The British people may not have any interest in fighting Islamic terrorism, but Islamists certainly have an interest in fighting them:

British authorities are tracking almost 30 terrorist plots involving 1,600 individuals, the head of Britain's MI5 spy agency said, adding that many of the suspects are homegrown British terrorists plotting homicide attacks.

In a speech released by her agency Friday, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller said MI5 had foiled five major plots since the July 2005 transit bomb attacks in London.

Speaking to a small audience of academics in London on Thursday, Manningham-Buller said officials were "aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy."

"What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten?" she said. "No, nearer 30 that we currently know of."

She said MI5 and the police were tackling 200 cells involving more than 1,600 individuals who were "actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts here and overseas."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

A powerful sermon on the Iraq War as told through the analogy of a World War II soldier's sacrifice, via Josh Manchester's enlightening post on the sudden multitude of plans for Iraq.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Robert Gates, the nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of State was the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser during the failed 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War that may have led to the mass murder of 100,000 Shiite Iraqis:

On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north.

But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."

The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene.

In recent years Baghdad has shortchanged the south in the distribution of food and medicine, contributing to severe malnutrition among vulnerable populations. Some 100 Shiite clerics have been murdered, including four senior ayatollahs. Draining the marshes displaced 400,000 Marsh Arabs, destroying a culture that is one of the world's oldest, as well as causing immeasurable ecological damage.

The first Bush administration's decision to abandon the March uprising was a mistake of historic proportions. With U.S. help, or even neutrality, the March uprising could have succeeded, thus avoiding the need for a second costly war.

The obvious question is, "Did Bob Gates have a hand in shaping Bush's call for rebellion?"

If so, would he also partially responsible for failing to support the rebellion, leading to one of Saddam's greatest genocides? I do not know the answers to these questions, but they must be asked before he is confirmed as the next U.S. Secretary of Defense.

While I sincerely hope that the sentiment expressed on Austin Bay's blog that the Gates nomination may political prep for "prosecuting the war even more vociferously," I think that Mr. Gates and the present Bush Administration owe to it to us and the Iraqi people to explain in detail what role, if any, he played in an Administration that instigated, and then failed to support, the 1991 uprisings.

The administration of Bush '41 failed Iraq once when we cried for them to stand up for their freedom. The same personnel who failed Iraqis in 1991 should not be given the opportunity to do so again.

Update: It's up behind an annoying subscriber wall, But Allah says that the Wall Street Journal is on the same page.

One reason the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki has had such a hard time dismantling Shiite militias is because Shiites fear that itÂ’s only a matter of time before the U.S. abandons them again and they will have to confront the Sunni Baathist insurgency on their own. If President Bush wants to reassure Shiites on this score and about Mr. Gates, he should announce that the recent efforts to appease the Sunni terrorist political fronts in Iraq have failed.

We presume Mr. Gates will be grilled about these and other issues during his confirmation hearings. He should be.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 5 kb.

Along with a handful of other bloggers, I was given a chance by U.S. Central Command to interview U.S. soldiers currently serving in Baghdad, Iraq, specifically, MPs (military police) from the 615th Military Police Company MSC: 89th MP Bde, also known as the "Bloodhounds."

I was able to interview SSG Jason Oliver and SPC Kimberly McGuiness.

Josh Manchester also interviewed SSG Oliver and SPC McGuiness in a podcast at The Adventures of Chester.

SSG Jason Oliver from Cypress, Illinois, has been in the Army 7 years, and is currently the Team Chief for a Police Transition Team in Baghdad.

Q: A recent cluster study by Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the British medical journal The Lancet states that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion by violent means. While you cannot expect to answer for the rest of the country, does this seem to be a reasonable figure based upon your experience in Baghdad?

SSG Oliver: ItÂ’s a tough question to answer. I only see a small portion of the big picture. As a Team Chief for the Police Transition Team it is something that I see and that I report, but I donÂ’t keep count on everything, just report what I see. I do find it is hard to fathom that there have been that many Iraqis killed since 2003.

