Like it, or not.

U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

What say you now, James Baker?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:44 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

In response to the Iraqi Interior Ministry (MOI) confirming today that no man by the name of Jamil Hussein is employed in any capacity by the MOI or the Iraqi Police, the Associated Press has issued it own release.

Read both statements, press conference transcript where the story originated at Flopping Aces, where Curt has his own thoughts on the matter. I'll wait till you get back.

* * *

Frankly, I'm stunned at the outright arrogance of Kathleen Carroll, Executive Editor of the Associated Press, and statements that she made in her release that—in my opinion—are willful, skillful, and purposeful subterfuge.

Carroll completely glosses over the fact that her news organization originally reported that four mosques had been burned according to their original story, an error for which she does not account for here, not one the Associated Press has ever printed a retraction for.

Carroll stands by the AP's reporting that states that six people were burned alive.

The AP is curiously unable to name five of the six alleged victims, even though they were reportedly killed in their own neighborhood. In this tightly-knit, often-interrelated communal neighborhoods, especially in what the AP itself describes as an "enclave," I find the inability of the AP's reporters to find witnesses who could name those who were reputably killed a most unlikely claim.

Carroll goes on to insist, though not by name, that Captain Jamil Hussein is too an Iraqi policeman, just not one approved to speak to the media.

That is also a deliberate deception, coming directly on the heels of MOI Brigadier General Abdul Kareem Khalaf Al-Kenani's statement that no Iraqi policemen by that name existed, in any capacity.

If Kathleen Carroll wants me to believe that the Associated Press knows better than the MOI who MOI employees are, she had better produce a (live) Iraqi Police Captain claiming to be Jamil Hussein to back her story. While she's at it, she can provide evidence that six people were burned alive, starting with their names, their graves, and any proof that these events were something other than an insurgent propaganda. No one else has evidence that these people ever existed or that they were burned alive, other than the two anonymous AP reporters.

The Associated Press is clearly attempting to duck the issue.

I want to see Jamil Hussein.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:26 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

I've been very fortunate to establish cordial email relationships with what I regard as some of the most "real" reporters of the Iraq war, men who go out and join up with combat units, staying with them, and chronicling their movements. They have been termed "embeds," short for "embedded reporters."

Michael Yon spent nine months with the "Deuce Four" Striker Brigade. Read through his site when you have the time (Get a brief taste here), and you'll have a much better understanding of the American experience in this war.

Pat Dollard spent seven months, and survived two IED blasts, while embedded with the Marines. He's just finished up a documentary series that promises to be raw, and brutal, and if I don't miss my guess, historically important.

I'm presently reading a review copy of We Were One by embedded historian Patrick K. O'Donnell, who was with 1st Platoon of Lima Company, 1st Marine Regiment, when they took on the worst of the fighting in Fallujah.

I've recently talked to USAF airmen just back from their fourth and sixth tours, Army soldiers back from their first and second deployments in Mosul and Ramadi, and via Central Command, interviewed two soldiers (MPs) working with the Iraqi police in Baghdad.

Because of all this contact with folks who actually know firsthand what is going on, I know the media is frequently inaccurate. The single word I've commonly heard from those who have been in Iraq as part of the military regarding MSM reporting is "lies."

Find someone on your own who has been to Iraq. As them if the media is reporting the truth. They'll likely tell you the same thing.

Iraq sucks. All wars suck. But in many respects things are not as bad as the media reports, just as in some cases things are actually worse. Better or worse, the majority of reporting is inaccurate.

The problem with the general manner of Iraq war reporting was summed up quite well by another embed, Michael Fumento:

Would you trust a Hurricane Katrina report datelined "direct from Detroit"? Or coverage of the World Trade Center attack from Chicago? Why then should we believe a Time Magazine investigation of the Haditha killings that was reported not from Haditha but from Baghdad? Or a Los Angeles Times article on a purported Fallujah-like attack on Ramadi reported by four journalists in Baghdad and one in Washington? Yet we do, essentially because we have no choice. A war in a country the size of California is essentially covered from a single city. Plug the name of Iraqi cities other than Baghdad into Google News and you'll find that time and again the reporters are in IraqÂ’s capital, nowhere near the scene. Capt. David Gramling, public affairs officer for the unit I'm currently embedded with, puts it nicely: "I think it would be pretty hard to report on Baghdad from out here." Welcome to the not-so-brave new world of Iraq war correspondence.

Vietnam was the first war to give us reporting in virtually real time. Iraq is the first to give us virtual reporting. That doesnÂ’t necessarily make it biased against the war; it does make it biased against the truth.

The overwhelming majority of international journalists "reporting" from Iraq have never ventured out of their hotels in the Green Zone, a small area in Baghdad, and yet try to convince us they are reporting facts from around the entire nation. Based upon what, precisely? They are only reporting what stringers—local Iraqi and other Arab reporters, with sectarian, regional, and in some cases suspected insurgency-related biases—tell them.

These Baghdad reporters have no way of knowing if these stringers are reporting facts or are relaying propaganda, if the witnesses quoted are reliable or coached, or if the photos submitted to them are an accurate visual account of the events discussed in a story.

As Fumento notes elsewhere:

The London Independent's Robert Fisk has written of "hotel journalism," while former Washington Post Bureau Chief Rajiv Chandrasekaran has called it "journalism by remote control." More damningly, Maggie OÂ’Kane of the British newspaper The Guardian said: "We no longer know what is going on, but we are pretending we do." Ultimately, they canÂ’t even cover Baghdad yet they pretend they can cover Ramadi.

