germany.

Nazi loyalists attempted to derail the rebuilding process by killing any Germans collaborating with the enemy. And the mysterious SS-Werewolves underground organization boasted of the coming  rebirth  of the Party.

But we're not done yet.

US Military is still, today in Germany under agreements with the German government. The US is only now, 62 years after winning the war in Europe and occupying Germany, leaving Germany. And not completely.

So given the history of World War II, which Democrats and Leftists think is an appropriate analogy, I say that as a compromise between the two sides ('cause, you know, I'm a uniter not a divider), I say we settle on a time line that says the US should begin its pullout from Iraq in 2013; with an option to stay if the government of Iraq wants us to stay.

Sound fair? Democrats (and Leftists) get their time table, and Republicans get to finish the job of stabilizing the government of Iraq.

I like it.

Oh wait: Leftists don't want a time table. They want us to lose immediately.

Well, you know what they say: you can't please everyone.

Chickenhawks, the Geneva Conventions, and the Constitution

Let's take these in reverse order. First, the Constitution:

How is it that US Senators can get so confused about the Constitution? Take White Flag Republican Chuck Hagel for instance.

"Any president who says 'I don't care' or 'I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else' or 'I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed' — if a president really believes that, then there are … ways to deal with that," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week."

Now what, precisely is he talking about? Did not Congress give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq? And has that authority been rescinded by Congress? Clearly not.

Now clearly he is talking about legislation that was recently passed in the House and expected to pass in the Senate wherein a troop withdrawal is mandated; attached as it is to  funding for the war. But according to the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

Clearly the President can veto the bill, and Congress must then must a two-thirds majority to get their way.

Now Hagel, "who is considering a presidential run", would likely want to look up the duties and powers of the office to which he aspires. You can not impeach a President for vetoing a bill.

The Geneva Conventions

Iran has captured 11 British soldiers and they want to try them as spies.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

But this is absurd. These people were all captured in uniform, therefore, by definition, they can not be spies according to the Geneva Conventions. Since they were in uniform, the best Iran can do is hold them as prisoners of war. But if they were to do that, they can't interrogate them and they must allow visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross, also according to the Geneva Conventions.

But neither is Iran offering nor is the ICRC demanding such adherence to the Conventions.

Why is it that only the US is subject to the rules?

And finally, ChickenHawks

The New Editor (via Instapundit) wants to know who your favorite ChickenHawk is. You can choose among Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, FDR

I'm partial to Ben Franklin myself. But it looks like he's third at the moment after Lincoln and FDR: both good choices.

The Wild, Wild, West

Al Qaida in Iraq continues to fight for Western Iraq and the wild, tribal area known as Anbar province. Many of the tribes that live here have aligned themselves with the Government, and as a result, police recruitment is up. Al Qaida's strategy is to discourage this and kill the tribal leaders.

A car bomb in Ramadi yesterday targeted Iraqi police

A suicide car bomb exploded outside a restaurant frequented by Iraqi police on a main road north of Ramadi, killing 17 people and wounding dozens more on Tuesday, a source at Ramadi hospital said.

The source said a high-ranking police officer was among the many policemen killed and wounded in the blast.

But the US and Government-backed tribes have had significant success

...the Anbar Salvation Council, a grouping of the Anbar tribes along with elements of insurgent groups such as the 1920s Revolution Brigades and the Islamic Army of Iraq, have organized to oppose al Qaeda. A pitched battle outside Amiriya in early March highlighted the strength of the Anbar Salvation Council.

The Anbar Salvation Council recently claimed killing over 70 al Qaeda, including four Saudis, during battles over the past two weeks in Abu Ghraib. The Zubaie tribe in Abu Ghraib has begun to fight al Qaeda as well, after the terrorist group claimed responsibility for the assassination attempt of Salam al-Zubaie, one of Iraq's two deputy prime ministers.

Now, coalition and tribal forces have launched a new offensive in Ramadi

American and Iraqi forces have launched a “major operation” in Ramadi designed to expand security zones in the contested city, officials said Monday.

The operation focuses on western Ramadi and includes troops from Task Force 1-9 Infantry and Iraqi police and soldiers. It is the fourth such large-scale clearing operation conducted in the city since February, officials said, and aims to create a permanent presence of Iraqi and American troops where there previously was none.

“This operation will benefit the people of Ramadi by establishing security and providing basic services and necessities,” U.S. Army Col. John Charlton, commander of 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, said in a news release. “[Al-Qaida] has intimidated the people of Ramadi through murder, kidnapping and the destruction of their city. The Sons of Anbar are here to establish and maintain security,” Charlton said, referring to Iraqi troops specifically recruited in and deployed in the province.