Q: Most media reports coming out of Baghdad paint a picture of a city under siege, with roving Shiite and Sunni death squads operating virtually at will, kidnapping people of the street, summarily executing them, and dumping their bodies in the street. Is this an accurate presentation of life in Baghdad?

SSG Oliver: First off, I think that siege is not the appropriate word to use. Yes it has a duel meaning, but when I think of a siege, I think back to Medieval Europe with royal courts placing rival castles under siege and cutting off all outside support, lasting from months to years. So is the city under siege, I don’t think it is. Beyond what the media portrays, there is more to this city that the so called “death squads”. You still see a continuous flow of commerce in and out of the city. I know that the locals live in fear and that many have duel identities, but this to the Iraqi people has become a sign of the times. They have learned to adapt to the ever changing political climate and try to live as normal a life as they can. I cannot count the times when my patrol has traveled through the city with the streets full of life, little street side venders selling the newest gadget in the area, bistros busy with hungry locals standing in line to grab the fresh “Falafel or Kebab” and the females musing about in search of the best cut of meat and freshest fruits and vegetables to serve the family. I read an article the other day about an increasing number of tattoo shops in the Baghdad area. In the article it stated that tattoos are forbidden in the Islamic culture, but some people feel that it is one way that, if they should be killed, they will be identified so the proper notification can be made and the family does not have to grieve more that they have to. The people adapt, they know when most bad things are going to happen, and they take precautionary steps to prevent them from being caught up in whatever may happen. As strange as it may sound, I have a lot of respect for a majority of the Iraqi people. While we are here to help control the chaos, they live in it.

Q: As a follow-up to that question, do you see any signs that the sectarian violence in Iraq may abate any time soon?

SSG Oliver: I would love to say yes, but it is up to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to come together and end the bloodshed.

Q: What has been your experience working with the Iraq police units you have been training? Do you find them to be reliable, motivated and properly equipped for their roles?

SSG Oliver: Good and Bad. All in all, the Iraqi Police try to perform their duties daily, but they do lack things that would make them more effective. Most of the police have minimal training and that is where our job comes into play. The Police Transition Team helps fill the gap by providing training and mentorship to the IPÂ’s to better educate them on the basic police fundamentals. They do, however, need new and better equipment. They use unarmored vehicles to conduct their patrol which puts them at an even higher risk of injury and death. The now this and can sometimes use it to their advantage, but this is not always the case. Overall, the IPÂ’s are as effective as their equipment allows them to be and if they should get the needed equipment, then the IPÂ’s could assume a better role in their respective communities and perform in a more efficient manner.

Q: Are there any anti-Iraqi forces that seem to be behind the bulk of the attacks that are occurring in your area of operations, and are U.S. and Iraqi forces "on the same page" when it comes to going after those carrying out these attacks?

SSG Oliver: It has been my experience operating in the city that allows me to say that for the most part, both U.S and Iraqi forces are on the same sheet of music. They do work together well, but the Iraqi Security Forces do have advantages that Coalition Forces do not have. We are bound by our rules and regulations were as the Iraqis have more lenient laws which allow them some better opportunities.

Q: We have a national election coming up in one week, where it seems that the Democratic Party has a very good chance of capturing the House of Representatives from Republican control. I wrote a post a week ago explaining that if Democrats win control of the House, they might cut off funding for the war. Based upon your own experience in Baghdad, what effect do you think it would have if you and other U.S. forces were summarily pulled out of Iraq?

SSG Oliver: If your child takes their first steps while holding on to your hands are you just going to let go and hope they continue on their own? No. Most people would continue to support and encourage them until they can continue on their own without support. I feel the same applies here. The Iraqi government is very young and still needs assistance from outside sources so they can develop and grow. The US government has pledged to help build Iraq into a model for the region, and if we were to pull out to early, the Iraqi Government will stumble from its already young state and possibly fall, which would put US forces back into a situation that could possible be worse. We need to stay, maintain and support the Iraqi Government until it can handle all aspects without US assistance.

Q: This is completely up to you. Please use this opportunity to tell us anything and everything you would like readers to know about your experiences in Iraq. Unlike newspaper journalists, I have virtually unlimited space, so please take as much time to tell us what you think the American people should know.