In short, we aren't questioning all of AP's stories based upon a single story, we are questioning a broken methodology that lead to such a story. There exists in the mediaÂ’s reporting in Iraq no effective editorial checks at the very root level of reporting, to verify that the most basic elements of the story are indeed factual, much less biased.

This is not just about one questionable story, or even one questionable source.

It's about one often-used and verified questionable source, among many verified questionable sources, including just this partial list for starters:

Lt. Ali Abbas; police Capt. Mohammed Abdel-Ghani; police Brigadier Sarhat Abdul-Qadir; Mosul police Director Gen. Wathiq al-Hamdani; police Lt. Bilal Ali; Ali al-Obaidi, a medic at Ramadi Hospital; police Maj. Firas Gaiti; police Captain Mohammed Ismail; Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the Interior Ministry spokesman (a.k.a. Police Brigadier Abd al-Karim Khalaf, Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, Brig. Abdel-Karim Khalaf); Mohammed Khayon, a Baghdad police lieutenant; police spokesman Mohammed Kheyoun (a.k.a. Police Lieutenant Mohammed Khayoun); Lt. Thaer Mahmoud, head of a police section responsible for releasing daily death tolls; police Lt. Bilal Ali Majid; police Lt. Ali Muhsin; police 1st Lt. Mutaz Salahhidine (a.k.a. Lieutenant Mutaz Salaheddin); Col. Abbas Mohammed Salman; and policeman Haider Satar.

Again, these men are just a partial list of questionable and potentially false witnesses used to lend an air of credibility to hundreds or thousands of news articles... and these are just from those sources claimed to be within the Iraqi Police and Ministry of Interior.

This is not to mention the dozens or hundreds of other witnesses in thousands of other stories that could have been either influenced in some way, or may be entirely fictitious, and far more difficult to prove false.

The flawed methodology that weakens the essential credibility of the news-gatherig process effects the overwhelming majority of stories printed and broadcast about Iraq each week. This weakness, this inherent and unchecked instability and inability to verify the core facts and actors in the most basic of stories, points out a methodological flaw in the news gathering efforts common to every major news organization reporting in Iraq.

After what was initially a spirited defense, the Associated Press has gone silent about the supposed existence of Police Capt. Jamil Hussein.

No one else seems to be able to find him.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:56 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 1106 words, total size 7 kb.

Bill Roggio is heading back to Iraq as an embed, an act I've come to respect as day-in, day-out the most dangerous assignment a journalist can undertake in Iraq.

He's also getting new gear, and incorporated as his own media company.

Check it out.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

The recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group have finally gone public... through a leak, of course:

Following an intense assessment of U.S. policies in the war in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group will recommend that a "gradual but meaningful" reduction of U.S. troops begin "relatively early in the New Year," a source familiar with the group's deliberations told CNN.

The language in the report -- which was compiled at the urging of Congress -- is being fine-tuned before it is presented to President Bush next week, but according to the source the work on the findings is basically done.

In the bipartisan panel's view, Bush needs to insist on implementing strict timetables for Iraqi improvements and communicate to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that there will be substantial troop reductions beginning in January.

While not providing a specific timetable for withdrawal -- which Bush opposes -- the group suggests major combat units be deployed "over time" to what the source described as "out of the bull's eye."

Cut and crawl.

Nuance, kids. Impose impotence as foreign policy.

It's worked so well so far.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

The resolution of this evolving story is going to be very interesting, and I think we can all agree that the one bit of evidence that matters is the material proof of the existence of one Iraqi Police Captain.

The Associated Press and U.S. Central Command are gambling, to different extents, their reputations on the existence of IP (Iraqi Police) Captain Jamil Hussein, with the Associated Press being much more at risk.

The AP has relied upon Captain Hussein as a primary source of information on many stories for months, and the news organization has effectively doubled-down by insisting he exists, and that their reporters have visited him in his office.

Central Command has reported that according to Iraqi Police and Ministry of Interior records, they do not employ a Jamil Hussein as any sort of police officer (much less a captain), nor as a MoI employee in any capacity.

If CentCom is wrong, their reputation will be tarnished, but only as much as relying on bad Iraqi record-keeping can be blamed.

If the Associated Press is wrong, then all the stories (including this one) that relied upon this expert witness—and potentially the dozens or hundreds of stories that relied upon 16 other IP/MOI "witnesses" that may not be legitimate—could go up in smoke.

The task for the Associated Press here is clear, immediate, and pressing: they must show, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their Captain Jamil Hussein is a living, breathing, legitimate member of the Iraqi Police.

I'd suggest a simple test: have the AP reporters that vouch for Captain Hussein drive with him to the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, where they can watch officials verify his paperwork and employment status. Central Command, of course, can have representatives on hand to witness the verification of Captain Hussein's credentials.

Captain Jamil Hussein must materialize, and quickly, or the credibility of Associated Press reporting in Iraq will suffer a tremendous blow.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:30 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Got any idea how many times the balance of power has shifted in the Middle East over the past 5000 years, or how many empires have risen, rules, and fallen over the region?

See 5,000 years of history in 90 seconds, courtesy of Maps of War:

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:39 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Please tell me that this means he gets it:

President Bush said Tuesday he is not ready to abandon the battlefield in Iraq to sectarian insurgents whose violent attacks on innocent Iraqis are part of a broad goal to overthrow governments and send coalition forces running.

"Extremists are using terror to stop the spread of freedom. Some are Shiite extremists, others are Sunni extremists, but they represent different faces of the same threat. And if they succeed in undermining fragile democracies and drive the forces of freedom out of the region, they will have an open field to pursue their goals," Bush said in a speech at the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia.

