The Associated Press, Reuters, and a small Iraqi Independent news agency called Voice of Iraq released stories Thursday about the massacre of 20 men near Salman Pak, who were supposedly found decapitated on the banks of the Tigris River.

But something seemed inherently wrong with the accounts I read from the Associated Press. The only two sources for the Associated Press article were anonymous police, not located in Salman Pak, but from Baghdad (more than dozen miles away) and Kut (more than 75 miles away).

Because of this odd sourcing, I asked Multi-National Corps-Iraq and the PAO liaison to the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior to investigate.

I published their preliminary findings as they came out in Bring Me The Head of Kim Gamel.

This morning, MNF-I PAO published an official denunciation of this story:

June 30, 2007
Release A070630c

Extremists using false media reporting to incite sectarian violence

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Friday, news media reported a mass killing in a village near Salman Pak where 20 men were allegedly found beheaded. It now appears that the story was completely false and fabricated by unknown sources.

Upon learning of the press reports, coalition and Iraqi officials began investigating to determine if the reports were true. Ultimately it was concluded the reports were false.

Anti-Iraqi Forces are known for purposely providing false information to the media to incite violence and revenge killings, and they may well have been the source of this misinformation.

“Extremists promote falsehoods of mass killings, collateral damage and other violence specifically to turn Iraqis against other Iraqis,” said Rear Admiral Mark Fox, spokesperson for MNF-I. “Unfortunately, lies are much easier to state, the truth often takes time to prove,” said Fox.

Not all media reports can be immediately substantiated by Government of Iraq or Coalition Forces. They must go through a process to verify such claims, to include checking with various Iraqi MinistryÂ’s, local police and security forces. Meanwhile, extremists have achieved their goal of spreading false information aimed at intimidating civilians and destabilizing Iraqi security.

Ultimately, media reporting based on verifiable sources will reduce the possibility of misinformation unnecessarily alarming citizens.

The Associated Press, Reuters, and Voices of Iraq should immediately apologize for publishing this completely false story, and push for immediate retractions. The Associated Press should admit full responsibility for not following good journalistic practices of verifying a story though legitimate responsible sources, as they were in a headlong, reckless rush to publish.

Update: Something somewhat related, from StrategyPage:

...the Japanese psychological warfare effort during World War II included radio broadcasts that could be picked up by American troops. Popular music was played, but the commentary (by one of several English speaking Japanese women) always hammered away on the same points;

1. Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.

The troops are perplexed and somewhat amused that their own media is now sending out this message.

(Thank Ace for the title of this post)

Update: AFP is now carrying the story.

The US military accused the international media on Saturday of exacerbating Iraq's violent tensions by reporting false claims of massacres which it said were deliberately fabricated by extremist groups.

This week several newspapers and agencies reported that Iraqi police had found 20 beheaded corpses in Salman Pak, just south of Baghdad.

AFP did not carry the report after its sources were unable to confirm the rumour.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Associated Press had those same standards?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:23 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

Luckily, alert paramedics called to a nightclub to attend a sick patron alerted police to a smoking car, who were able to diffuse it on scene.

The Guardian has the details:

A bomb made from gas cylinders, petrol and nails was found in an abandoned car in central London today, sparking a major terrorism alert.
Peter Clarke, the Scotland Yard head of counter-terrorism, said the device, discovered in Haymarket - one of the capital's main nightlife districts - could have killed or injured many people.

"Even at this stage, it is obvious that, if the device had detonated, there could have been serious injury or loss of life," he said. "It was busy, and many people were leaving nightclubs."

Mr Clarke added that police had gathered CCTV evidence, but said it was too early to speculate about who could have been responsible.

[snip]

Mr Clarke said experts called to the scene found "significant quantities of petrol, together with a number of gas cylinders". "I cannot tell you how much petrol was in the car as we have not had a chance to measure, it but there were several large containers," he added.

Earlier, witnesses said they saw the light metallic green saloon car being driven erratically. It then crashed into bins before the driver ran away.

Police are searching landmark sites across London for further explosive devices, and are unsure whether the bomb was a lone device or one of several deployed across the capital. No warnings were received.

The attempted bombing in one of London's busiest districts is the first major challenge for Gordon Brown, who just succeeded Tony Blair as Britain's Prime Minister.

At this time, police have not associated the bomb with any specific group.

Closed-circuit security cameras posted in the area may have captured images of the bomber. Unverified witness accounts state that the vehicle had been driven erratically before crashing into trash bins, at which point the driver abandoned the vehicle on foot.

Because the vehicle crashed, I'm not certain that we can assume that the location the vehicle was found was the original target. If the eyewitnesses are correct--and we know that sometimes, eyewitness accounts can be contradictory--it sounds as if the bomb may have begun smoldering, causing the driver to panic, crash, and flee the scene.

I'm sure we'll know more as this story develops.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:23 AM | Comments (60) | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Many of us awoke this morning to a disturbing Associated Press account of extreme barbarity coming out of Iraq:

Twenty beheaded bodies were discovered Thursday on the banks of the Tigris River southeast of Baghdad and a car bomb killed another 20 people in one of the capital's busy outdoor bus stations, police said.

The beheaded remains were found in the Sunni Muslim village of Um al-Abeed, near the city of Salman Pak, which lies 14 miles southeast of Baghdad.

The bodies all men aged 20 to 40 had their hands and legs bound, and some of the heads were found next to the bodies, two officers said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

Another version of the Associated Press story provided a bit more detail about the two anonymous Iraqi police officers who were the sources for the story.

Shockingly, they weren't there at all:

One of the police officers is based in Baghdad and the other in Kut, 100 miles southeast of the capital. The Baghdad officer said he learned of the discovery because Iraq's Interior Ministry, where he works, sent troops to the village to investigate. The Kut officer said he first heard the report through residents of the Salman Pak area.

I'm not Associated Press reporter Sinan Salheddin, nor am I Kim Gamel, AP's Baghdad news editor, but if I was investigating a story about a 20-corpse mass murder in—let's say, Manhattan—then I'd try to find a local police officer at the scene to interview about the case.

I wouldn't rely on a desk sergeant in Staten Island who merely heard reports of other officers being dispatched to check to see if there was such a crime, nor would I rely on a beat cop in Albany Fishkill who is only reporting rumors of what he heard from friends of relatives in Queens.

But the Associated Press didn't rely on the local police. Instead, they blatantly presented hearsay as the truth, and as a result, ran a story about a brutal massacre that currently appears to have never taken place.

Shortly after reading the AP's dubious "cousin in Kut" sourcing, I contacted several sources of my own, and which led to the following being released to me via email this evening from Multi-National Forces-Iraq:

We've been working on this query here at the Multi-National Forces Iraq Press Desk throughout the day and have been unable to confirm any of these reports of the 20 bodies at Salman Pak. After communicating with the Iraqi police and searching the area with some of our helicopters, we've been unable to find any evidence that proves the initial "report".

You were also very observant and correct to notice that these initial statements were from areas nowhere near the claimed location of the discovery which also leads us to question the validity of this report.

Until we turn up any clear evidence, we've concluded that this is an unsubstantiated claim but we'll let you know if we hear anything otherwise in the next 24 hours.

The email was signed by LCDR K.C. Marshall, U.S. Navy.

For the second time in less than year, the Associated Press seems to have run a story of a horrific massacre involving 20 or more people, using police officers not assigned to the area as their primary sources. For the second time in less than a year, it appears that there is no physical evidence that so much as a single person has died.

This time, if 20 heads cannot be recovered near Salman Pak, perhaps an equal number should roll at the Associated Press.

6/29 Update: In addition to MNF-I in researching the AP claim, I contacted Ron Holbrook, assigned to the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior Transition Team Public Affairs Office (the MOI runs the Iraqi Police).

This morning, he states via email:

I can not confirm anything at this time.

While more ambiguous than LCDR Marshall's statement, I take this to mean that the Iraqi Police have been unable to confirm the existence of any decapitated bodies in Um-al Abeed.

It is very much starting to look like the Associated Press has falsely reported yet another non-existent massacre, using a sourcing methodology that reports unconfirmed hearsay from anonymous off-site sources as facts.

If this story is conclusively debunked, (meaning no bodies are found), the Associated Press will owe it to their readers and the news agencies they provide with information a full accounting of why they continue to fail to verify claims before presenting them as news.

Further Update: Via email, Eason Jordan, formerly of CNN, notes that both Reuters and Voices of Iraq have also made this same claim as the Associated Press.

I can't find the Reuters account (if you do, please drop it in the comments), but the VOI account seems to use the same sort of anonymous police sources as does the AP.

Further MNF-I Update: LCDR Marshall again:

Sir, we still have no further information that would substantiate the
initial "reports". I believe that there's going to be a statement in
the next day that will emphasize this; I will send it to you when it's
released.

You heard the man: an official denial may be released as early as tomorrow.

Things are not looking good for the Associated Press, who has now twice allowed shoddy reporting methodology and incredibly poor sourcing to damage the credibilty of the Associated Press and those news organizations that rely upon the AP to deliver timely, accurate information.

In related news, CY commenter Dusty Rafferty has found the Reuters article noted by Eason Jordan. You can read it here. It appears Reuters has also fallen for the same, or similar, anonymous police sources. Should we be calling for Rueters to explain how they allowed themselves to fall for the same apparently false story?

You bet.

/7/06/07 Update: Ever able to miss the overall point, an observant liberal snarks via email that the distance from Albany to New York City is 130+ miles, and so my analogy is geographically inaccurate--as if a cop in Fishkill, NY would be any more knowledgeable about an event in NYC than the cop in Albany would. Whatever. I'm sure you all understand the analogy just so much more now that it is geographically precise. Right?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 1069 words, total size 7 kb.

Yeah, I know that the amnesty Bill has gone down in flames and that other things of importance are happening in the world, but I'm attempting to run something down that may either be nothing, or something, and don't have time to really get into too much else at the moment.

As I'm going to be a slacker, enjoy yourself: I this is going to be the first open thread here, ever (at least as far as I recall).

Touch gloves, come out swinging, and please keep all punches above the belt.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:33 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

It is with such mundane, rarely reported stories such as these, that counterinsurgencies take hold.

Thanks for stepping up, guys:

For a second time this week, a large cache consisting of improvised explosive device-making material and mortar rounds was turned over to Coalition Forces by the "Neighborhood Watch" in Taji, Iraq.

The Taji neighborhood watch contacted Coalition Forces June 25, after the driver of a truck fled the scene when the volunteers stopped a suspicious vehicle moving through the rural village of Abd Allah al Jasim. The vehicle contained 24 mortar rounds, two rockets, spare machine gun barrels, small arms ammunition and other IED-making material.

"This grassroots movement of reconciliation by the volunteers is taking off all around us. The tribes that had once actively or passively supported al-Qaeda in Iraq now want them out," said Lt. Col. Peter Andrysiak, the deputy commander of the 1st "Ironhorse" Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division.