SSG Oliver: First, I want to thank everyone that supports our troops. This is by far the most important thing. Second, I wish that people back home could see everything that happens here, not just the gruesome stories of a war torn country. There is so much more to everything that the Coalition is doing in this country that goes unnoticed. Things such as seeing Soldiers interacting with the local children, giving them school supplies, toys and even sharing their candy and whatever other things the Soldiers have. I cannot remember when the press ran a story about U.S Soldiers establishing an aid station out in a community that allowed many Iraqis to receive medical attention that they would have otherwise not received. The media needs to rethink the coverage and produce a balance of both the good and bad, and maybe then the world will not think that this is a completely war ravaged country.

SPC Kimberly MCGuiness from Fletcher, North Carolina, is a .50-caliber turrent gunner on a Humvee conducting Police Transition Team duties in Baghdad.

Q: A recent cluster study by Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the British medical journal The Lancet states that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion by violent means. While you cannot expect to answer for the rest of the country, does this seem to be a reasonable figure based upon your experience in Baghdad?

SPC McGuiness: I don't know the answer to that question due to the fact that it is outside of my job to keep track of how many violent deaths there have been. I would say that their have been many but I don't know the exact number.

Q: Most media reports coming out of Baghdad paint a picture of a city under siege, with roving Shiite and Sunni death squads operating virtually at will, kidnapping people of the street, summarily executing them, and dumping their bodies in the street. Is this an accurate presentation of life in Baghdad?

SPC McGuiness: There are always two sides to every media report. People hear about the bad things because its news worthy. In my experience, it is true that locals are fearful of being kidnapped and executed but I can't tell you for a fact that it is Shiite vs Sunni. There are violent things that happen but you can't really pin point the source of the problem.

Q: As a follow-up to that question, do you see any signs that the sectarian violence in Iraq may abate any time soon?

SPC McGuiness: I can't tell you for sure if it will let up. You have people in this country that want all Shiite governments and those that want the Sunni's in power and you have that divide between the two. If an understanding can be reached then yes but until that divide closes, it could be sometime before the healing and rebuilding can happen.

Q: What has been your experience working with the Iraq police units you have been training? Do you find them to be reliable, motivated and properly equipped for their roles?

SPC McGuiness: I feel as if they had better vehicles, better equipment and more armor on their vehicles that they could perform more efficiently. Also they don't get paid that much and for the amount of danger there is out in Baghdad, the pay doesn't seem to quite add up. They are afraid to die just like everyone else and if they were better equipped it might make them more comfortable in their job.

Q: Are there any anti-Iraqi forces that seem to be behind the bulk of the attacks that are occurring in your area of operations, and are U.S. and Iraqi forces "on the same page" when it comes to going after those carrying out these attacks?

SPC McGuiness: In my experience, the Iraqi forces and the US forces quite often are on the same page but other times there are things that hinder movement. There are things that the Iraqi forces can do that US forces cannot do and we have to handle situations differently. With the Iraqi forces, Iraq is "their turf" whereas with the U.S we still have soon guidelines and rules that must be followed. There are always going to be some anti-Iraqi forces that think what we are trying to establish is wrong and that take matters into their own hands.

Q: We have a national election coming up in one week, where it seems that the Democratic Party has a very good chance of capturing the House of Representatives from Republican control. I wrote a post a week ago explaining that if Democrats win control of the House, they might cut off funding for the war. Based upon your own experience in Baghdad, what effect do you think it would have if you and other U.S. forces were summarily pulled out of Iraq?

SPC McGuiness: In my experience, what we are doing here is working. Rome wasn't built in a day and it is going to take time. If we were to be pulled out of Iraq too soon, we will find ourselves back here down the road trying to undo what we could have fixed if we would have stayed. We are working on training the IP's how to perform their job's better and better ways to do things so they can support themselves and not be afraid to police one another.

Q: This is completely up to you. Please use this opportunity to tell us anything and everything you would like readers to know about your experiences in Iraq. Unlike newspaper journalists, I have virtually unlimited space, so please take as much time to tell us what you think the American people should know.