Insurgents "seek to convince America and our allies that we cannot defeat them and that our only hope is to withdraw and abandon an entire region to their domination," he said. "If we allow the extremists to do this, then 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why we did not act."

I can hope that President Bush means what he says here. It would mean that he does, in fact, still understand the stakes of the larger conflict beyond the borders of Iraq, but what troubles me is his reluctance to publicly admit what he already knows, which is that those most responsible for the continued support and spread of violence in Iraq is not al Qaeda, but Iran and Syria.

As I've mentioned previously, a state of war exists between the United States and the governments of Iran and Syria, and that the question before us now is whether or not we chose to acknowledge this state of war that our adversaries have instigated, and if we will take the steps needed end this state of conflict with a minimal loss of life on all sides.

Bob Woodward's book, State of Denial, states that Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have been urging Hezbollah to train Iraqi insurgents on how to build and use shaped-charge IEDs to target American armored vehicles.

Woodward states (via NRO):

Pages 414-415: "Some evidence indicated that the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah was training insurgents to build and use the shaped IED's, at the urging of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That kind of action was arguably an act of war by Iran against the United States. If we start putting out everything we know about these things, Zelikow felt, the administration might well start a fire it couldn't put out..."

Page 449: "The components and the training for (the IEDs) had more and more clearly been traced to Iran, one of the most troubling turns in the war."

Page 474ß: "The radical Revolutionary Guards Corps had asked Hizbollah, the terrorist organization, to conduct some of the training of Iraqis to use the EFPs, according to U.S. Intelligence. If all this were put out publicly, it might start a fire that no one could put out...Second, if it were true, it meant that Iranians were killing American soldiers — an act of war..."

This same theme was picked up by today's New York Times, which reports:

A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.

The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.

Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria.

While they would never dare to characterize it as such, the Times article verifies what Woodward and former FBI Director Louis Freeh has already told us: we are at War with Iran.

Iran builds shaped-charge IEDS, delivers those shaped-charge IEDS to terrorists that they have created and/or trained, for use against American soldiers. Iran is quite seriously at war with the United States. Why do we refuse to acknowledge that?

Michael Ledeen notes (my bold):

Thanks to Cliff, and to Dexter Filkins for getting someone to admit, once again, that Iran and Syria are all over Iraq.

Victor says we should first stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's skipping a step. It is impossible so long as the mullahs rule in Tehran and Assad commands in Damascus. It is a regional war. If we continue to misunderstand it, if we remain locked in this fundamental error of strategic vision, we will endlessly respond to our enemies' initiatives, playing defense in one place after another. Today in Iraq and Afghanistan, tomorrow in Lebanon, Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopea and Eritrea (that is the mullahs' game plan), then in Israel and Europe, and finally here at home. We do not need intelligence agencies to know this, all we need to do is listen to our enemies, who announce it at the top of their lungs.

There is no escape from this war, and we haven't even begun to wage it. Once we do, we will find that we've got many political and economic weapons, most of them inside our enemies' lands. I entirely agree with Victor that Iran and Syria are fragile, brittle, and anxious. They know their people hate them, and they know that revolution could erupt if we supported it.

Of course, as Victor says, our leaders may be so demoralized that we could just surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the realists and the antisemites desire. But that would only delay the reckoning, and ensure that the war will be far bloodier.

I stated in Kneecapping Snakes and other posts that the one sure way to end the state sponsorship of terrorism is to make that sponsorship extremely counterproductive for the nation/states involved. Assad in Syria and the Mullah's in Iran support terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere, because this support is a cost-effective way for them to project their foreign policy goals.

Their goals--the humiliating defeat of the United States in Iraq, the destruction of Israel, their push of nuclear weapons and increasing regional control and influence--are quite clear, but then, so is the remedy to this problem; if President Bush and allied nations admit to and treat this as a regional war.

If we limit out goals in Iran and Syria to knocking them out of the terror game and don't try to rebuild their societies from the ground up, we can do so relatively easily by crushing the ability of Iran to threaten Persian Gulf shipping and by taking out its refineries. Ironically, Iran is oil-rich, but gas-poor.

Coalition air strikes targeting the Iranian Navy, refineries, and other key targets could bring the mullacracy to it's knees within weeks, without the significant use of U.S. ground forces, and only a (relatively minor) projection of air power. A U.S. Navy blockade of Oman would keep Iran from importing the gasoline it needs to survive.

Syria, minus Iranian support, would be even easier to destabilize.

Take Syria and Iran out of the terror game, and Hezbollah begins to falter in Lebanon, giving Lebanese democracy a chance. Take Syria and Iran out of the terror game, and Israeli citizens wouldn't have to worry about Hezbollah's ability to so quickly rearm and instigate another war.

Take Syria and Iran out of the terror game, and manpower, weaponry, and funding for al Qaeda in Iraq begins to abate, as the growing number of Sunni tribes embracing the Sahawa movement hunt down and kill foreign fighters. Take Syria and Iran our out of the terror game, and Muqtada al-Sadr, the thug-leader of Shiites in the Baghdad slums, suddenly finds his Medhi Army militia without new munitions, or training, or financial support, and as his capability as a military threat fades, so does his political power.

The greatest "secret" in the War on Terror is that we have the capability of turning the strategic war around on a dime, if only our leaders will lead.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:05 PM | Comments (91) | Add Comment
Post contains 1372 words, total size 9 kb.