But al Qaida is trying really hard to get rid of their pesky Sunni opponents

Al Qaeda in Iraq is pressing hard with its assassination, terror and intimidation campaign against Sunni tribal leaders and insurgent groups who refuse to join the Islamic State of Iraq, al Qaeda's political front designed to give the Sunni insurgency an Iraqi face. Today, al Qaeda conducted a suicide attack against the home of Sheikh Thahir al-Dhari, the leader of the al-Zuba'a tribe. Thahir was not killed in the attack, however his son, Harith al-Dhari, was killed along with two aides.

Harith al-Dhari, (who shares the name with the infamous Harith al-Dhari, who is his uncle and head of the insurgent-supporting Muslim Scholars Association), was a leader in the 1920s Revolution Brigades, a nationalist Sunni insurgent group. Elements of the 1920s Revolution Brigades are actively cooperating with the Anbar Salvation Council, the political and military front consisting of tribal leaders and insurgent groups.

As of last September, the leadership of 25 of the 31 Anbari tribes were cooperating with the government, while 6 tribes, know in some military intelligence circles as “The Sinister Six,” were aligned with al Qaeda. Two of the Sinister Six are the Albu Issa and the al-Zuba'a.

The Iraqi government, the Coalition and the Anbar Salvation Council are actively working to split off the Albu Issa and the al-Zuba'a from al-Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq. The efforts are showing progress. The Albu Issa are turning on al Qaeda in the Fallujah region, while the al-Zuba'a, which have a strong presence in Abu Ghraib, Zaidon and Fallujah, have begun to fight al Qaeda, along with the 1920s Revolution Brigades.

The assassination attempts against Sheikh Thahir al-Dhari and Salam al-Zubaie, one of Iraq's two Deputy Prime Ministers. Ministers, as well as the chlorine strikes against the Albu Issa must be viewed in this context.

This is no time to pull out and leave these people to their fate.

Vermont's Emergency Pork

The Senate Democrats had as much trouble rounding up Senators to vote for defeat in Iraq as the House was finding Representatives.

Similar legislation drew only 48 votes in the Senate earlier this month, but Democratic leaders hoped that changes made since then would be enough to persuade holdout Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas to swing behind the proposal and ensure its survival.

What changes might those be? The House's solution was to buy votes with pork. The Senate Democrats figured they might try the same. In discussing this subject last Friday, ABC News noted

Because Democrats may not have the 51 votes to pass their bill, they may have to water it down or add some pork to entice reluctant senators to support it.

Well they didn't and they did: 20  Billion Dollars worth of pork.

Several Republicans took to the Senate floor on Monday, criticizing Democrats for including about $20 billion for domestic programs in the spending request. Senators were also considering attaching such issues as the minimum wage increase to the legislation. The version that passed in the House last week included a long list of items not related to Iraq.

Now Vermont's Senator Patrick Leahy is not a guy you have to buy. He has a terminal case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. But at the same time, he's not one to pass up bringing home the bacon. And bring home the bacon he did. During the debate

Conservatives say appropriators have circumvented an anti-earmark pledge made during consideration of the fiscal 2007 continuing resolution (PL 110-5). Appropriators rescinded $2 million from that measure and redirected it to the supplemental to start the “Educational Excellence Program” at the University of Vermont.

Why? Because he could

               

Vermont Democrat Patrick J. Leahy is an Appropriations subcommittee chairman.

The Senate version of the Emergency Spending Bill to fund the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will likely pass the Senate by a narrow margin, is special because it does not count against the budget. And earmarks (pork) don't get voted on.

This bill will be vetoed by the President. But no veto can erase the fact that some used our Military men and women who are risking their lives in order to further the perogative of corruption.

We may not know who all of them are, but the ones we know will be stained.

Not that it matters. For they are shameless.

What did you expect?

Some, maybe a lot of folks out there in America put Democrats in charge of Congress because they were angry that the Republicans were not being fiscally responsible. And, the fact is, they weren't. We got the tax cut side, which did grow the revenue stream and income to the government, but we didn't get the cut spending side. And the growth of government was not curtailed in any way under their leadership.

So people voted to throw the bums out.

So now we have leadership that is still spending like crazy (though they campaigned to cut the pork) and they want to raise taxes to boot.

The Senate Democrats, writing their first budget resolution since winning control in Congress last fall, have produced a budget blueprint that:

• Raises taxes by $900 billion over five years and a projected $3.3 trillion over ten years;
• Translates into a tax increase of $2,641 per household annually over the next decade;
• Includes 22 reserve funds that could be used to raise taxes by hundreds of billions more;
• Increases discretionary spending by nearly 9 percent in FY 2008 and does not terminate a single program;
• Completely ignores the impending tsunami of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs;
• Creates rules that bias the budget toward tax increases; and
• Employs the same gimmicks that Congress criticized the President for using in his budget proposal.

The House budget resolution projects nearly the same 2008-2012 tax revenue as the Senate and would increase discretionary spending by an additional $69 billion.