SPC McGuiness: People only see the bad things that happen here. You hardly ever hear about soldiers interacting with the locals and building relationships with the children. Soldiers handing out book bags and school supplies or just a small gesture of giving them candy to show them that we do care and humanize ourselves to them. The future of Iraq is in the people. Yes there are some people that resent the US being here and that will not stop until we leave but there are those that thank us for being here and that they feel safer because we patrol their streets and the crime has been lessened do to our patrols. We are making a difference.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:15 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 2340 words, total size 14 kb.

You would think that on the day a brutal murderous dictator like Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death for crimes against humanity, that everyone but Baathist dead-enders would draw at least some satisfaction from the fact that at long last, the Butcher of Baghdad would pay for his decades of brutality, depravity, and bloodlust.

You don't know liberals very well, do you?

Blondesense's reaction was "ho-hum," after which she went on a multi-paragraph tirade blaming the United States in general and Republicans in specific. As always, we are responsible for Saddam's crimes.

Steve Clemon's at the Washington Note takes the same tack:

The Bush administration gets credit for taking down Hussein, real and in statue, but they too deserve every bit of the credit for unleashing the virulent currents of sectarian killing and convulsion in Iraq, all of the responsibility for removing the chief constraint on Iran's actions in the region, and all of the kudos for giving radical Islamism reward after reward in the region.

Saddam Hussein's head will be a prize that Shia extremists thank America for while they continue to do their best to eradicate Sunnis from Iraq.

Bush deserves all of the credit for the Hussein trial and conviction -- and all of the horrors unleashed around it.

Nice. Apparently they'd rather have Saddam still in power, because they've convinced themselves that would have saved Iraqi lives.

Uh, no (via Gateway Pundit).

Mahablog questions the timing and blames Karl Rove. It's knee-jerk, but instinctive for them at this point.

Georgia10 at Daily Kos asks, "Do the ends justify the means?" seems quite concerned that Saddam may not have gotten a fair trial, and cries yet again for us to abandon the people of Iraq, which she apparently considers a "blood-soaked path to nowhere."

It's never to late to blame America. It's never to late too run.

A "good morning to you" from the American liberal left.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:07 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.

Via Fox News:

Saddam Hussein, the iron-fisted dictator who ruled Iraq for nearly a quarter of a century, was found guilty of crimes against humanity Sunday and sentenced to death by hanging.

The so-called Butcher of Baghdad, who was president of Iraq from 1979 until he was deposed by Coalition forces in April 2003, was convicted of the 1982 killings of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail.

The visibly shaken former leader shouted "God is great!" as Iraq's High Tribunal announced his sentence.

Saddam's half brother and former intelligence chief Barzan Ibrahim, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of the former Revolutionary Court, were sentenced to join Saddam on the gallows for the Dujail killings after an unsuccessful assassination attempt during a Saddam visit to the city 35 miles north of Baghdad.

It seems fitting that an Iraqi gallows and not an American bullet will put an end to the reign of Saddam Hussein. The allied elite forces of Task Force 20 eliminated his sadistic sons, but I think that Iraqis will attain more closure by executing the Butcher of Baghdad themselves.

Fellow Pajamas Media bloggers Omar and Mohammed Fadhil report from Baghdad:

I was overwhelmed with joy and relief as I watched the criminals being read their verdicts. For the first time in our region tyrants are being punished for their crimes through a court of law.

Until this moment and while IÂ’m typing these words IÂ’m still receiving words of congratulations in emails, phone calls and text messages from friends inside and outside the country. These were our only means to share our happiness because of the curfew that limits our movement.

This is the day for SaddamÂ’s lovers to weep and I expect their shock and grieve to be huge. They had always thought their master was immortal so let them live in their disappointment while we live for our future.

This is a day not only for Iraqis but a historic day for the whole region; today new basis for dealing between rulers and peoples are found.

No one is above the law anymore.

I was particularly pleased by the way Judge Raouf Rasheed handled the session; he was reading the courtÂ’s decision and at the same time chastising members of the current government for their misbehavior and threatened to throw them in custody regardless of their ranks!