The neighborhood watch is made up of a group of 500 volunteers, from a number of tribes in the area, who want reconciliation with the Coalition Forces and the Iraqi government. The volunteers are currently being vetted for possible future selection for training as Iraqi Police or some other organization within the Iraqi Security Forces.

Taji, 20 miles north of Baghdad, is perhaps most infamously known as the town where ABC News co-anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt were seriously injured in a 2006 IED explosion, and under the Hussein regime, the site of Iraq's long-range missile program. On Saturday, four U.S. soldiers based at Fort Hood died in an IED attack there.

While our soldiers are still battling Sunni insurgent IED cells in Taji, it is worth noting the seeds to a successful counterinsurgency are being sown in Taji and elsewhere, as noted yesterday in Small Wars Journal (h/t Instapundit):

On June 15th we kicked off a major series of division-sized operations in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces. As General Odierno said, we have finished the build-up phase and are now beginning the actual "surge of operations". I have often said that we need to give this time. That is still true. But this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.

These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another, and to create an operational synergy between what we're doing in Baghdad and what's happening outside. Unlike on previous occasions, we don't plan to leave these areas once they're secured. These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them. The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have "gone quiet" as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later. This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action.

When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don't get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that's OK. The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain – as has happened in Al Anbar Province and can happen elsewhere in Iraq as well.

The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa'ida, Shi'a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on. This is why claims that "80% of AQ leadership have fled" donÂ’t overly disturb us: the aim is not to kill every last AQ leader, but rather to drive them off the population and keep them off, so that we can work with the community to prevent their return.

It is this kind of working within the community that makes this one small story in a large war worth noting.

The "neighborhood watch" that captured this cache is composed of 500 men from various tribes in the Taji area that once supported al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency. As Dave Kilcullen notes above, it is the human terrain that matters, and the fact that these men are now actively working against al Qaeda and the insurgency, are attempting to join the political process and the Iraqi security forces, that is far more important than an increasing body count.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:30 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 845 words, total size 6 kb.

Yesterday, while scanning Memeorandum.com to see what other bloggers were discussing, I was amused to find a post called "Starting a War" that shows the vast disconnect between reality and fantasy as it relates to ever-changing situation in the Middle East, and with Iran in particular.

Let's see what Cernig has to say:

In an email this morning, Mr M at Comments From Left Field asked me "What happens if Iran DOES make an overt war act on the US?" Of course, the rightwing meme is that Iran has been carrying out both covert and overt acts of war for some time now - but any time someone who doesn't really want a war with iran looks at their evidence it ends up looking contrived, conspiratorial and, in essence, fabricated.

I know a "little something" about debunking questionable claims of Iranian involvement, having (as thoroughly as one can) debunked a claim by the U.K. Sun tabloid yesterday that Iranian Revolutionary Guards were helicoptering into Iraq to kill British soldiers. This was not the first claim of Iranian interference I debunked either; just 11 days ago, I proved that a February 12 claim made in the U.K. Telegraph that "more than 100" precision long-range .50 BMG rifles purchased by the Iranian government had been captured in Iraq by American forces, was unsubstantiated.

A liberal blogger acquaintance of mine, upon reading the second post, quipped to me via email, "Is George Soros sending you checks? I need to now if Soros is paying you more than he pays me."

I am an "honest dealer" on the subject of Iran.

Cernig, in my opinion, is not correct in implying that all the evidence "ends up looking contrived, conspiratorial and, in essence, fabricated."

It is true that many are ideologically opposed to accepting charges that Iran is involved in supplying ordnance, training, and even personnel to anti-government forces within Iraq.

The claims made, however, are as solid as one could possibly make without actually capturing uniformed Iranian soldiers firing weapons at American forces within Iraq.

We know, for example, that Iran has been supplying EFPs--explosively-formed penetrators--to Shia militias. EFPs are not a new technology, having been used for decades by militaries around the world. These are not, in theory, difficult weapons to build, and we have indeed captured indigenously-made EFPs and even captured facilities within Iraq where EFPs were being assembled. Making them effective against heavily-armored vehicles, however, is not a skill Iraqi machinists have the capability to replicate.

Iraqi fighters have been making their own versions of the weapons, but so far none has been effective against U.S. forces, Odierno said. The Iraqi-made projectiles, using brass and copper melted on stoves, have failed to fully penetrate U.S. armor and are more likely to be used against Iraqi forces, whose vehicles often have thinner armored protection than U.S. vehicles, U.S. military officials said.

"We have not seen a homemade one yet that's executed properly," Odierno said, adding that such weapons are not a major concern "as of yet."

Correctly machining to precise tolerances the copper disk that becomes the projectile is not a skill Iraqi elements have, and recovered projectiles--and in many instances, captured intact EFPs that failed to go off--have provided strong, finger-print-like clues as to the kind of machinery used to produce the more effective copper disks. The machining marks are said to indicate Iranian manufacture, as does chemical analysis of the C4 explosives used to form the projectile, and the specific construction of the passive infrared (IR) electronic triggers that detonate the weapons.

In addition to EFPs, Iranian-manufactured mortar shells of recent manufacture have been recovered, as well as Fajr-3 medium-range rockets, developed in and manufactured exclusively by Iran, that have been fired into Baghdad's Green Zone. Some even bear markings of the Iranian military:

In Iraq, Iranian 240mm rockets, which have a range of up to 30 miles and could significantly change the battlefield, have been used recently by Shiite extremists against U.S. and British targets in Basra and Baghdad, the officials said. Three of the rockets have targeted U.S. facilities in Baghdad's Green Zone, and one came very close to hitting the U.S. Embassy in the Iraqi capital, according to the U.S. officials.

The 240mm rocket is the biggest and longest-range weapon in the hands of Shiite extremist groups, U.S. officials said. Remnants of the rockets bear the markings of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and are dated 2007, those sources said. The Tehran government has supplied the same weapon, known as the Fajr-3, to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia.

We also know Iran has been training anti-government insurgent groups in Iraq, as captured Shia militiamen have readily confessed, and as have their commanders, who freely confirmed that information to the Associated Press:

Commanders of a group inside the Shiite Mahdi Army militia told the Associated Press that there are as many as 4,000 members of their militia who were trained in Iran and they have stockpiles of EFPs. The commanders spoke to AP on the condition of anonymity because the U.S. military considers their group illegal and giving their names would likely lead to their arrest and imprisonment.

Further, we have captured Iranian military personnel in Iraq, including senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officer Mohsen Chizari in Baghdad on December 21, 2006. Also captured in Iraq--and still in U.S. custody, along with four other Iranian operatives--was Baqer Qabshavi, a colonel in the IRGC.

Contrived? Conspiratorial? Fabricated?

To someone with an apparent interest in denial at almost any cost, certainly, but not to anyone who retains objectivity, especially at a time when Iranian weapons shipments and training are not only on-going, but apparently increasing.

But Cernig's disconnect goes beyond questioning Iranian ordnance, training, and personnel, to an almost delusional of view of life within Iraq that echoes communist claims of just how great life was inside the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

My first reaction was "why the f**k would the do that? They may be theocrats but mostly they have a rational wish to keep their good lives intact and ongoing." Its undoubtably true that a war on Iran would be a disaster for the U.S. and its allies - it would accomplish none of the warmongers objectives except revenge for a decades-old insult at an embassy and would be highly counter-productive to U.S. and allied interests globally.

"Good lives?"

Somehow, I think their rioters may disagree:

Motorists set fire to petrol stations in Tehran today in an angry backlash against the Iranian government's decision to impose rationing.
One station in Pounak, a poor area of the capital, was set alight while another in eastern Tehran was partially burnt and two of its pumps were completely destroyed.

"Last night, there were a lot of fights, people were furious due to the sudden decision," a 55-year-old pump attendant told Reuters.

[snip]

The scenes of disorder put further political pressure on the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is already under fire for failing to deliver on promises to improve the economy after his election in 2005.

In May, the government reduced subsidies for petrol, causing a 25% jump in prices.

The government had been planning to implement rationing for weeks. It was supposed to begin on May 21 but was repeatedly put off amid fears that Iranians would react badly as they are used to cheap and plentiful petrol.

"This man, Ahmadinejad, has damaged all things. The timing of the rationing is just one case," said Reza Khorrami, a 27-year-old teacher who was queuing at one Tehran petrol station last night.

You'll note that the rioting was proximately caused by government-imposed mandatory fuel rationing, but an underlying cause of this rationing is Iran's stagnating economy, and no doubt the massive crackdown against anti-regime groups:

Iran is in the throes of one of its most ferocious crackdowns on dissent in years, analysts say. with the government focusing on labor leaders, universities, the press, women's rights advocates, a former nuclear negotiator and Iranian-Americans, three of whom have been in prison for more than six weeks.

[snip]

The hard-line administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the analysts said, faces rising pressure for failing to deliver on promises of greater prosperity from soaring oil revenue. It has been using U.S. support for a change in government as well as a possible military attack as the pretext to hound his opposition and its sympathizers.

If this is the "good life," I'll pass.

But the blissfully unaware description of Iran's domestic situation is no more disconnected than are Cernig's thoughts on why the United States may have cause to take action against Iran:

Its undoubtably true that a war on Iran would be a disaster for the U.S. and its allies - it would accomplish none of the warmongers objectives except revenge for a decades-old insult at an embassy and would be highly counter-productive to U.S. and allied interests globally.

Unless Cernig can compose a hasty rationalization to explain away these sentiments, it appears that he or she is firmly convinced that our current crisis with Iran is based solely upon "revenge" for the 1979-81 hostage crisis.

What?

The fact that Iran is supplying weaponry and training that the U.S. military claims has killed more than 170 American soldiers, and seems to be escalating their pace of doing so, might just be seen as more proximate cause to most rational people, as would Iran's continued eliminationist rhetoric toward the United States and U.S allies.

The continuing development of a suspected nuclear weapons program, and the proven and even bragged about development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and MIRV warheads is also a very real concern. While technically being capable of launching conventional warheads, in practice, almost all MIRVs mounted on ICBMs in the world's arsenal are nuclear in nature, and so it is irrational to assume Iran has developed these weapons systems for any other purpose.

While no doubt comforting to Cernig, these rationalizations fail to address either actual present reality or the concerns of the immediate and near-term future.

I'll skip past Cernig's next paragraph, which merely reiterates the laughable Iranian "good life" claim, and studiously seeks to deny any possible Iranian nuclear threat... actually, I'll skip the rest of the post entirely (though you might find Cernig's explanation of how we economically forced the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor somewhat amusing).

The rest of the post merely continues down a path built upon a shoddy foundation.

Sadly, we knew Cernig is probably not alone on the left or right, in attempting to create a docile, "artificial reality" Iran to ignore. Sadly, the inabilty of some to deal with actual reality versus a preferred reality may yet lead us into a far more lethal future.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1795 words, total size 13 kb.