Um, I'm sure you've heard the term "Tax and Spend Democrats". What? Did you think that wasn't true any more? Did you think they "got over it"? That they really were about fiscal discipline?

Seeking to justify the unjustifiable, the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said nonmilitary items in the spending bill were necessary because those stingy Republicans who held the majority for 12 years neglected important needs.

All this says is that clearly spending under Republicans could have been worse.

So what did you expect when you voted for Democrats?

Strong on national defense? Be tough on fighting Islamists?

They ain't that either.

Sunnis against al Qaida

Last week, al Qaida attacked Sunnis in al Anbar province with chemical weapons

Three trucks rigged with chlorine and explosives blew up in the Sunni insurgent center of Anbar province on Friday, killing at least eight people and sickening hundreds, U.S. and Iraqi officials said yesterday. The U.S. military also reported the deaths of six American soldiers in other attacks.

The chlorine attacks — two near Fallujah and one near Ramadi — left at least 350 people and seven U.S. soldiers ill from exposure to the chemical, the military said. At least eight people were killed in the Fallujah bombings, including two policemen, said Sadoun Abdul Karim, an official with the Ministry of Interior.

While this attack kill many people, the significance was not lost on the Sunnis who live there: this is not a war about sectarianism

"These explosions show the rest of the Iraqis that Sunnis are being targeted. Criminality is in their blood," said Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, a sheik who has led a U.S.-backed effort bring together tribes opposed to al-Qaida in Iraq. "Their techniques are changing continuously, but we will exterminate them totally by our brave men."

Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi is a man who is ready and willing to go after al Qaida and force them out of Iraq

“I swear to God, if we have good weapons, if we have good vehicles, if we have good support, I can fight Al Qaeda all the way to Afghanistan,” he said recently as he sat smoking in a dark jacket and brown robes while meeting with a sheik from another Sunni tribe in his hotel room.

Thirty-five years old, with a goatee, he is a man clearly on our side

there is no mistaking whose side Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi is on. Outside his walled home, a U.S. tank is on permanent guard beside a clutch of towering date palms and a protective dirt berm.

The 36-year-old sheik is leading a growing movement of Sunni tribesmen who have turned against al-Qaida-linked insurgents in Anbar province. The dramatic shift in alliances may have done more in a few months to ease daily street battles and undercut the insurgency here than American forces have achieved in years with arms.

The American commander responsible for Ramadi, Col. John W. Charlton, said the newly friendly sheiks, combined with an aggressive counterinsurgency strategy and the presence of thousands of new Sunni police on the streets, have helped cut attacks in the city by half in recent months.

But when you read reports of this being a new event, don't believe them. This is something US forces have been working on for over a year. The road has been rocky, and it was al Qaida itself that provided the breakthrough

In November 2005, American commanders held a breakthrough meeting with top Sunni chiefs in Ramadi, hoping to lure them away from the insurgents' fold. The sheiks promised cooperation and men for a police force that was then virtually nonexistent.

But in January 2006 a suicide bomber attacked a police recruiting drive, killing 70 people. Insurgents killed at least four sheiks for cooperating with the Americans, and others fled.

The killings left the effort in limbo, until a turning point: Insurgents killed a prominent sheik last year and refused to let family members bury the body for four days, enraging Sunni tribesmen, said U.S. Lt. Col. Miciotto Johnson, who heads the 1st Battalion, 77th Armored Regiment and visits al-Rishawi frequently in western Ramadi.

Al-Rishawi, whose father and three brothers were killed by al-Qaida assassins, said insurgents were "killing innocent people, anyone suspected of opposing them. They brought us nothing but destruction and we finally said, 'enough is enough.' "

Now, only Leftists, Democrats and the New York Times need to get the memo.

While al Qaida continues operations in al Anbar province, they are retreating to Diyala province. But it will not remain a haven for the butchers for long

The U.S. military has developed battle plans designed to clear al-Qaeda out of Iraq.

High level military intelligence sources have told CBN News the offensive would target the Iraqi province of Diyala.

The province is located just northeast of Baghdad, along the Iranian border.

Many of al-Qaeda's forces in Baghdad moved there when the new troop surge was announced in January. Diyala is now a major launching pad for al-Qaeda suicide bombing attacks.

"If you want to diminish the amount of car bombers and suicide bombers, you have to take the fight right to the source. And in this case, the source is Diyala," said CBN News consultant Daveed Gartenstein-Ross.

Gartenstein-Ross says the Diyala offensive will be even bigger than the major U.S. operation in Fallujah back in 2004-which cleared out a city that had been a major insurgent stronghold.

Military sources say the Fallujah operation directly led to the success of the 2005 Iraqi elections.

Gartenstein-Ross said, "Here, the goal is going to be to drive these guys out of the country entirely."

Sounds like a plan Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi can get behind.