I can't say that this morning's Dafna Linzer/Thomas Ricks article Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker in the Washington Post comes as a surprise considering the overall tone of their reporting on the War in Iraq, but this article, based on an update of selectively-released elements of a previous classified report that many feel was taken out of context, seems to run counter to what many others are seeing in the same area of Iraq.

What appears to be the most easily refutable charge brought forth in the WaPo article occurs in the lede:

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

This contention, of course, seems directly challenged by the emergence of the Sahawa, or the Awakening, a movement among the major Sunni tribes of al Anbar against al Qaeda. Sunni tribes are increasingly leading the fight against al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents.

Fumento, who is on the ground in Ramadi and is reporting first-hand accounts, is buttressed by others who have or who are about to have first-hand experience in that province in Iraq.

Linzer and Ricks based their article on selectively-leaked excerpts for a classified Marine report and the words of anonymous "experts" in Washington, D.C.

Michael Fumento is there, on the ground in al-Anbar's capital of Ramadi, reporting the words of real people, by name, who are actively engaged in operations on the ground.

Given his proximity and many supporting accounts, I tend to think the Linzer/Ricks article is a fine example of reporters cherry-picking evidence to support a pre-determined outcome.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:47 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Via The Corner:

WASHINGTON Nov. 27 /Standard Newswire/ — The National Commander of The American Legion called on Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to apologize for suggesting that American troops would not choose to fight in Iraq if they had other employment options.

"Our military is the most skilled, best-trained all- volunteer force on the planet," said National Commander Paul A. Morin. "Like that recently espoused by Sen. John Kerry, Congressman Rangel's view of our troops couldn't be further from the truth and is possibly skewed by his political opposition to the war in Iraq."

According to Rangel, "If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq. If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of some educational benefits," Rangel said.

Rangel was responding to a question during an interview yesterday on Fox News Sunday about a recent study by the Heritage Foundation which found that those enlisting in the military tend to be better educated than the general public and that military recruiting seems to be more successful in middle- class and wealthy neighborhoods than in poor ones.

According to the study, 97 percent of military enlistees were high school graduates versus 80 percent of Americans in general. The study also concludes that the average reading level of military personnel is a full grade level higher than that of the general population.

"I'm not sure I understand what is unfair about letting adults make their own career choices," Morin said as he visited troops in Korea this week. "Troops serving today have a higher education level than the overall population. Why another member of Congress is insulting our troops' commitment and education level is beyond me."

Morin said the American Legion applauds and appreciates the great sacrifices of those who serve - - many of whom have put civilian careers aside, college on hold or given up high paying jobs to enlist.

More and more troops say it's duty and honor before college fund that motivated them to join. Recruiting numbers have been met this year, but more importantly, servicemembers are reenlisting so retention within the armed forces is great, Morin explained. Not everyone holds the view that we should wait to be attacked again as a nation.

"These brave men and women lay it on the line every day for each and every one of us, for which I am very grateful," Morin said. "Their selfless commitment for the betterment of our world from radical extremists is beyond commendable. It's time for members of Congress to stop insulting our troops.

"While the American Legion shares the congressman's appreciation for education, the troops in Iraq represent the most sophisticated, technologically superior military that the world has ever seen," Morin said. "I call on Congressman Rangel to not only apologize to our troops but to also fight for pay increases and make significant improvements to the current GI Bill — reserves and guard included, as he prepares for a party chairmanship in the 110th Congress."

Odds are that Rangle will either ignore the American Legion (as he has always consistently avoided the facts that those in the military are not overwhelmingly poor inner city minorities, but quite the opposite) or issue a John Kerry-esque "I'm sorry that you aren't smart enough to understand me" non-apology apology.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:50 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 609 words, total size 4 kb.

Apparently, even nominal quantities of over-the-counter cold medications can cause you to see the most interesting things.

I know this, because this Reuters picture has all the earmarks of a crudely-edited PhotoShop, from the rather odd smudges and apparent artifacts around the heads of the two women on the left when the photo is enlarged, to the rather uncanny resemblance that one person in the picture has to someone I feel I should know.

After Adnan Hajj, Reuters wouldn't fall for this sort of stuff again, would they?

ItÂ’s a good thing I can chalk this up to cough syrup. If not, I might have to start questioning the mediaÂ’s accuracy.

Update:Jeez. Take a little cough syrup, disappear for a few hours, and the world goes nuts. FWIW, some credible experts have said that the artifacts that I thought may be evidence of photoshopping may have been the result of JPG compression, and that any resemblence to the President was purely coincidental. I can live with that.

What I do have a harder time living with is the foul language of our left wing guests. As a result, comments are closed, and the most offensive comments have been removed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:29 PM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 2 kb.

It turns out that "Iraqi police sources" that that have provided the Associated Press with so many of their Shia on Sunni violence stories since April are not, in fact Iraqi police, and that at least some of the stories they're reported are more than likely false.

This is hot on the heels of an investigation by Patterico that revealed that the L.A. Times may have relied on sources that may be (to be charitable) unreliable.

In both instances, facts and ethically-sound journalistic practices were in very short supply, as "journalists" apparently holed up at the bar in the al Rasheed Hotel breathlessly and uncritically reported what anonymous Iraqi stringers provided to them as news. That this practice of blind reporting is apparently widespread and accepted by the professional media should be very troubling to those who read major news site and make the (apparently erroneous) assumption that the stories being reported are based on objective, verified facts, not the whims of stringers citing sources that do not, in fact, exist.

It is increasingly apparent that the guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas may know about what is actually going on in Iraq than does his professional counterpart hunkered down in the Green Zone in Baghdad, due in no small part to the fact that the reporters in the Green Zone seem to swallow the uncorroborated reporting of Iraqi stringers of dubious allegiances and influences readily, and uncritically.