Actually, I think he counted one guy twice...

...and that was probably (a disguised) Lindsey Graham running from one end of the line to the other.

Bryan's got the rest, and Glenn suggests a third party is becoming a better option as a result of Senators refusing to listen to their base.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:33 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Drudge is alarmed over a picture on Rosie O'Donnell's blog that apparently shows her daughter in some sort of military fatigues, festooned with a a bandoleer of small caliber ammunition.

Presumably, this is some sort of anti-war protest on the part of O'Donnell, but she seems unable to write anything more coherent than the headline, "A picture says a thousands posts."

Considering her storied track record of being unable to write complete sentences or even complete words (the Big Ro seems to think the blogosphere charges by the letter, like some demented form of text messaging), I suppose this could be considered at least a grammatical improvement.

But what, precisely, is the message is she trying to send?

Based upon the reaction of her readers, it seems to be either "I'm willing to pimp my child for a cheap political stunt," or, "I'm so nutty, even my own demented fans are disturbed over how I'd use my child."

Whatever her point, few seem to understand it, and I wonder if that cluelessness extends to O'Donnell herself.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:21 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, we saw this coming:

Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday.

Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".

An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."

"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."

The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources.

No doubt, certain harpies will "question the timing" before the sun comes up.

Jimmy Buffett Update: Searching for that lost shaker of salt.

Preferably, that salt will come in large grains.

I was careful last night when this claim was made to note in the headline that this story was linked to anonymous sources within the British government, and now that the Sun article has been published, I see nothing solid to which we could hang a credible claim on, other than the names of two British soldiers said killed by Iranian-placed bombs, Corporal Ben Leaning, 24, and Trooper Kristen Turton, 27.

According to Defence Internet these two soldiers were part of The Queen's Royal Lancers Battle Group, in Maysan Province, Southern Iraq, on Thursday 19 April 2007.

The story there reads:

Corporal Leaning was commanding and Trooper Turton was driving a Scimitar Armoured Reconnaissance vehicle which was providing protection for a convoy.

At approximately 1120 hrs local time, the vehicle was struck and badly damaged by an improvised explosive device attack, which killed Corporal Leaning and Trooper Turton and injured the Scimitar's gunner and two other members of the troop.

All casualties were taken by helicopter to Tallil airbase in Dhi Qar Province where they are receiving the best possible medical care for their injuries.

As it so happens, Michael Yon was there, and wrote about the attack in his dispatch, Death or Glory:

We had taken off nearly three hours earlier at 0830. At about 1120, the convoy entered the ambush. Eight of the 46 bombs detonated. EFPs tore through metal, ball bearings puncturing the vehicles, peppering them with holes. Major Edward Mack, who was at least six vehicles behind detonation in the convoy, heard two distinct explosions. He was approximately 40 meters from the nearest blast, and he reckons there was about 8 to 10 meters between the two.

WO2 (SSM) Steve McMenamy was about seventh vehicle back, 50 meters or so from the initial explosion. He felt the detonations and saw a massive black cloud. McMenamy cocked his weapon, jumped off the vehicle and took a knee, trying to assess what was happening. As the dust cloud cleared, McMenamy saw an injured soldier sitting down, shuffling himself away from the vehicle. McMenamy ran forward to check for casualties, but realized he was also running into contact, so he veered to the right and ran into culvert. He found Sergeant Jenkin kneeling and still alive.

“Are you all right?” asked McMenamy.
Jenkin grinned and answered, “No.”
McMenamy said, “Jimmy, look at me: I need to know if you are all right because I need to move forward.”
“I’m okay,” Jenkins said.

Trooper Callum McDonald helped Trooper Thompson into a drainage ditch where he was laying and moaning. Other soldiers rushed to help the wounded or to set up security. McMenamy moved forward to the stricken Scimitar, shouting to the crew, asking if anyone could hear him. He climbed onto the vehicle and saw that Turton, the driver, was dead. Climbing onto the turret, he searched for Corporal Leaning, the commander. As McMenamy crossed into the top of turret and looked into gunnerÂ’s side, he saw that Corporal Leaning was also dead.

Nothing in Yon's account of that day or his follow-up dispatch mentioned suspected Iranian involvement.

Independent of Yon's account, I contacted a senior U.S. officer in Iraq last night, and he was unable to confirm anything about the Sun story, other than that he had read it.

Like the "smoking gun" story I burned as groundless from the Independent Telegraph , this story does not have any credible supporting evidence to date.

I'll post more updates as I have them.

Another Update: Just heard from Yon via email. "48 IEDs, 46 were EFPs." He had to run (he's in a war right now, after all), and couldn't provide more info.

I have no context for this, so I'll leave you to draw your own inferences.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 820 words, total size 6 kb.

1 I hope the Selective Service is up to speed because we're going to need a few more troops to fight a nation of 67 million people.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 25, 2007 10:23 PM (tk0b2)

2 If they're attacking us, then war it must be, I guess. I expect better proof than they came up with last time.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 25, 2007 10:57 PM (hmWdA)

3 Doc, I sincerely hope this is a false alarm. David, we've had this conversation before, but I'll ask again: how many folks do we need to draft to arm bombers, which will likely be the primary way we engage Iran? They have very limited air assets, limited air defense assets, and lots of distance to cover to attack U.S. regional forces with anything other than rockets or small-scale airborne insertions. We've got three or four carrier groups in the area, and an Air Force that is largely bored and very well armed. If we wish to simply defend Iraq, we can do so while inflicting tremendous "highway of death" type casualties.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 25, 2007 11:08 PM (HcgFD)

4 Um, are any of you guys actually looking at the source of this story? I've lived in the UK -- the Sun is about as reputable as the National Enquirer. It's not just that it's a Murdoch-owned publication with a semi-nude girl on page 3. It's that it's a piece of crap rag.

Posted by: Random Guy at June 25, 2007 11:25 PM (K1Emm)

5 The Sun? Not a very reliable source at the best of times. They publish online so you can go look; http://www.thesun.co.uk/

Posted by: Rafar at June 26, 2007 03:25 AM (kkgmI)

6 Bob, I know you think an air war will win in Iran, but I don't think they're going to sit quietly within their borders while we bomb the bejesus out of them. If their troops are even now coming across the border (and isn't the Sun a Murdoch publication? so much for credibility), how will our ground troops hold off a full scale invasion? In the most optimistic scenarios I've seen, the British in the south will be overrun and our existing ground forces will be in a lot of trouble. And dealing long-term with 67 million Iranians, now unified against us, who will most certainly take up guerilla tactics will require many more ground troops than we have now. But if it comes to war, I pray you're right and I'm wrong.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 26, 2007 05:26 AM (tk0b2)

7 David, do you really think that 67 million Iranians are unified, or would be unified, behind that government? Bob, nice catch.

Posted by: Pablo at June 26, 2007 07:58 AM (yTndK)

8 "Like the "smoking gun" story I burned as groundless from the Independent" *ahem* The Daily Telegraph I think you'll find. The Indy is about as antiwar as a newspaper gets in the UK, and if they published a story about Iranian interference in Iraq I would definitely sit up and listen. As for the Sun, I wouldn't trust them if they told me the sun would rise in the morning. You've made the right call in backing away from them as a source. "do you really think that 67 million Iranians are unified, or would be unified, behind that government?" If we bomb them to bits? You betcha. If you bomb Iran you will end up having to go in with ground troops or nuke them, that should really be the starting point of discussions. We've had enough of hoping for the best.

Posted by: Rafar at June 26, 2007 08:22 AM (kkgmI)

9 If you bomb Iran you will end up having to go in with ground troops or nuke them, that should really be the starting point of discussions. So be it! It is long past the point when we should have made an example out of Iran, or some other Muslim country. I'm for frying the whole lot at this point.

Posted by: Trader-DFW at June 26, 2007 08:59 AM (VZI8r)

10 "So be it! It is long past the point when we should have made an example out of Iran, or some other Muslim country. I'm for frying the whole lot at this point." So you're up for a bit of pre-emptive genocide, are you? At least we know where you stand. On the side of incinerating millions of women and children simply because of where they live. I'm glad that I stand on the other side. Anyone else here in favour of pre-emptively nuking Iran?

Posted by: Rafar at June 26, 2007 09:04 AM (kkgmI)

11 Let me make one thing very clear: the next person who advocates genocide--randomly wiping out an entire culture based upon differing belielfs or culture--gets banned. I support the war in Iraq because I once worked for a wonderful man, a Baghdadi, and I've had conversations with other natives of Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. They were all mostly secular, and all kind, gracious, and democracy-loving people, which is no doubt why they came here when they could. Others without the fianancial resources to leave are stuck in these nations, and live and die on the whims of petty tyrants, zealots, and dictators. These people deserve a chance at a better life; they do not deserve to have some dolt casually dismiss them as worth quashing like a bug. If you cannot differentiate between the general public and their sometimes extremist leaders and governments, pleas, find somewhere else to post.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 26, 2007 09:10 AM (9y6qg)

12 "If you cannot differentiate between the general public and their sometimes extremist leaders and governments, pleas, find somewhere else to post." *applause* But that's what concerns me so much about the militarily hyped up state of people at the moment. It seems pretty clear that if you bomb the Iranians, they will respond with; 1) Terrorist attacks around the globe (which they will deny of course). 2) Attacks on shipping in Hormuz (probably mines too). 3) Running to their patrons, the Chinese and Russians for diplomatic defense. 4) Running pretty much 24 hour shows of maimed and killed innocents, particularly children (if they have to they'll mock up a few in a heartbeat but I doubt they'd have to). 5) Actively arming Iraqi Shiite groups with high end weapon systems such as SAMs and explosives, and then leaving those groups to do what they want with them (and they will want to shoot Americans and Brits). These 5 actions seem to me to be extremely likely, and a bombing campaign is unlikely to stop any of them. If this happens then what is the US to do? Watch the Brits get slaughtered in Basra? Witness an uprising from the Shiite masses? Iran could run that game at a range of different settings for decades, they have the staying power to do it. So what is the response? More bombings? What with the Russians and the Chinese making uncomfortable noises and the round the clock "Maimed-Iranian-Baby-Cam" newscasts, the US would need a quick resolution or any government would fall come the next elections. So that leaves you with invading and replacing the regime by force against what would now be an overwhelmingly hostile population or nuking the place to keep it quiet. I hope that anyone with an ounce of humanity would renounce the nuking option, so you get left with a ground invasion, this time completely alone. That invasion would be very difficult and a long term occupation would be impossible. Setting up a government would also be impossible. The only objective would be to set up Iran as a failed state in order to reduce its military abilities. This wouldn't do anything to stop Iranian sympathisers from runnning terrorist cells around the globe, but it would at least stop Iranian interference in Iraq, for what that is worth. Looked at like that (and there is nothing extreme or unlikely about that scenario, just people behaving as people and state behaving as states) we cannot afford to go to war with Iran, almost regardless of what they do. In my view anyone who advicates a bombing campaign against Iran should be willing to accept either the nuclear option, or a ground invasion. If you aren't willing to accept these outcomes then bombing Iran is off the table and we should be looking at the alternatives.