We are living a new era where thereÂ’s much hope despite the difficultiesÂ…our sacrifices have a noble cause, that is to build a new model that obviously terrifies other tyrants.

AllahPundit notes a post written by Omar Fadhil in 2003 when he spoke with a young doctor who grew up in the town where the crimes took place. I'll suggest you read it, and agree with Allah's conclusion:

Thus always to tyrants.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:31 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

Doug Ross takes a look at some of the documents that the New York Times has authenticated, and a suggests how those revelations should affect your future plans.

I tend to agree with his conclusion.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

John Kerry's arrogance knows no bounds.

John Kerry has a 35-year history of slandering American soldiers, and when he disparaged the intelligence of the American military earlier this week, he deserved no benefit of the doubt. He'd referred to them as murderers, rapists, and terrorists too many times before.

When he swore he would "apologize to no one" for the comments assaulting their intelligence, he obviously meant it.

Now several days later and a "I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to understand what I meant to say" non-apology, he still has enough arrogance and contempt for the American soldier to feature on his page the headline, "Kerry's Remark: Right either way."

As Bryan notes:

Because even though he has “apologized” several times and in disingenuous ways, at heart he [Kerry] meant what he said. When he finds someone who supports his smear, he links right to them to justify himself. Someone who truly meant to apologize for a remark he doesn’t believe wouldn’t do that.

John Kerry is not the least bit sorry for slandering America's heroes.

He wasn't sorry in 1972, and he's certainly not sorry now.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:51 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 2 kb.

This is a NY Times November bombshell as designed by the North Koreans.

The breaking article seems to be an attempt to attack the Bush Administration for releasing potentially classified information (yes, the ironymeter is pegged), but what they actually prove is that Saddam's nuclear weapons program was indeed a significant threat.

Not only were they close to developing their own nuclear bomb (at one point the Iraqis "were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away"), they also had that nucelar weapon building knowledge available to proliferate to other rogue states.

The Times may have set out to attack Bush, but instead, they have justified the rationale for the 2003 invasion.

Thanks, Pinch.

Update: Josh Manchester notes that this article seems to be an attempt by the NY Timesto pull an "Al-Qaqaa" once more before an national election.

Further Update: As Glenn Reynolds notes:

Judging from some of the delighted emails I'm getting, I need to warn people not to get too carried away -- this doesn't say that Saddam would have had a bomb in 2004. But it does say that he had all the knowledge needed to have a bomb in short order. And as we know he was looking to reconstitute his program once sanctions were ended -- and that sanctions were breaking down in 2003 -- that's pretty significant. However, perhaps even more significant, given that we knew most of the above already, is that the NYT apparently regards the documents that bloggers have been translating for months as reliable, which means that reports of Iraqi intelligence's relations with Osama bin Laden, and "friendly" Western press agencies, are presumably also reliable.

And as these documents are "presumably also reliable," then much of the research into these documents done by a former Defense Intelligence Agency contractor by the name of Ray Robinson is certainly worth a second or even a third look. Robinson compiled some of his research for the Fox News Saddam Dossier, and has much more in the archives of his personal site.

Robinson thinks he may have even triggered this by contacting the IAEA two weeks ago.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:53 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.

According to Time:

A kidnapping ring has demanded a $250,000 ransom from the family of the U.S. soldier abducted in Iraq, a suspiciously low sum that his family worries could be a sign that he is no longer alive.

The Pentagon Thursday confirmed for the first time that Specialist Ahmed al-Taie, a Michigan National Guardsman assigned to the Provincial Reconstruction Team Baghdad, has been "unaccounted for" since Oct. 23 at 4:30pm; he is currently listed as "duty status whereabouts unknown." Family members of the 41-year-old Iraqi-American from Ann Arbor, Mich. say he was nabbed by a gang claiming to be from the Mahdi Army while he was on an unauthorized trip outside the fortified Green Zone to visit his wife in Baghdad.

The ransom demand for al-Taie was relayed earlier this week to al-Taie's uncle Entifad Qanbar, a former spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress and recently an official in the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. Qanbar described to TIME the complicated negotiations he has been engaged in on behalf of the family and in close coordination with the U.S.-led Hostage Working Group, a task force in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad made up of specialists from multiple U.S. agencies and the military.