The media isn't necessarily willfully reporting false stories, they are simply too lazy to verify what they are reporting is comprised of actual facts instead of fantasy. They seem to have adopted a worldview that whatever act is the most depraved, must be the most infallible.

Call it "absolute immoral authority."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:38 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

The Chicago Tribune carries an article today by Joel Greenberg on the increasing frequency with which Palestinian militants are being shielded from Israeli strikes by the interference of Palestinian non-combatants:

On a rooftop in a crowded neighborhood here, about 30 Palestinian women sat on chairs and mattresses on a recent afternoon, serving as human shields against a possible Israeli air strike on the family home of a prominent Hamas militant.

As an Israeli drone buzzed overhead, the women were defiant.

Our technology is faith in God," said Itaf al-Masri, 47.

The scene was an example of the kind of struggle waged here in recent months between the Israeli military and the Palestinians, a battle between a high-tech army and the simpler arms and tactics of militants and their civilian supporters. The confrontation, halted by a tenuous cease-fire Sunday, was reminiscent of the challenges faced by the U.S. military in Iraq and in the past during the Vietnam War.

Gaza militants fired crude but deadly homemade rockets at Israel and dug tunnels under the border with Egypt to smuggle in arms. In one standoff with Israeli troops, Palestinian women marched to a mosque where militants were holed up and enabled them to escape. The Israelis used sophisticated surveillance technology and aircraft to hunt down rocket squads and kill militant leaders, often also hitting civilians.

Greenberg refuses to ask the question that his article begs, namely, at what point do ideologically-aligned non-combants shielding militants cease occupying the protected status of "civilian?"

In asymmetrical warfare, does the status of civilian always exist for non-militants, or should there be a new classification to account for those somewhere between active militancy and those that are truly non-participatory?

I'd opine that the Palestinian women in the Greenberg story above, by voluntarily interjecting themselves into a projected conflict area as human shields as partisans acting on behalf of Hamas militants, have surrendered their rights to be defined as "civilians." They are ideologically-aligned with terrorist organizations, but that alone does not make them loose their protected status as civilians. Nor does the fact that they are human shields remove their protected status, as human shields can be involuntary.

No, what should remove their status as "civilians" is that they have willfully interjected themselves into a conflict with the express intent of providing immediate tactical support for a terrorist group. Their purposeful decision to run interference for terrorists should not in any way prevent an Israeli military response.

Historically, Muslims have rarely recognized the existence of any civilians (thereby justifying everything from 9/11 to Israeli market bombings to the murder of Indonesian schoolgirls), and the the creation of a "targetable non-militant participant" status would help level the playing field against those dehumanists that preach on-going jihad.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:42 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

To listen to John Kerry or Charles Rangel, you would think so. These Democrat veterans—who speak for so many other Democrats, veteran and not—seem to think military service is something that an American citizen engages in only as a last resort measure. Kerry's infamous pre-election "stuck in Iraq" comment (for which he has un-apologized), along with Rangel's new pronouncement that people will only join the military if they don’t have "an option of having a decent career," reflect a liberal mindset that views voluntary military service as something only for those who are nearly destitute, and who have few other options.

It seems to them and many other liberals that joining the military is a last chance option that is a step or two above going homeless, and little more.

Of course, this flies in the face of the facts that those who join the military tend to be more suburban, educated and affluent than their contemporaries. But neither Charlie nor John nor the rest of their liberal "truther" movement are dissuaded by anything as inconsequential as facts.

Duty. Honor. Country.

Honor. Courage. Commitment.

Upon these and similar principles the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY and the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, MD were founded, as were their fellow service academies for the U.S. Air Force and Coast Guard. Men and women seeking to develop these character traits often seek to go to service academies or walk into military local recruiting offices.

Almost all (98%) voluntary enlistees are high school graduates. 92% of officers have bachelor's degrees, and many have advanced degrees. Do liberals honestly think these people joined the military because they didnÂ’t have "an option of having a decent career" otherwise?

Joining the military because of a feeling of patriotism—a love of one’s country and willingness to sacrifice for it—seems to be an increasingly remote concept for those on the left. No, they’d rather do what they do best, and attempt to define those who would serve as another stupid, oppressed childish minority that need to be saved from themselves.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

Allowing this bile to be published on her site tells me a bit about the character of Arianna Huffington.

To be fair, though, I'm fairly sure she'd allow the same comments to be uttered about Joe Lieberman.

That's bipartisanship.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:12 AM | Comments (70) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

How thoughtful:

Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran, Russian news agencies quoted military industry sources as saying, in the latest sign of a Russian-US rift over Iran.

"Deliveries of the Tor-M1 have begun. The first systems have already been delivered to Tehran," ITAR-TASS quoted an unnamed, high-ranking source as saying Friday.

The United States has pressed Russia to halt military sales to Iran, which Washington accuses of harbouring secret plans to build a nuclear weapon.

Moscow has consistently defended its weapons trade with Iran. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the contract for 29 rocket systems, signed in December last year, was legitimate because the Tor-M1 has a purely defensive role.

ITAR-TASS reported that the rockets were to be deployed around Iran's nuclear sites, including the still incomplete, Russian-built atomic power station at Bushehr.

Isn't that nice of the Russians to deliver a short-range missile system designed to take on low to mid-level targets, knowing that we have long-range anti-radar missiles to counter them?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

Black Friday... what a wonderful day to pull a nine-hour shift behind the gun counter at my local sporting goods store!