Posted by: Rafar at June 26, 2007 09:31 AM (kkgmI)

13 Iran has blood on their hands and anyone who says different has their heads in the sand. I am a military officer who spent a year 12 miles from the Iranian boarder in Iraq. I have no direct evidence, but heard plenty of Intel reports about Iranian involvement and reports of them being captured by us and the Kurds. EFPs... google it. Iran has lots of oil, but ONLY 1 oil refinery and a economy that is on the brink of collapse. I am not a fan of invading Iran or of throwing a missle here or there (ala clinton style) to "show them who's the boss". I would like to see us do SOMETHING. This "what if they invaded Canada" crap I saw on the "smoking gun" page is just BS moral equivalency and belongs on DKOS. We don't have a few private groups supporting the insurgency in Iraq. We have the government of Iran, using it's military (Quds force) special forces to actively arm, train, and sometimes fight alongside the insurgents in Iraq. This fits the model they they used for Hezbollah (who has been killing Americans for a long time now). Then you have the naval attacks on the Australians and the UK in the gulf as well as the cross boarder ambush on the Iraqi/82d ABN soldiers patrolling the Iran/Iraq boarder. That was in Time Magazine, I believe and all three incidents involved active duty Iranian military units crossing an international boarder and attacking coalition soldiers. Not exactly 'out of character'. Come on... it's totally "Fake but accurate". You all can lament about how a. proud you are to be the first to debunk this story or b. how this is all just another evil BushHitler nazi conspiracy or c. how we'd do the same thing in a similar situation... but NONE of it changes the fact that Iran has been targeting Americans and killing them for a few decades now. They love we are in Iraq and I say we withdrawl from Iraq, bomb that stupid refinery (in conjunction with as strike on that wacky president and mullah) and a naval blockade of the gulf. This is like raising a kid or dealing with problem soldiers. You have to ID your expectations, set reasonable limits and punishments/consequences for going outside those limits. I don't think that "don't kill our soldiers or arm and train criminals/terrorists to do so either" is unreasonable) Then when they violate that, you have to follow through or they have no respect for you. This is why Saddam had no respect for the US or the UN (actually does anyone really respect the UN?). This is why Iran thinks it can get away with the crap they are pulling (even though they know, we know they are doing it). Iraq, while it makes me sick to admit it, is no longer worth the effort. We can win it, but we will not muster the 'national will' to do so. There has never been an administration that has blown so much political capital or opportunities as this one. We lost the trust of the Iraqi people a long time ago. Incompetent planning (by politicians not soldiers) and risk adverse politics micromanaging a war lost us this one before it even started. Then political posturing squashed any chance of turning it around.

Posted by: Brad at June 26, 2007 09:41 AM (hQuOd)

14 Note that the market opened up this morning. If this were real then the market would crash.

Posted by: David Caskey at June 26, 2007 09:47 AM (G5i3t)

15 Pablo, I do think bombing Iran would unite the country. Look at how divided this country is. Last week I saw a bumper sticker that said "Beautify America. Kill A Liberal." Yes, I know it was a joke. A joke about killing your neighbor or co-worker because he thinks universal health care is a good thing. Now remember how united we were after 9/11. So yes, if you want to ally the large, moderate, pro-western middle class in Iran with the extremist mullahs, start a bombing campaign. This would be insanity. Along with the consequences Rafar concisely points out, consider this: China gets most of its oil from Iran. If we disrupt their oil supply, they might get a bit peeved. Right now, thanks to Bush economics, China holds notes on our house. The economy would take a giant hit if China started dumping dollars on the market in retaliation for an invasion. And that's the least they could do. In other words, we're seriously screwed.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 26, 2007 09:53 AM (kxecL)

16 A joke about killing your neighbor or co-worker because he thinks universal health care is a good thing. ...or maybe because they want us to lose.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 26, 2007 09:58 AM (9yWTK)

17 Yeah, Purple Avenger, I want us to lose. Me, a guy with two family members in country. Me, a guy from a military family. Me, a veteran, I want us to lose. Nice contribution to the discussion.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 26, 2007 10:01 AM (kxecL)

18 Rafar - Your 9:31 - We've already been there or are there with your numbers 1, 2 and 5 with respect to Iran, although in number 5 you might want to slip in the word Sunni as well.

Posted by: daleyrocks at June 26, 2007 10:11 AM (0pZel)

19 "We've already been there or are there with your numbers 1, 2 and 5 with respect to Iran" At extremely low levels, yes. And we are without doubt engaged in special ops within Iran, and are funding the enemies of the Iranian state. This is a very low intensity conflict at the moment. Bombing Iran directly would lead to a vastly increased level of these actions. This would lead to a cycle of escalation that would lead inevitably to one of the two outcomes that I outlined. Though, out of interest, which terrorist actions around the globe have been Iranian run recently? ", although in number 5 you might want to slip in the word Sunni as well." I will when you offer convincing evidence that I should. Either way, the equation is the same. Are the benefits of bombing Iran worth the cost of having to run a ground invasion or nuclear attack?

Posted by: Rafar at June 26, 2007 10:22 AM (kkgmI)

20 Yankee, I don't know how closely you've been following the EFP story, but the US is on the record saying that components for these are being manufactured in Iran and smuggled into Iraq by Quds Force. We even caught some convoys with EFP components coming over the border recently. So if Yon says 46 of 48 IEDs were EFP type, that means about 95% of the IEDs he's referring to were Iranian supplied. I'd love to hear more from him on this, but it sounds like what he's saying in his shorthand way is "Yeah, the Iranians did it."

Posted by: John at June 26, 2007 10:34 AM (NcsIb)

21 Gentlemen, I'm becoming more convinced with each passing day that it is the Iranian government's specific intention to provoke a war, but to do so in such a way as they might be able to blame others. Their economy is tanking, and the regime is extremely unpopular at home and growing more so each day. They continue down a path with nuclear development designed to provoke the ire and concern of western nations, and back that with genocidal rhetoric and threats. I think it is quite possible that Rafar may very well be right in his five assumptions of what Iran will try to do. All that said, Iran is trapped by geography and culture, and is far more vulnerable than most realize. They have more than 150,000 American servicemen to their west, along with thousands of Iraqi troops with long memories that would likely lay down their secular divisions to fight their natural enemies once more if attacked. Perhaps you haven't been following Iraqi Shia culture, but as I understand it, the Shia, be they JAM or Badr-alligned, gladly take Iranian money, political support, and munitions, but they would--in general--break against Iran if Iran attacked Iraq. Sunni insurgents and tribes would almost certainly join U.S. forces as well, as an Iranian-dominated Iraq would be their worst nightmare. There would no doubt be terrorist attacks by groups already within Iraq against our forces and Iraqi forces if such a conflict borke out, but those launching such attacks would probably be destroyed rather quickly, by either the military and security forces they attack, or angry Iraqi tribesmen and other citizens. Iran is bordered on the west by an small but potentially deadly NATO force that includes U.S. forces. They would not be a great threat, but they would, at the very least, force Iran to divide their attention and their assets. To their south is the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Let Iran shut down the Perisan Gulf, if they dare. Such an action cuts two ways, as U.S. surface and sub-surface groups in the Gulf of Oman can blockade all gas going into a fuel-starved Iran at minimal risk to our forces, and unmanned cruise missiles targeting their few aging refinaries and velnerable pipeline systems would have them choked off and their military and economy ground to a literal halt within weeks. This does not take into account possible actions by other Sunni nations in the region as a result of Iran possibly targetting their assets as part of an attempt to close gulf shipping. Saudi Arabia has a modern and substantial Air Force, and would almost assuredly retaliate if Iran attempted to hit their tankers or prots, which is what some analysts think may be part of the Iranian plan. Further way, if terror attacks are launched against western nations in this hemisphere, Europe, or Israel, public resolve will only free our military to wage what would surely be the most devastating air attack in history. Iran's navy would be destroyed in days, as would their remaining Air Force. Most of their generally obsolete ground forces, nake to U.S. spy satellites and drones, would be shredded, whether on the march, or bunkered down. Toothless, and without fuel, I believe we'd allow Iran to have a peace, at which point a defanged regime would have very few credible threats or resources to keep it in power. A ground invasion? Simply not needed. I think too many erroneously conflate the course of action we took in Iraq as the only option for dealing with other regimes in the region, and that simply isn't the case.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 26, 2007 10:37 AM (9y6qg)

22 "Perhaps you haven't been following Iraqi Shia culture, but as I understand it, the Shia, be they JAM or Badr-alligned, gladly take Iranian money, political support, and munitions, but they would--in general--break against Iran if Iran attacked Iraq." I would say that this is certainly true (though maybe not for the actual forces in the Badr brigade, but certainly for the civilians surrounding them), in the case of Iranian invasion. But we're not talking about Iranian invasion, we're talking about Iranian response to an attack. If Iran were attacked by the US, those same Iraqis have stated publicly, and would almost certainly carry through on, a promise to attack US forces in Iraq in response. This is quite a different situation. In one we have the Despised Persians attacking Iraq (why would they, they are natural allies) in the other we have Iraqis defending their Muslim brothers from attack by the Despised US. I suspect that US and UK forces would be forced between a rock and a hard place. What do they then do when one of the dominoes falls? If Pakistan rises up (they get touchy enough about knighthoods, how do you think they will feel about another invasion), is Shiites in Saudi rise up? Frankly, the world is in too delicate a state to take this sort of action. "Further way, if terror attacks are launched against western nations in this hemisphere, Europe, or Israel, public resolve will only free our military to wage what would surely be the most devastating air attack in history." The problem here is that, as far as I know, Air War has proven to be pretty poor at achieving the aims set for it. Witness Iraq, Lebanon, Britain, Germany, Japan (caveat for nukes which do work), etc, etc. It is constantly hyped as the big thing, but it just as consistently fails to deliver. One could probably argue that Serbia is an exception, but still ground troops needed to be present for it to achieve anything. In addition, the most devestating effect of the war would be the complete loss of Iran's oil to the world, along with whatever additional losses they could cause to other oil producers around the region. With world supply barely meeting demand very ugly times would be the result. To be honest I have been feeling like it is 1914 for a while now. Powers seem to be moving inexorably towards what could prove to be a disasterous conflict for very unclear and misguided reasons. And who'll still be laughing in his cave as the West pulls itself apart, alliances between the Great powers crumble, the filthy Kafirs in Iran are crushed, hatred of the US is spread far and wide, and the world economy tumbles into a new great depression? Yes, that's right, the Bearded Git himself. I just don't think that I could take the gloating.