Reading the Time story leave one with the impression that the kidnapping was done purely as a criminal exercise.

We have the option of accepting that at face value, but kidnapping an American serviceman would seem to be an extremely risky enterprise for a group merely interested in profit. Whereas the kidnapping of Iraqi civilians leads to only an Iraqi police response (if that), the kidnapping of al-Taei led to a massive military-led recovery effort that has at least 3,000 American and Iraqi soldiers conducting area sweeps and house-to-house searches, a response that most criminal kidnappers would understandably shy away from.

Kidnapping for ransom is a not uncommon practice throughout the developing world, and is increasingly common in regards to the kidnapping of Iraqis for political or criminal means, but it is comparatively rare for foreigners to be kidnapped for ransom, and the al-Taei kidnapping, if a criminal exercise, would be the first kidnapping of an American soldier in an attempt to turn a profit since the war began.

It simply seems doubtful that an experienced kidnapping gang would take such risks for such a comparatively small reward. Politics, hidden behind a veil of base criminal motivation, still seems to be the most likely reason to kidnap such a high-profile target.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

As I said in response to Andrew Sullivan's willfully ignorant claim yesterday that "commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia":

Andrew Sullivan disingenuously misrepresents a small (and increasingly irrelevant) part of the rescue effort as the entire rescue effort, discounting all active military and police searches, intelligence gathering efforts, and back-channel political maneuvering that we know from past experience is certainly taking place.

This morning, Fox News confirms that the back-channel political maneuvering I discussed is indeed occuring:

The U.S. military identified a kidnapped soldier for the first time on Thursday, saying the abducted Iraqi-American was 41-year-old Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie.

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell also said that the reserve soldier was visiting his Iraqi wife when he was handcuffed and taken away by gunmen during a visit to the woman's family.

Caldwell said there was "an ongoing dialogue" in a bid to win the soldier's release, but he would not say with whom or at what level.

The fact that al-Taei (or as this article spells it "al-Taayie") did not turn up dead within the first 72 hours of his abduction, and the fact that he is believed to have been captured by the Mahdi Army instead of al Qaeda, leads me to believe that he was abducted not to become a victim of torture and murder, but to become a political pawn for one of the factions of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia.

What remains to be seen, and what we may never know, is whether al-Taei's capture is something that al-Sadr had a hand in, or if a faction within his loosely-organized Mahdi Army Militia conducted the kidnapping independently. If al-Taei's abduction was not conducted with al-Sadr's knowledge or blessing, there is the possibility that the kidnapping is evidence of a rift between factions of the Mahdi Army.

If so (and this is purely speculation), it could be that factions within the Mahdi Army are using the kidnapping to make a run on al-Sadr's control of the militia. The kidnapping places a microscope on al-Sadr (note the renewed calls to have him killed, which stem at least in part from the kidnapping), and depending on internal Iraqi politics, could rattle his standing with both other Mahdi Army factions and with the Iraqi government, which for now, seems to be doing the bidding of al-Sadr (on that, at least, Sullivan was correct).

If al-Sadr starts to lose (more) control of the Madhi Army, his importance to and influence within the Iraqi government may wane, and the possibility that Ralph Peters may eventually get his wish, perhaps courtesy of the apparently fragmenting Mahdi Army itself.

Update: Josh Manchester has further thoughts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

A clandestine program to track terrorist communications into the United States splashes across the pages of the New York Times, and the government does nothing in response. A top secret program is leaked in the same paper revealing how terrorist funding is monitored, and again, the leaker goes free.

Today, the leak of a minor but still classified report, including a PowerPoint slide, has the Pentagon wanting to drop the hammer:

The Pentagon is looking into how classified information indicating Iraq is moving closer to chaos wound up on the front page of Wednesday's New York Times, and is not ruling out an investigation that could lead to criminal charges.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for operations in Iraq, confirmed to FOX News that a chart published in The Times is a real reflection of the thinking of military intelligence on the situation in Iraq as of Oct. 18, adding that an effort is underway to find out who leaked the chart and if the breach of operational security constitutes a crime.