Just remember kids, I have the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason, so be nice. I will not sell any of my merchandise to anyone who appears they may be of a mindset to use to expedite their shopping elsewhere.

Form a line to the right, smile, and have a nice day.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever. Let the redeemed of the LORD say this—those he redeemed from the hand of the foe, those he gathered from the lands, from east and west, from north and south. Some wandered in desert wastelands, finding no way to a city where they could settle. They were hungry and thirsty, and their lives ebbed away. Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. He led them by a straight way to a city where they could settle. Let them give thanks to the LORD for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for men, for he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.

Psalm 107: 1-9

From me and mine, a Happy Thanksgiving to all, especially our servicemen and women overseas. You are in our prayers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:41 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

The BCC published an article today on the Israeli use of cluster munitions during the recent war with Hezbollah in Lebanon:

The Israeli army is to investigate the way cluster bombs were used during the recent conflict with Hezbollah.
The chief of the defence staff has said he prohibited the wide use of the munitions during the conflict.

But human rights observers in southern Lebanon say up to a million "bomblets" were left in the country after the war.

No one will dispute that the aerial bombing conducted during Desert Storm was far more intense than the bombing raids conducted by Israel against Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, and in Desert Storm, the U.S. Air Force dropped 10,035 CBU-87 cluster bombs on military targets. The CBU-87 a 950-pound bomb has 202 submunitions. Doing a little quick math, and we can determine that 10,035 bombs times 202 submunitions per bomb means that a total of 2,027,070 submunitions were dropped during Desert Storm.

But these cluster munitions have a reported dud rate of up to 16%, meaning that in this much larger conflict, 324,332 submunitions would have failed to explode.

Much larger war, many fewer duds. Do you detect an odor yet? Read on.

In the recent war between Hezbollah and Israel, most of not all of the cluster munitions fired were delivered not by aircraft, but by artillery. Human Rights Watch notes that the Israelis used 155mm artillery to deliver DPICM projectiles. Each 155mm DPICM shell contains 88 submunitions.

To get to a figure of the million unexploded "bomblets" claimed by the BBC, Israel would have had to have fired 7,142,858 155mm DPICM shells submunitions (1,000,000 dud submunitions is 14% of 7,142,857.143, according to this handy little tool).

To say that Israel did not have the number of weapons, stockpiles of a minimum of 7,142,858 DPICM shells submunitions (7,142,858 submunitions is 81,169 shells), or time to deliver them in a conflict less than a month long, would be a gross understatement.

So where did the Beeb get it's figures? I have a suspicion:

MAG has sent a special team from Iraq into Lebanon to help get rid of the thousands of cluster bombs and other unexploded munitions from the villages and towns in the south of the country.

MAG's technical field manager, Salaam Mohammed Amin, leading the 19 highly-trained Iraqi-Kurd technicians, said: "Our staff cleared more than a million unexploded items in just one year in Iraq. It meant we helped reduce civilian victim rates after the conflict from a devastating high of around 500 per month to nearer three per month today - we hope to help the people of Lebanon in the same way."

It appears that the Beeb may have botched the Mine Advisory Group press release, somehow getting it into their heads that million of rounds of unexploded munitions in Iraq (munitions dispersed over decades of fighting) translated to a million submunitions in Lebanon.

Or at least that is what I hope happened, because if that isn't the case, that would suggest that the BBC published someone else's press release without checking the validity—or even the statistical possibility—of what they are reporting.

And the BBC wouldn't do that... would they?

Update:Via Matthew Sheffield - Heh.

Update: Updated a screw-up above. A million dud submunitions would be the result of more than 7,142,858 submunitions fired, not shells. 7,142,858 submunitions is (at 88 submunitions per shell) 81,168 DPICM shells, still averaging an extraordinary rate of fire of 2,459 DPICM shells per day (33 days between 12 July and 14 Sept) on top of the more conventional ordinance fired inside the narrow swath of Lebanon that Israeli M109 155 mm SP artillery fire can reach, which is just 14.6 miles.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:41 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I'm sure he's reporting the right number...but there's a catch: They are certainly counting each and every rifle and pistol round left behind and/or scattered from the IDF air strikes hitting Hezzy ammo bunkers. And you could get those kind of numbers if you did count each and every bullet you found...which is technically an unexploded ordinance. More hype to make their mission more "flashy" (if you'll pardon the pun) and the hype makes Israel look bad. So, were there a million UXO's out there after the IDF left? Sure, you could say that, but unfired small arms rounds aren't bombs unless you're into the whole apples and oranges comparisons (which is something the Arabs are always doing when it relates to Israel).

Posted by: WB at November 22, 2006 05:55 PM (hV3oD)

2 Given your estimate of 16% dud rate of unexploded bomblets, to get 1,000,000 unexploded bomblets you would have needed a starting number of 6.25 million (1 million / 16 x 100). If each shell contains 88 bomblets, you would need a mere 71,022 shells to leave behind a million unexploded bomblets (6,225,000 / 8 . That would make the actual number of shells less than 1% of your estimate.

Posted by: ff11 at November 22, 2006 10:33 PM (L5nKp)

3 Consider the source. BBC, Associated (With Terrorists) Press, CNN, the U.N., all noted for lying through their teeth. The U.N. reported a sharp spike in violent deaths in Iraq last month. The Iraqi Health Minister said 'the U.N. is lying' the deaths were 1/4 of the U.N. count. He didn't studder, 'they are lying'. I believe the Iraqi Health Minister since an in-country blogger also says the attacks have been greatly reduced. Remember, Oct was the all out effort by the U.N./Terrorists to influence the American elections. Americans like the people of Spain fell for the propaganda hook, line and sinker. That proves that over 50% of the American voting public doesn't have the guts to protect this country or support freedon anywhere in the world.