Posted by: Rafar at June 26, 2007 10:59 AM (kkgmI)

23 Rafar, If we bomb them to bits? Let's refine that. If we were to hit Natanz, is that "bombing them to bits"? If they massed ground forces poised to invade Iraq and we took them out, is that "bombing them to bits"? And if we took either of those actions, why on Earth would we want to send ground forces in? Bob, Gentlemen, I'm becoming more convinced with each passing day that it is the Iranian government's specific intention to provoke a war, but to do so in such a way as they might be able to blame others. Exactly right. And there are ways we can contain them with military force, if need be, without giving them the all out war they seem to be pursuing. Their economy is tanking, and the regime is extremely unpopular at home and growing more so each day. They continue down a path with nuclear development designed to provoke the ire and concern of western nations, and back that with genocidal rhetoric and threats. Also right, and that can be leveraged. The likelihood that 67 million Iranians are going to prostrate themselves for Khameni and his legion of goons is low.

Posted by: Pablo at June 26, 2007 11:01 AM (yTndK)

24 "If we were to hit Natanz, is that "bombing them to bits"? If they massed ground forces poised to invade Iraq and we took them out, is that "bombing them to bits"? And if we took either of those actions, why on Earth would we want to send ground forces in?" You hit Natanz, they hit the straights, you blow up their refinery, they send a thousand SAMs into Iraq and blow up Congress, you bomb Tehran, Iraqi Shiites overrun a US army base. It isn't the exact sequence of events I'm talking about here, just the option of escalation or not. If you bomb them you start the inexorable march of escalation and it will end up with, in the most optimistic scenarios, a crushed and destitute Iran which provides a breeding ground for just the sort of hatred and terrorism that lead to 911, along with a smashed world economy. Or you could try not escalating and seeing if a better outcome is possible.

Posted by: Rafar at June 26, 2007 11:08 AM (kkgmI)

25 Or you could try not escalating and seeing if a better outcome is possible. They've got quite a bit of say in that, don't you think?

Posted by: Pablo at June 26, 2007 11:27 AM (yTndK)

26 And why on Earth would we bomb Tehran? If your scenario began to play out, we'd be taking out the SAM's, not the citizenry.

Posted by: Pablo at June 26, 2007 11:34 AM (yTndK)

27 "They've got quite a bit of say in that, don't you think?" Yes, they have. And they haven't done anything more than the US is doing to them. They're arming Shiites in Iraq? Well, so is the US. They're training and funding their political pets? Well, so is the US. They capture allied troops in blatantly outrageous circumstances, the US has captured Iranian diplomats (with or without scare quotes) in blatantly outrageous circumstances. As far as the Iranians are concerned the US and UK are running terrorist groups inside Iran, and I imagine that they are a little suspicious about those passenger jets full of Revolutionary Guards commanders that keep crashing on takeoff. As far as I can tell, most alleged or actual Iranian moves have been counters to US actions, it is just that, from our perspective, it is much easier to view their actions as much more outrageous because they are against us. What Iran hasn't done, as far as I can tell, is directly attack US forces. Similarly, the US hasn't directly attacked Iranian forces.

Posted by: Rafar at June 26, 2007 11:38 AM (kkgmI)

28 "And why on Earth would we bomb Tehran?" In retaliation for the bombing of the US Congress by a truck bomb. In my wholly made up and not necessarily accurate prediction. It isn't the 'how' that is important here, it is the process. You ramp up, they ramp up in response. Once you get in that cycle national pride, vanity of leaders and military necessity kick in and before you know it you're in the middle of a disasterous war. It isn't as if this sort of thing hasn't happened before.

Posted by: Rafar at June 26, 2007 11:42 AM (kkgmI)

29 As far as I can tell, most alleged or actual Iranian moves have been counters to US actions, it is just that, from our perspective, it is much easier to view their actions as much more outrageous because they are against us. Nukes? Hezbollah? EFP's? Are we the Lebanese? Are we the Iraqis?

Posted by: Pablo at June 26, 2007 11:43 AM (yTndK)

30 What Iran hasn't done, as far as I can tell, is directly attack US forces. Remember this? In retaliation for the bombing of the US Congress by a truck bomb. One, you're not going to truck bomb Congress, ever. It's physically impossible. Two, why would we then bomb Tehran? We act strategically, not emotionally.

Posted by: Pablo at June 26, 2007 11:50 AM (yTndK)

31 It isn't the 'how' that is important here, it is the process. You ramp up, they ramp up in response. Once you get in that cycle national pride, vanity of leaders and military necessity kick in and before you know it you're in the middle of a disasterous war. See Iraq, 1991-2003.

Posted by: Pablo at June 26, 2007 11:52 AM (yTndK)

32 Rafar, So who is the US equivalent of Hamas in your view? And using the word diplomats (with or without scare quotes) to refer to the Irbil six makes it sound like you're buying the Iranian line wholesale. Do you think those guys were diplomats? I don't. The US captured Iranian insurgents actively promoting the killing of our soldiers in Iraq. In return the Iranians attempted a direct reprisal by infiltrating a US base and kidnapping (and later killing) five soldiers in Karbala. Your effort at moral equivalence is thin.

Posted by: John at June 26, 2007 12:02 PM (NcsIb)

33 Rafar, And the US equivalent of Hamas is who exactly? I think the moral equivalence is pretty thin. As for a direct attack on the US, see Karbala.

Posted by: John at June 26, 2007 12:07 PM (NcsIb)

34 Sorry for the double post. The first one seemed to vanish for about 5 minutes then appear the moment I hit post on the shorter second draft.

Posted by: John at June 26, 2007 12:09 PM (NcsIb)

35 Oh, Lord, Rafar, give it up. You were making sense, up to a point, but you really stepped in it when you said that Persians and Iraqis were "natural allies." Um, you do know that Arabs and Persians don't like each other, yes? I mean, they really, really don't like each other. Think 12th-century England vs France. No, they aren't anything remotely resembling "natural allies." Your casual dismissal of all varieties of air offensive with a single wave of the hand betrays your own ignorance of the topic. First the examples presented represent a very wide variety of methods. Close air support isn't tactical bombming, which isn't "strategic" (AKA logistical) bombing. Mixing them up together in that manner is analagous to saying that a Colt M1911A1 is the same as a 88mm mortar, which is the same as a 105mm howitzer. After all, they all come out of a barrel, they all go "bang," right? They must be the same. Air war comes in a wide variety of flavors, and demonstrates a wide variety of results. No one type is foolproof, in that it produces guaranteed results, although some types seem to be more effective than others. There is a running gag in the Army: "B-52 bombs are very, very accurate. They always hit the ground..." On the other hand, the BUFFs can be quite accurate, depending on circumstances. One size doesn't fit all. Since that seems to be part of your personal diplomatic preferences, I'm surprised you managed to swallow such a crassly inaccurate generalization about air war. Your later comments make it clear that you've bought into the Iranian hype. If you recall, we very frequently saw a a laundry-list similar to yours before the Iraq invasion, and list failed to pan out as well. You also, BTW, seem to be reducing CY's intelligent & reasoned analysis to "bomb the buggers." But then, you do seem to have a poor grasp of what bombing is, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. It seems to me that your position is an excellent example of the old saying that "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." True, but that's only because the incompetent wait until the last resort as a matter of policy. You are so fixated on what might happen that you have paralyzed yourself into doing ... nothing. I'm sure the kleptocracy in Tehran would love seeing the West sit on its collective thumbs, just as the Brits did with regards to their captured sailors. CY, on the other hand, has presented a measured, reasoned response to the situation. I think it's a rather good plan, and I hope Washington has something along those lines in mind. But then, I also think we need a better source than the Sun before getting all fired up, as well...

Posted by: Casey Tompkins at June 26, 2007 12:31 PM (xdVg/)

36 "Your effort at moral equivalence is thin." I make no attempt at moral equivalence. I couldn't care less about morality in this matter. "Do you think those guys were diplomats? I don't." I don't know, and neither do you. What I do know is that the Kurdish authorities screamed to heaven about it. Do you think that this was because the Kurds are supporting Iranian insurgents? "The US captured Iranian insurgents actively promoting the killing of our soldiers in Iraq." You suppose. I have yet to see any solid evidence to support that asssertion. "In return the Iranians attempted a direct reprisal by infiltrating a US base and kidnapping (and later killing) five soldiers in Karbala." Again, you suppose, largely based on the reasoning, as far as I have seen, that since it was too difficult for Iraqi insurgents to carry out it must have been the Iranians. What is thin here is the evidence you present.

Posted by: rafar at June 26, 2007 01:26 PM (P0E2s)

37 "No, they aren't anything remotely resembling "natural allies." All Iraqis, no certainly not. The lot running the country, the ones in political parties which were sheltered in Iran for the Saddam years, the ones with militias that were openly trained in Iran for those years, SIIC, Dawa, Badr. Those guys are most definitely Iran's allies. Have you not been paying attention to your history? "Since that seems to be part of your personal diplomatic preferences, I'm surprised you managed to swallow such a crassly inaccurate generalization about air war." Well, try to suppress the Iranians with air strikes and we'll see what we get, shan't we. Dive in by all means. Just don't be surprised when it goes horribly wrong.

Posted by: Rafar at June 26, 2007 01:32 PM (P0E2s)

38 I would think if Iran had any helicopters across the border they would have been dispensed with rather quickly. The Iranian qud are our cia-green berets and navy seals and even Rambo (scary thought isn't it.) and like the old KGB, they have One qud for every number of soldiers, as well as their own SS units . They can operate solo and undetected and are very familiar with Iraqi soil ever since their highly effective and bloody counteroffensive against Sadam Hussein. (people forget the tens of thousands of iranians tied together as soviet/japanese style human assault waves. (Tied to prevent someone from backing off) We act as if they shouldn't be there. All these areas have, in addition to the high tech mines of today, also mines from before the U.S./British expedition came upon the scene. I hardly consider this an "alarming" development. I see an armistice coming soon, much like the Korean war. Patience is the better part of valor, Now I really hope we do not abandon the Kurds who are the equivalent of the Vietnam Montangyard (I hope I spelled that right). I believe we can spread stability outwards from there, by concentrationg our resources/assistance the same way Israel is attempting to stabilize the west bank and rekindle relations while Hamas is pigeonholed in Gaza. At least with the Kurds we have a loyal friend and have a better chance of success. Kudos to our forces establishing tribal treaties against Alqaeda in I raq. It is making a difference. Like any good cooking it takes time.

Posted by: SgtYork at June 26, 2007 03:29 PM (lLtUR)

39 Hey All, Here's the plan. Support the Iranian Divestiture Project, then heave a few grenades in the last functioning gas refinery. Then use the force projection of our two carrier groups in the Gulf to shut down any new gas stock imports. The Regime will tank in a matter of days. RBT

Posted by: rocketsbrain at June 26, 2007 03:33 PM (1vk+s)

40 Folks get so squishy when you discuss the nuke option, invoking the 'daisy' ad that did in Goldwater's hopes for the Presidency, and crying about all the toasted little children and women. Well, how many did we toast in our own city of Las Vegas? We set those things off around there all the time. For a long time. No, targeted, surgical nuclear strikes are a perfectly sound option.