The published report includes a classified one-page slide show from an Oct. 18 military briefing. The slide show is titled: "Iraq: Indications and Warnings of Civil Conflict," and shows spiraling violence in Iraq and a worsening position for American efforts.

Based on the slide show, Iraq is moving sharply away from "peace," designated in green on the left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the red-zoned right side of the spectrum, marked "chaos."

News flash to the Pentagon: This is kinda like letting someone break into your house, steal your valuables and rough up your family, only to get pissed off when they trample on the grass while leaving.

If the government wants to start nailing those who leak classified information during a time of war, they should start with the most important cases, not much less important ones such as this.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:42 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

As seems to be his pattern lately, Andrew Sullivan suckles onto one fact and uses it to fatten up a dishonest charge he cannot support:

While the media is obsessed parsing the ad libs of someone on no ballot this fall, something truly ominous has just happened in Iraq. The commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia. Yes, there are nuances here, and the NYT fleshes out the story today. But the essential fact is clear.

What Andrew Sullivan obtusely states as "fact" is nothing of the sort.

U.S. forces withdrew from checkpoints around the Sadr City slum at Prime Minster Maliki's request, but it is quite a leap to suggest that by turning over checkpoints to the Iraqi Army, that efforts to secure the release of captured U.S Army translator Ahmed Qusai al-Taei have been abandoned.

Does Sullivan honestly believe, and does he even have the basis to believe, that the cordons around Sadr City were the only measure being taken to secure al-Taei's release? If so, Sullivan betrays a stupefying naiveté. More likely, however, he just abandoned any pretense of honesty in favor of a cheap partisan shot that suits his increasingly fractured and incoherent ideology.

I'll state in advance that I do not know specifically what U.S. and Iraqi military, police and political forces are doing to retrieve al-Taei (nor would I reveal the details if I knew them), but what I can state with a fair degree of certainty is that those who kidnapped him at gunpoint:

• had planned the kidnapping in advance
• had a pre-planned and nearby location where they would take al-Taei, in what they consider a safe and sympathetic area from which they are very unlikely to move

It is almost certain that al-Taei was already in this pre-planned containment area before a cordon was ever established. They are now even less likely to move him because of the much greater risk of exposure that any move would entail.

We also know that a passive cordon would only be part of an overall plan to rescue this missing soldier, based upon all-too recent experience.

When Pfcs. Menchacha and Tucker were kidnapped by al Qaeda in June, more than 8,000 soldiers from the U.S. and Iraqi armies participated in the search. We know that forces have actively searched for al-Taei by foot and air, and that there is no sign that the active searches, those that are most likely to be effective at this late stage of the kidnapping, have abated in the least.

Sullivan, of course, does not mention this, perhaps purposefully.

He wouldnÂ’t want to ruin his pre-determined narrative:

The U.S. military does not have a tradition of abandoning its own soldiers to foreign militias, or of taking orders from foreign governments. No commander-in-chief who actually walks the walk, rather than swaggering the swagger, would acquiesce to such a thing. The soldier appears to be of Iraqi descent who is married to an Iraqi woman. Who authorized abandoning him to the enemy? Who is really giving the orders to the U.S. military in Iraq? These are real questions about honor and sacrifice and a war that is now careening out of any control. They are not phony questions drummed up by a partisan media machine to appeal to emotions to maintain power.

Actually, these are "phony questions drummed up by a partisan media machine," and, that machine is an intellectual Trabant at that.

Andrew Sullivan disingenuously misrepresents a small (and increasingly irrelevant) part of the rescue effort as the entire rescue effort, discounting all active military and police searches, intelligence gathering efforts, and back-channel political maneuvering that we know from past experience is certainly taking place.

I donÂ’t expect Sullivan to be nonpartisan or ideologically neutral, but a do expect him to approach the subject with at least a hint of intellectual honesty that he has not thus far shown.

11-02-06 Update: Fox News confirms this morning that the back channel negotiations I mentioned above are indeed occuring. More here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:55 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 686 words, total size 5 kb.