Posted by: Scrapiron at November 22, 2006 11:42 PM (YadGF)

4 Does the fact that you have a personal bias against the UN somehow magically correct the math this article was based on? Or are you just trying to deflect attention from the issue at hand?

Posted by: ff11 at November 23, 2006 12:52 AM (L5nKp)

5 ff11, thanks for catching my screw-up. I indeed wrote 7,142,858 shells when I meant to say submunitions. The 16% dud rate was for a specific kind of U.S. air-dropped cluster bombs; the 14% figure for the 155mm artillery-delivered DPICM shells is correct, meaning that 7,142,858 submunitions, or 81,168 DPICM shells, were fired in just 33 days. That is still a phenominal claim, by any standard.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2006 01:03 AM (HcgFD)

6 Does the fact that you have a personal bias against the UN somehow magically correct the math this article was based on? Or are you just trying to deflect attention from the issue at hand? I havea bias... towards honesty in the media's reporting. Check out the link to the MAG press release in the main post. They do quite a bit of the clean-up of submunitions and other unexploded munitions, and they cite a U.N. report that "they have seen around 100,000 unexploded cluster bomblets at 359 separate sites in Lebanon." That's a far, far cry than the million that the BBC claims. You'll also note that MAG also does not try to claim that all of these submunitions came from Israeli artillery. Hezbollah had rocket-delivered cluster munitions of their own, some of which were destroyed by Israeli strikes on the ground and were photographed by the world's media. If anyone is being intentionally dishonest with numbers, or trying to deflect attention from... what exactly?... Hezbollah's complicity in starting this war, or their nearly 100% targeting of civilian targets?... I'd submit to you that that "anyone" would be the BBC.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2006 01:20 AM (HcgFD)

7 Sorry if I got overly aggressive. Your numbers for submunitions sound right. Whether that is a reasonable number or not, I don't know. I know that Hezbollah reportedly fired over 4000 missiles, so I'm not sure if 80,000 shells fired by Israel would be an unrealistic number.

Posted by: ff11 at November 23, 2006 01:22 AM (L5nKp)

8 Regarding MAG, just because that 80 member team has FOUND 100.000 bomblets to date, does not mean that they have already found the majority. Regarding the Hezbollah rocket delivered cluster munitions, do you have a source for this claim? I seem to recall only hearing about rockets filled with bolts and screws.

Posted by: ff11 at November 23, 2006 01:36 AM (L5nKp)

9 A little article from Human Rights Watch called Lebanon/Israel: Hezbollah Hit Israel with Cluster Munitions during Conflict" which said, in part: Hezbollah fired cluster munitions into civilian areas in northern Israel during the recent conflict, Human Rights Watch reported today. This is the first time that Hezbollah's use of these controversial weapons has been confirmed. [snip] Each of the Type-81 cluster munition 122mm rockets used by Hezbollah carries 39 Type-90 or MZD submunitions. Each submunition in turn shoots out hundreds of steel spheres, about 3.5mm in diameter, with deadly force. Human Rights Watch discovered evidence of Hezbollah�s unprecedented use of this cluster munition in the course of ongoing investigations of the group�s attacks on northern Israel during the war that lasted from July 12 until August 14. Israeli authorities had until now prevented publication of details of Hezbollah cluster strikes in Israel, citing security concerns. Also in the article is another U.N. credited claim that Israel used as many as 4 million submunitions in Lebanon, 1 million of which didn't explode. So, the U.N. is claiming Israel alone dropped roughly twice as many cluster submunitions out of 98-lb artillery shells in Lebanon, as we did with neary 1000-lb airplane delivered bombs--with more than twice the payload--in the Gulf War. On top of that, they are claiming a dud rate nearly double that of the worst confirmed failure rates I've seen for these kind of munitions. By any chance did the U.N., like the media, get most of their numbers directly from Hezbollah?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2006 02:01 AM (HcgFD)

10 Regarding MAG, just because that 80 member team has FOUND 100.000 bomblets to date, does not mean that they have already found the majority. Actually, you are more than likely wrong here, as well, on multiple levels. First, MAG doens't claim that their teams have found the munitions. Most submunitions were reported by civilians to the appropriate civil authorities. Second, DPICM submunitions are not like convential bombs still recovered in Europe after WWII that have the capabilty to bury themselves deep underground. DPICM submunitions sit on the surface, where they are easily found. Third, once one submunition is found, the entire area is typically swept by EoD to make certain other submunitions aren't laying around. It is quite likely that a supermajority of the duds have been found. Whether they will all be disposed of in a timely manner after being identified is another issue.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2006 02:12 AM (HcgFD)

11 It's not a matter of how many pounds of explosives were used, but what fraction was composed of cluster bombs. We tend not to use cluster bombs in areas that would be likely to affect civilian populations, and were upset enough with Israel for using them to hold up rocket shipments during this conflict. You seem to be shocked by the rougly 4000 bomblets used by Hezbollah, while you are totally accepting of the 4,000,000 bomblets used by Israel (both figures from the same article), and you don't see a bias in your position?