Posted by: Bane at June 26, 2007 04:08 PM (emyIX)

41 A few corrections/comments, Rafar: You hit Natanz, which we do at will, repeating as necessary, sustaining 0-2% casualties (if the Israelis do it, 0-5% casualties) per strike; they hit the straights, Which they can do just about once, with limited effectiveness, suffering 50-75% casualties per strike (and it gets worse for them once they have done it and lose the advantage of surprise); which leads to destabilization of their own economy as their own crude goes through the Straits; which in theory angers other OPEC Straits-users and customers, leading to pressure to make it all stop - you may like to think all the pressure will be on the US; it ain't necessarily so; you blow up their refinery, they send a thousand SAMs into Iraq and blow up Congress, A little confusion here - you mean the US Congress? But to continue: we blow up or capture their refineries and wellheads, their economy and society grind to a halt: no POL, no modern warfare. Let them all come with swords if they like. Surely money for SAMs will be curtailed, and they will be wanted for home defense anyway; how do you blow up Congress with SAMs; blowing up Congress would result in nuclear annihilation of Iranian civilization, which I think has been accepted here to be an effective tactic - it wouldn't seem so brutal juxtaposed against pictures of a ruined Capitol (certainly not to Congresscritters); you bomb Tehran, Iraqi Shiites overrun a US army base. We already skipped "bombing Tehran," and all the stops would be yanked out anyway; define the "base" to be overrun - do you mean an outpost with six guys in three Humvees, or a real base? Barring a surprise attack, the latter is impossible (see Khe Sanh; see MOAB; see Sheriff ADS); with Iran in ruins, remember, the pressure, influence, money, etc. supporting the enemy in Iraq diminishes greatly; Also, as the naked power of the US is shown, resistance will diminish. I'm afraid the example of the Ottoman Empire does not illustrate that the Middle East cannot be ruled by a sufficient amount of force. NOBODY in Iraq thinks that AQ will save them from the US. What people may think is that AQ is more likely than the US to kill and maim them in the short term (or more so than the US is to save them), so should be appeased. Were this calculus to be overset, no AQ could buy breakfast in Iraq.

Posted by: nichevo at June 26, 2007 10:00 PM (Ak+g8)

42 "A few corrections/comments, Rafar:" You don't need to correct it, I already said that it was a made up and not necessarily accurate scenario. "how do you blow up Congress with SAMs;" Yes, that is a confusing sentence, sorry. I meant sent SAMs into Iraq and, as a separate matter, attacked congress with some sort of suicide attack. I note that none of these suggestions deals with the potential for worldwide depression due to oil shock, or with the predictable ire of the Russians and Chinese. I also note that your response encompasses the nuclear strike that I suggested was one of the two options and as such merely confirms my point.

Posted by: Rafar at June 27, 2007 02:27 AM (P0E2s)

43 One simple question. Why can't we just carpet bomb Iran? You know...beat them into submission. These guys are financing the suicide bombers over in Iraq. Get to the source. Kram www.FuzzySnake.com

Posted by: Kram at June 27, 2007 04:06 AM (i94/j)

44 All of the comments here are great, however, President Bush is really Jimmy Carter in wolves clothing. I am a 58 year old retired USAF CMSgt who is ready to go to IRAN/IRAQ with a rifle if necessary but Bush is a paper tiger. This Country will watch and do nothing to IRAN and eventually come home beaten and broke. Heck, here at home we can't even control our own government, the LIBS prevent us from defending our own soil from illegals comng in here. How does anyone ever think we would go against IRAN with all the weak kneed so-called representatives calling the shots. IRAN knows this too, they ain't stupid!!! IRAN will get away with anything they do in IRAQ. The only ones with the ????? to do anything is Israel and they are being held back by the good ole' USA too. This is such a frustration watching this all unfold

Posted by: Larry at June 27, 2007 11:25 AM (F26eZ)

45 Yeah, Purple Avenger, I want us to lose. Me, a guy with two family members in country. Me, a guy from a military family. Me, a veteran, I want us to lose. At least you've finally decided to drop the silly fiction that you're "not a liberal"...since that's exactly the demographic YOU targeted YOUR remark at, and in stating the above clearly identified with. You can say you don't want us to lose, but its pretty clear you're not cheering for a win either.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 27, 2007 07:24 PM (G2DEp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I guess guys from a country that killed 12 million in ethnic cleansing campaigns and the occasional beastly human "medical experiments" in World War II would be experts on the subject, right?

A German newsmagazine reported Sunday that two of its journalists embedded with troops from the North Carolina-based 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan witnessed Afghan and American soldiers involved in abusing prisoners.

The weekly Focus reported that, while on patrol with troops this month southwest of Kabul, reporter Wolfgang Bauer and photographer Karsten Schoene witnessed an incident they said amounted to torture.

And what, precisely, did they see that amounted to torture?

When the suspect refused to talk, the magazine said, the platoon leader tied one end of a rope to the suspect's foot and the other end to a vehicle, then threatened to drag the man unless he told the truth.

Focus reported that the platoon leader then had an American soldier start the motor. The magazine printed a picture of what it said was the prisoner tied to the vehicle, with a soldier standing nearby.

After idling for two minutes, the vehicle's motor was shut off. The man was not dragged, the magazine reported, and the suspect was set free.

In other words, there was no torture, and it appears the suspect was set free without a scratch on him. But, as the world media continues to lower the bar on what amounts to torture to include empty threats as torture, this journalist sees evidence of a "fake execution."

Funny, how tying a rope around a guy's foot is now equated with drilling kneecaps, amputating limbs, beheadings, and gouging out eyes, which incidentally, is not uncommon at all among Islamic extremists.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:04 AM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Undaunted by the facts, Glenn Greenwald attempts to shore up his demonstrably false claim that, "...the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as 'Al Qaeda.'" with an update to his already debunked post:

Posts from other bloggers who previously noticed this same trend demonstrate how calculated it is and pinpoint its obvious genesis. At Kos, BarbInMD noted back in May that Bush's rhetoric on Iraq had palpably shifted, as he began declaring that "Al-Qaida is public enemy No. 1 in Iraq." The same day, she noted that Bush "mentioned Al-Qaida no less than 27 times" in his Iraq speech. As always, a theme travels unmolested from Bush's mouth into the unexamined premises of our newspapers' front pages.

Separately, Ghillie notes in comments that the very politically cognizant Gen. Petraeus has been quite noticeably emphasizing "the battle against Al Qaeda" in interviews for months. And yesterday, ProfMarcus analyzed the top Reuters article concerning American action in Iraq -- headline: "Al Qaeda fight to death in Iraq bastion: U.S" -- and noted that "al qaeda is mentioned 13 times in a 614 word story" and that "reading the article, you would think that al qaeda is not only everywhere in iraq but is also behind all the insurgent activity that's going on."

Interestingly, in addition to the one quoted above, there is another long article in the Post today, this one by the reliable Thomas Ricks, which extensively analyzes the objectives and shortcomings in our current military strategy. Ricks himself strategy never once mentions Al Qaeda.

Finally, the lead story of the NYT today -- in its first two paragraphs -- quotes Gen. Odierno as claiming that the 2004 battle of Falluja was aimed at capturing "top Qaeda leaders in the city." But Michael Gordon himself, back in 2004, published a lengthy and detailed article about the Falluja situation and never once mentioned or even alluded to "Al Qaeda," writing only about the Iraqi Sunni insurgents in that city who were hostile to our occupation (h/t John Manning). The propagandistic transformation of "insurgents" into "Al Qaeda," then, applies not only to our current predicament but also to past battles as well, as a tool of rank revisionism (hence, it is now officially "The Glorious 2004 Battle against Al-Qaeda in Falluja").

You'll note that Greenwald's supporting "evidence" for his comes in the form of links to liberal blogs, letters to Salon.com, selected articles from the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and yet, he completely fails to address the fact that Multi-National Corps-Iraq's own press releases debunk his claims on a daily basis.

Sadly, like a dog returning to re-ingest its own vomit, Greenwald cannot get enough of his own rotting bile. Greenwald continues to insist that there is a conspiracy by the government, the world media, and the U.S. military to turn all enemy forces in Iraq into al Qaeda, and stands by his claim that:

...every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."

Again, this daft claim is hardly supported by the facts, and is easily refuted by the military's own primary means of information dissemination about the War in Iraq, the MNF-I PAO press release system.

Today, Monday, June 25, MNF-I has 13 listed press releases. Of those, one is a duplicate post, while the remaining 12 press releases break down enemy activity in Iraq for the day as follows:

• four releases discussing Sunni insurgent activity;
• one release discussing Shia militia "Secret Cells;"
• four where a specific group enemy group is not named;
• ...and only two where Al Qaeda is mentioned.

Far from making the enemy "almost exclusively" al Qaeda, MNF-I PAO's releases for the day link less than 17% of their stories to al Qaeda activity.

Greenwald ignores the key source that would prove or disprove his "all of our enemy's are being labelled al Qaeda" meme, which are the archives of press releases, of press briefings, Pentagon briefings, daily news, and feature stories from the U.S. military, which make it clear that al Qaeda is not the only extremist group being fought by Coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq.

Instead, he bumbles forward, doggedly bucking reality, insisting upon some grand conspiracy being orchestrated by the White House, international news services, the American press, and the United States military to repaint all extremist activity in Iraq as being orchestrated by al Qaeda.

As the links above clearly show, Multi-National Corps-Iraq is failing to uphold their end of this alleged conspiracy by consistently citing other extremists groups in their daily press releases and news stories.

Whoever is in charge of this grand conspiracy (perhaps the Freemasons? Maybe the Illuminati? Yale's secretive Skull & Bones Society? Boy Scout Troop 111 in Arlington, Virginia?) should also castigate the media, as they are failing to insist that everything in Iraq is "all al Qaeda, all the time," including this story in the Boston Globe where a suicide bomber targeting Sunni tribal sheiks aligned against al Qaeda was the perfect opportunity to flog this claim, if such a conspiracy was indeed "on." Sadly, the media is failing to uphold their end of the bargain.

Glenn Greenwald seems doggedly intent on descending into his own brand of "trutherism" regarding a grand government, media and military conspiracy to re-brand the Iraq War.

In doing so, he may finally get the notoriety he so desperately craves, if not for the reasons he'd hoped.

Update: I hardly find it surprising that the empty heads at Editor & Publisher lap up Greenwald's bile, with nary a thought to whether or not it's true.

Considering that E&P editor Greg Mitchell has his own track record of manufacturing news and indeed, wrote a post advocating that the media should attempt to undermine the Presidency, I'm not exactly shocked they'd grasp at any straw they could to support their nakedly partisan political objectives.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:36 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 8 kb.

Glenn Wilson McEllensburg has suddenly become a terrorism expert, and can't wait to get a conspiracy off his chest:

Josh Marshall publishes an e-mail from a reader who identifies what is one of the most astonishing instances of mindless, pro-government "reporting" yet:

It's a curious thing that, over the past 10 - 12 days, the news from Iraq refers to the combatants there as "al-Qaida" fighters. When did that happen?

Until a few days ago, the combatants in Iraq were "insurgents" or they were referred to as "Sunni" or "Shia'a" fighters in the Iraq Civil War. Suddenly, without evidence, without proof, without any semblance of fact, the US military command is referring to these combatants as "al-Qaida".

Welcome to the latest in Iraq propaganda.

That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term "Al Qaeda" to designate "anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq" is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."

Actually, that isn't obvious, Glenn. What is obvious is your own industrial-strength ignorance, which apparently seems to be quite contagious among the more irrational actors of the far left.

The reason that we've been reading more over the past few days about attacks directed against al Qaeda—more than Sunni insurgents, more than Shia militiamen—is that elements of al Qaeda have been specifically targeted by U.S. and Iraqi forces in Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Diyala Province, in Operation Commando Eagle southwest of Baghdad, Operation Marne Torch southeast of Baghdad, and in other operations throughout the country.

If Glen Greenwald or Josh Marshall weren't above a Sullivaneque "floating of a theory" by a conspiracy-minded reader (to excuse their own inherent distrust of our military, of course), they might have bothered to recognize, or God forbid, research a few key facts.

The first of those facts is that we are in offensive operations surrounding and targeting al Qaeda cells specifically, often with information provided by their former allies in the Sunni insurgency.

Second, the military is consistently releasing stories about contacts with both Sunni insurgents and Shia militiamen, and our military is calling them such as they contact them.

Let's got back "10-12 days" and see what Multi-National Force-Iraq has been saying in their press releases. According to Greenwald, the enemy the military talks about is "almost exclusively now" al Qaeda.

And yet, when we go back 12 days to Monday, June 11, we find that in MNF-I's three combat-related press releases, only one addresses al Qaeda. The following day, U.S. forces raided an insurgent weapons cache, came under attack from an insurgent VBIED, and engaged "enemy fire" coming from a mosque, without ever specifying who that was.

On Wednesday, June 13, MNF-I published 17 press releases. Of those a Grand total of four mentioned al Qaeda. Five others mentioned Sunni insurgents, five more couldn't specify the attacker, and one wrote about Iranian-affiliated Shia militias.

I invite Greenwald, Marshall, and others who seem to like this meme to do their own digging through MNF-I's archive of press releases, where they'll find more days very similar to this.

As the offensive operations cited above--part of an overall operation called Phantom Thunder--are specifically targeting al Qaeda cells, we will be reading about those terrorists that our soldiers are directly targeting. But as accounts from Saturday show that we are still encountering Shia militias and Sunni insurgents even today, the theory being aired by Greenwald and his conspiracy-minded followers is shown—with only passing research—to be complete and utter bunk.

Update: Undaunted by the facts, Greenwald attempts to shore up his flimsy argument by citing other liberal conspiracy theorists and letters to Salon.com, forcing yet another debunking of his claims.

Reality. He should check into it sometime.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 656 words, total size 5 kb.

Back before he was governor of Minnesota and was still prowling the squared-circle as the villainous heel "The Body," Jesse Ventura used to growl, "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!"

That maxim seems to have been taken to heart (and wallet) by the progressive Center For American Progress (CAP), which released a document called "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," which advocates the return of the failed "Fairness Doctrine" in talk radio, in an attempt to censor and stifle the dominance of conservative talkers.

What the Center For American Progress won't tell you is that one of the authors of the liberally-biased "report," Paul Woodhull, is a founding partner of not one, but two liberal talk radio show companies, Big Eddie Radio Productions, LLC (BERP), which produces The Ed Shultz Show, and Bill Press Partners, LLC, producers of The Bill Press Show.

It was perhaps fitting that this self-serving conflict of interest was discovered by Mark Levin, a conservative talk radio show host in his blog at National Review Online.

If Congress reintroduces the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," as CAP suggests, broadcasters will be forced to balance their airtime between conservative talk radio shows and liberal talk radio shows. There are only a handful of successful, established liberal talk radio shows from which broadcasters who have to choose from, and Woodhull has a financial stock in two of those.

This liberal organization is not only attempting to regulate free speech for political gain, but also, in the case of at least Woodhull, they intend to profit from the loss of your First Amendment rights as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:23 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

From QandO, where they can tell a difference between U.S. and Canadian uniforms.

Hey, it could be worse...

She could have instead used the photo of her meeting with this weak-chinned ophthalmologist, with whom she may not be visiting with any more.

(Via Hot Air), where they note that Democrats have a history of not knowing what our uniforms look like.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:29 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

So Michael Yon entitles his latest post from the front lines of Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Baquba, which to date, has killed 51 members of al Qaeda and led to the capture of 20 more as of yesterday, June 21.

Source:Explosion in Baquba on June 12, 2007. Photo by Michael Yon.

Yon reports that the larger media organizations are finally showing up, but are having communications problems that make reporting on the battle difficult (I cleaned up the hanging HTML tag in Mike's post; I hope you don't mind):

Alexandra Zavis from Los Angeles Times is down in the heat of the battle bringing home information. Michael Gordon from New York Times is still slugging it out, and his portions are accurate in the co-authored story, "Heavy Fighting as US Troops Squeeze Insurgents in Iraqi City." (Long title.)

CNN has joined the fight. AP came but will stay only a few days. Joe Klein from TIME was here on the 21st and his story posted the same day and was accurate. We rode together in a Stryker. Like magic, JoeÂ’s story was out before I got back to base. Joe took a helicopter out and filed from elsewhere. IÂ’m having comms problems here which is greatly slowing the flow. My Thuraya satellite phone and RBGAN satellite dish are not working for hours each day. The AP reporter is having the same problems. The signal degradation is caused by a special sort of RF interference. Moving our antennas around wonÂ’t work. We simply get cut off for long periods.

If these communications problems sounds familiar, it should: Yon and other journalists have faced these issues for years:

Valuable stories about our soldiers and the battle are being lost and will never be filed because reporters, after a long day of being on the battlefield, cannot make a simple phone call, or file a story. Why be here? ItÂ’s pretty dangerous, and insurance is expensive. I had to skip a mission this morning because I cannot make communications, and am down to filing stories on the fly again without time for editing. There is no other way to keep the flow open, and if you are reading this, itÂ’s only after IÂ’ve wasted hours trying to upload it. Hours I could have been with our soldiers, telling about their days in one of the most important battles of this war.

Frankly, the military has had since 2003 to work on these issues, but setting up communications for reporters has always seemed to be an afterthought, if thought of at all. In a war where media access and coverage driving public opinion is as important to success as combat and humanitarian operations on the ground, there is simply no good excuse for this.

I suspect that a lot of the interference reporters are encountering with their comms are directly the result of ECM jamming to keep al Qaeda from communicating, but as U.S. military comms work, they should be able to dedicate one line or frequency for media reporting. Hopefully, the PAO will get these problems resolved, ASAP.

Otherwise, while Yon is very impressed with U.S. forces and the level of access he and other reporters have been afforded to cover the battle. He is far less impressed with local Iraqi military commanders, who have a tendency to act like state officials in Louisiana:

IÂ’ve seen them in meeting after meeting, over the past few days, finding ways to be underachievers. The Iraqi commanders have dozens of large trucks and have only to drive to our base to collect the supplies and distribute those supplies to the people displaced in the battle. Our troops are fully engaged in combat, yet the Iraqi leaders were not able to carry that load without LTC Johnson supplying the initiative. The Kurds would have had this fixed yesterday. The Iraqi commanders in Mosul would have fixed this. The local Iraqi command climate is disappointing by comparison.

As for his impressions of how our soldiers are performing in Baquba, I'll send you over to Mike's site to read the rest.

As noted above by Yon above, reporters are finally flooding into Baquba to cover Operation Arrowhead Ripper, but communications problems seem to be limiting the information getting out.

One story that did get out, from Reuters reporter Alister Bull, highlights the depravity of the enemy we are fighting:

Bednarek said U.S. forces were making some grisly discoveries as they scoured Baquba. He said residents led soldiers to a house in the western part of the city that appeared to have been used to hold, torment and kill hostages. Soldiers destroyed it.

"When you walk into a room and you see blood trails, you see saws, you see drills, knives, in addition to weapons, that is not normal," Bednarek said.

That soldiers uncovered an al Qaeda torture house is unsurprising; soldiers in another part of Operation Phantom Thunder, in a sub-operation called Operation Commando Eagle, captured an al Qaeda torture manual on CD when they captured several terrorists yesterday. We've seen these before.

Like yesterdays' account from Joe Klein of TIME, Bull reports that members of the insurgent 1920s Revolutionary Brigades are helping U.S. forces route al Qaeda.

Source:Soldiers assigned to the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, move down a neighborhood street during Operation Arrowhead Ripper, June 19, 2007, in Baqouba, Iraq. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Armando Monroig.

This sounds familiar.

MNC-I release an account this morning that may provide anecdotal evidence that al Qaeda in Baquba was truly surprised by the swiftness and effectiveness of how quickly American forces were able to cordon off Baquba and trap them inside, as al Qaeda fighters desperately attempted to use an ambulance to escape:

Coalition Forces intercepted an ambulance carrying seven suspected al-Qaida operatives attempting to circumvent security elements operating in Baqouba, June 19.

Local doctors called the Diyala Provincial Joint Coordination Center and reported five children injured near Khatoon, a neighborhood in southwest Baqouba, Iraq. The PJCC dispatched an ambulance to that location.

Later, the ambulance was seen heading north on a road northwest of New Baqouba when it bypassed the road that led to the hospital.

The ambulance was stopped by alert Soldiers from 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Lewis, Wash., who are conducting missions in the area as part of Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

Soldiers checked the ambulance and found a driver and six men, who appeared to be in their 20s and 30s, two of which were injured. There were no children in the ambulance.

CF provided medical treatment to the wounded men and detained all seven.

If this sounds familiar, Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists have frequently used ambulances and even media vehicles to transport men and munitions in their ever-present conflict with Israeli forces.

Another MNC-I release states that U.S. attack helicopters have killed at least 13 al Qaeda terrorists and leveled their compound, and found a Baquba school rigged with explosives:

In a separate engagement, CF Soldiers discovered an empty school complex rigged with explosives in Baqouba, the capital city of Diyala province, Thursday, during Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

Soldiers of 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment discovered the booby-trapped school complex. An investigation of the area determined the school and surrounding buildings had been abandoned.