Posted by: ff11 at November 23, 2006 02:25 AM (L5nKp)

12 The equivalent of 102 shells an hour, 24 hours a day for 33 days, seems a bit much. And lobbing cluster-shells isn't the only purpose for firing artillery, so I'd expect there to be many more than just 80,000 to have been fired if 80,000 were fired at all. That would up the shells per day considerably. Artillery isn't fired willy-nilly by the IDF the way Hezbollah shoots off their rockets. Targets need to be determined and, with cluster-bombs, the intended targets aren't stationary, so I'd expect that forward spotters or some other surveillance would be required both for acquiring the targets and verifying elimination. To fire some 80,000 cluster shells seems like a lot of forward work, and rather ineffective at that considering the IDF claims they only killed some 500 Hezbollah fighters, not to mention that a lot of those fighters were killed by means other than artillery shells. And just to note, the IDF never even hinted at the efforts of the artillery work, neither did the press report much about the devastation visited on southern Lebanon by the IDF raining some 80,000 shells upon it during those 33 days. However, the IDF did make an effort to announce there naval and aerial efforts, which was reported in the press to a considerable extent. That was summarized by the IDF here: http://www1.idf.il/dover/site/mainpage.asp?clr=1&sl=EN&id=7&docid=56539 CY's skepticism seems fully warranted here and until the 80 member MAG team does find the majority, or even all, for that matter, the BBC ought to stick to reporting what is known, not what they want to presume. Then again, maybe CY is on to something: BBC reporters botch things rather easily.

Posted by: Dusty at November 23, 2006 02:53 AM (GJLeQ)

13 "Actually, you are more than likely wrong here, as well, on multiple levels." ---------------------------- Wrong here, "as well"? Let's not forget that you were the one who was wrong. Regarding MAG, Your guess that the majority of duds have been found seems to be entirely unfounded. First, over 100,000 bomblets have already been found. Second, the ones that are found are likely to be in the more populated areas (cities, villages) Third, we won't know if the supermajority have been found until and unless they stop finding any more.

Posted by: ff11 at November 23, 2006 02:55 AM (L5nKp)

14 The equivalent of 102 shells an hour, 24 hours a day for 33 days, seems a bit much. ----------------- Assuming they were using one launcher, yes, that would be a bit much. Assuming they were using hundreds, not so much, actually it makes it seem like they were loafing much of the time. Also note that just because Israel has used the DPICM shells to deliver cluster bombs doesn't mean that they have not used any other means: Israel has in its arsenal cluster munitions delivered by aircraft, artillery and rockets. Israel is a major producer and exporter of cluster munitions, primarily artillery projectiles and rockets containing M85 DPICM (Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition) submunitions. Israeli Military Industries, an Israeli government-owned weapons manufacturer, has reportedly produced more than 60 million M85 DPICM submunitions. Israel also produces at least six different types of air-dropped cluster bombs, and has imported from the United States M26 rockets for its Multiple Launch Rocket Systems.

Posted by: ff11 at November 23, 2006 03:02 AM (L5nKp)

15 BBC ? Its like getting your facts from a comic book BBC Mantra "put out story before getting facts or truth " 1984

Posted by: earth56 at November 23, 2006 03:39 PM (t9vOW)

16 ff11......Hezbolah did not fire "missiles" into Isreal, they fired "Rockets". Theres a huge difference between the two and do you really think that their warheads were filled with "nuts and bolts"? How do nuts and bolts start fires? Is there any circumstance where you can see Iran shipping expensive rockets but not shipping the inexpensive explosives for the warheads? get real

Posted by: senorlechero at November 23, 2006 11:51 PM (HbHrK)

17 You tell me, here is the reality: http://vitalperspective.typepad.com/vital_perspective_clarity/2006/07/human_rights_wa.html http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/24/154609.shtml Do your own search for "Hezbollah rockets filled with", pick a news source you believe. I'm not claiming that they were not deadly. It was war. But with very rare exceptions, they were NOT cluster weapons. The difference is that cluster weapons keep killing and maiming LONG after the war is over. Ball bearings do not.

Posted by: ff11 at November 25, 2006 11:08 AM (L5nKp)

18 As a former Fire Support Officer with a Paladin BN let me back up Bob here that this report is a turd blossom. No freaking way. I doubt if they even have the number of shells required to leave this many duds. I doubt they even fired that many into urban areas anyway. Israel has a professional military and professional militaries have restrictive measures against firing dual purpose improved conventional munitions into built up areas. Besides the humanitarian issues, it doesn't make sense to use the relatively small blast radius and explosive power of DPICM against fixed facilities. DPICM is good for area denial like a column of armor. If you are firing into an urban area at a building, HE makes more sense. Sounds like somebody is just trying to get free advertising for their business along with the benefit of propaganda.

Posted by: ray robison at November 27, 2006 10:27 PM (4joLu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yet another well-stated reason that Robert Gates should not be Secretary of Defense, from Hugh Hewitt's interview with Victor David Hanson (my bold):

HH: ...Does the President have the ability to wage aggressive war with a pacifist Congress?

VDH: I think he does, but let's be candid, Hugh. The problem right now isn't...it may be the left wing Congress, but he's got another problem, and that is he's bringing in Robert Gates, and he's bringing in the Baker realism, and that doesn't have a good record. That's the people who said don't talk to Yeltsin. Let's stick with Gorbacev. Let's not go to Baghdad. Let the Shia and Kurds die. Let's arm the Islamisists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and then leave. It's not a good record. It's short-term expediency at the expense of long-term morality. And it's not in the interest of the United States to do that, to cut a deal with these countries.

To put it bluntly, "realists" like Robert Gates and James Baker did much to create the situation in the Middle East with which we are now faced.

There is a place in the world for Robert Gates, and that place is, and should remain, Texas A&M.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:22 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.