CF had to destroy the school due to risk to the community. CF were unable to disable the explosives because of instability. Ground forces effectively coordinated a precisions guided munitions strike and successfully destroyed the school-borne IED.

The release concludes:

As Arrowhead Ripper continued through June 21, at least 51 al-Qaida operatives have been killed, with 20 al-Qaida operatives detained, seven weapons caches discovered, 21 improvised explosive devices destroyed and nine booby-trapped structures destroyed.

Hopefully we'll be able to update this developing story as more media are able to file reports.

Update: A.J. Strata has his own roundup posted here.

Update: A short email from Mike Yon:

They are in trouble here, Bob. Operation Arrowhead Ripper is going very well. This is a problem for Al Qaeda here.

Based on what Yon has said both in his emails to me and Glenn, and probably others, and what he has said in his posts from Baquba stating his near unfettered access to the Operation Arrowhead Ripper tactical operations center (TOC) for U.S. and Iraqi forces, he is obviously privy to information that shows al Qaeda in Baquba has every appearance of having been successfully surrounded and cut-off.

Yon noted in his latest post that he and other journalists cannot send out reports via cell phone or satellite, indicating that the military is probably jamming non-military electronic transmissions in the area (I'm sure al Qaeda already knows that their phones don't work, or I wouldn't post it).

This means that al Qaeda, which typically carries cell and/or sat phones for communications, is hampered from cummunicating position-to-position within Baquba, and is probably cut off to external cells in surrounding towns and villages as well. It also probably means that their long-standing tactic of using cell phones to rig command-detonated IEDS has been either eliminated, or at least severely hampered.

It seems that U.S. forces may have learned from Fallujah and other operations where the weaknesses in their earlier cordon operations have been, and have closed those gaps in Baquba.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:06 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1563 words, total size 12 kb.

I wonder how much it pained AP's Kim Gamel to write this:

A U.S. Marine commander in Anbar province predicted that al-Qaida fighters will be expelled from Fallujah by August as the military moves to cut insurgent supply and reinforcement lines into Baghdad and surrounding areas.

Brig. Gen. John Allen, the deputy commander for American forces west of Baghdad, said al-Qaida in Iraq has largely been pushed out of population centers in much of the Anbar province.

He cited the success in turning Sunni tribes against the organization and an influx of American troops to chase al-Qaida out of Iraqi and regions around the capital.

"The vast majority of them have been pushed out of the population centers," Allen said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press. "The surge has given us the troops we needed to really clear those areas, so we cleared them and we stayed."

He said U.S. and Iraqi troops were trying to repeat recent success in calming Ramadi, the provincial capital, using the same neighborhood-by-neighborhood tactics in Fallujah -- a Sunni insurgent bastion that was first cleared by a massive American assault in 2004.

Allen also stated Karmah would be clear of al Qaeda by July.

Over at TIME, Joe Klein helicoptered his way into Baquba, and unleashed a surprisingly objective post showing that Sunni Awakening movement that has largely led al Qaeda to flee their one time stronghold in al Anbar province has spread to Diyala province as well, where American forces were getting help from Sunni insurgents:

A lieutenant colonel named Bruce Antonia told Odierno about preparing to attack the Buhritz neighborhood a few nights earlier when he was approached by local Sunni inusurgents—members, they said, of the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades—who were streaming out of the neighborhood. "They said they'd been fighting al-Qaeda but had run out of ammunition and asked us to supply them. We told them, 'Show us where AQ is and we'll fight them.'" The insurgents did and the neighborhood was cleared.

A second lieutenant colonel named Avanulis Smiley picked up the story from there, "Sir, they've also showed us seven buried IED sites. They gave us specific information—description of the houses, gate color, tree trunks."

After the briefing I asked Colonel Antonia if he'd asked the Sunnis why they had turned against al-Qaeda. "They said it was religious stuff," he said. "AQI demanded that the women wear abayas, no smoking and they preached an extreme version of Islam in the mosque. They'd also spent the winter without food and fuel because of the violence al-Qaeda was causing. One guy said to me, 'We fought against you because you invaded our country and you're infidels. But you treat us with more dignity than al-Qaeda,' and he said they'd continue to work with us. I've been involved in many operations here and this is a first—usually everybody's shooting at us. This is the first time we've had any of them on our side." (In web postings, the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade has denied it is cooperating with the Americans.)

Sadly enough, the majority of the media has chosen to focus on the tragic deaths of 14 American troops in combat, instead of what the operations these men were a part of are attempting to accomplish. As is so often the case, Allahpundit puts the media's choice in stark relief.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:10 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.

Michael Yon has a new post up, Operation Arrowhead Ripper: Day One. The military is allowing him full access to the battlefield and to the TOC headquarters. Civilian casualties are occurring, as the terrorists are using civilians as human shields when they engage our forces. The number of civilian casualties is as yet unknown.

Yon notes that only Michael Gordon of the NY Times is with him, making them the only two members of the media in the battle. CNN, TIME, Reuters, etc are apparently working their way to the battlefield now, making me wonder just who and how they're getting their stories to date.

I'm not going to steal all of Mike's thunder; go to his site to catch up on the rest of his account, and remember he is reader supported.

I will say this: I've been reading him since his embed with the "Deuce-Four" Stryker Brigade and have been corresponding regularly with him for most of a year, and I've rarely seen him so confident of an on-going operation. If he's correct—and he's rarely wrong, even when being right is unpopular—then al Qaeda in Baquba is living on borrowed time.

According to a press release from MNF-I PAO yesterday, "41 insurgents have been killed, five weapons caches have been discovered, 25 improvised explosive devices have been destroyed and five booby-trapped houses have been discovered and destroyed."

Other operations are underway as part of an overall operation called Phantom Thunder, but some are not getting as much media attention as Arrowhead Ripper is beginning to attract, so you may not be aware of them.

Operation Commando Eagle has been launched as joint U.S Army-Iraqi Army air-ground assault targeting al Qaeda cells southwest of Baghdad. Twenty-nine suspects have been detained, and multiple weapons caches were reported captured.

According to the MNF-I PAO release:

Troops of the 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 2nd BCT, detained three men when their truck was found to contain documents requesting rockets as well as a spool of copper wire, commonly used to build improvised explosive devices.

I'm going to try to track down who that document was requesting rockets from, as while it could be nothing conclusive, it could be quite interesting if a source of the rockets could be identified.

Southeast of Baghdad, Operation Marne Torch is joint U.S. Army-Iraqi Army operation clearing the Arab Jabour area. More than sixty suspects have been detained, and 17 boats used to ferry explosives across the Tigris River have been destroyed, as have 17 weapons caches.

No Agenda Here

It in the past 48 hours, more than 40 al Qaeda terrorists (including a Libyan) have been killed, more than 100 have been captured in these and other on-going operations, and tons of munitions have been captured or destroyed in weapons caches.

What does CNN focus on? You already know the answer:

Fourteen U.S. troops have been killed in attacks over the past two days in Iraq -- 12 soldiers and two Marines -- according to the U.S. military.

In the deadliest attack, a roadside bomb struck a military vehicle on Thursday in northeastern Baghdad, killing five U.S. soldiers, three Iraqi civilians and an Iraqi interpreter.

A U.S. soldier and two civilians were wounded.

Also Thursday, a rocket-propelled grenade struck a U.S. military vehicle in northern Baghdad, killing a soldier and wounding three others.

On Wednesday, a roadside bomb killed two U.S. Task Force Marne troops and wounded four others southwest of Baghdad.

A similar attack in western Baghdad on Wednesday killed four U.S. soldiers and wounded a fifth.

In addition, two Marines were killed in combat operations in Iraq's Anbar province on Wednesday.

There was zero--ZERO mention of the successes of the operations above mentioned by CNN. If you read this, their featured story on the war for today, you'd be left to understand that American and Iraqi forces, as well as Iraqi civilians, are suffering significant casualties, and al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents, and Shia militiamen got away with barely a scratch for the carnage they created. The CNN account reported a grand total of one dead terrorist, and he was a suicide bomber.

Propaganda is as much about what you chose not to print, as much as it is about the angle from which you pursue what do decide to print. Not that many years ago, CNN took a vow of silence not to report the torture being committed by Saddam Hussein's brutal regime in order to maintain a Baghdad office.

I'm beginning to wonder exactly what CNN gains now by refusing to tell all of the truth of this current Iraqi war.

Nah. Couldn't be.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:27 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 778 words, total size 5 kb.

The six-month contract I was hired into in 2005 is finally closing at the end of this month after three extensions, and a few folks have suggested that I should investigate attempting to find a new media journalism gig, either here in the Raleigh area, or one from which I could telecommute.

I know via Sitemeter that a few media outfits check in on this site on occasion, so I'm wondering...

Any takers?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:01 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

This just in via email from Blackfive:

With combat operations in Iraq as kinetic as they've ever been, the Marines could use your support. No links, just please use the info below at your discretion.

At Blackfive, we have been trying to improve our relationship with the Public Affairs Officers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, the Marines have begun a really intense exchange of ideas with us. One Marine Combat Commander embraced our offer of support.

One of the requests that they had of us was to attempt to get 6,000 positive and supportive emails - one for each Marine, Sailor and Soldier in the Marine Regimental Combat Team - 6. Grim, our resident thinker and former Marine at Blackfive, has taken responsibility for this project.

From Grim's interview with Marine Colonel Simcock, Commander of RCT-6:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/06/roundtable_with.html

COL. SIMCOCK: (Chuckles.) I'll tell you what, the one thing that all Marines want to know about -- and that includes me and everyone within Regimental Combat Team 6 -- we want to know that the American public are behind us. We believe that the actions that we're taking over here are very, very important to America. We're fighting a group of people that, if they could, would take away the freedoms that America enjoys.
If anyone -- you know, just sit down, jot us -- throw us an e- mail, write us a letter, let us know that the American public are behind us. Because we watch the news just like everyone else. It's broadcast over here in our chow halls and the weight rooms, and we watch that stuff, and we're a little bit concerned sometimes that America really doesn't know what's going on over here, and we get sometimes concerns that the American public isn't behind us and doesn't see the importance of what's going on. So that's something I think that all Marines, soldiers and sailors would like to hear from back home, that in fact, yes, they think what we're doing over here is important and they are in fact behind us.

The Marines have set up a special email address to send a supportive message to the Marines is: RCT-6lettersfromh@gcemnf-wiraq.usmc.mil . The emails are being scanned by the PAO before being printed and distributed to individual Marines.

And, guess what?, the RCT-6 has a blog at http://fightin6thmarines.vox.com/

AFTER A FEW DAYS, WE HAVE ONLY GOTTEN THE MARINES ABOUT 2,000 EMAILS. WE COULD USE SOME HELP IN GETTING THE WORD OUT.

Thanks!

Best,

Matt

You're waiting for what, exactly?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.