300 terrorists--including Afghans, Saudis and one Sudanese--were killed in a pitched battle near the Shiite holy city of Najaf, after Iraqi forces were tipped to a planned raid on Najaf that sought to kill Shia pilgrims and leading clerics at the Imam Ali Shrine. Among the targeted clerics was Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered of Iraq's Shia clerics.

The terrorists seemed to be composed of both Sunnis and a radical Shia sect. The goal of the attack seems clear: to plunge Iraq into a direct and all-out civil war along sectarian lines, dwarfing the present sectarian conflict and perhaps pre-empting the goals of the surge of American troops that hopes to stabilize Baghdad.

As Captain Ed notes:

The post-battle assessments should be interesting. Intelligence forces must be wondering why insurgents would attempt a straight-up fight against the Iraqis, and whether that indicates overconfidence or desperation.

Jules Crittenden brings up the very interesting point that the goal of the Shia sect involved in the attack, the Army of Heaven or Army of the Sky" depending on the translation, hoped to kill the assembled Shia Grand Ayatollahs to clear the way for the arrival of the Hidden Imam, also known as the Madhi.

It bears noting that this seems to be almost exactly in line with the goals and desires of the Hojjatieh sect of Shia Islam in Iran, the sect of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahcracy of Iran.

While I've seen no accounts of the battle that explicitly or implicitly state and Iranian involvement in either the planning nor the pre-empted execution of the attack to date, I'll be very interested to see if any evidence emerges that indicates Iran may have either had advance warning of the attack, or if they had a role in its planning. Considering Iran's probable involvement in the Karbala attack nine days ago that saw American soldiers kidnapped and killed is a sophisticated attack that may have directly involved the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps, I'd say anything is possible at this point.

If it can be proven that Iran was behind this disastrous (for the bad guys) raid, it seems likely that IranÂ’s plans to expand its role in Iraq is far from benign, and may be setting both of our nations on a path towards a more direct conflict.

I sincerely hope that the Iranian leadership is not intent of forcing our nations into a direct conflict, but they seem increasingly willing to take that risk.

Iran is not nearly as strong militarily, economically, or diplomatically as they would like to appear, and we have two branches of our military—the Air Force and the Navy—which are quite capable of leveling Iran’s infrastructure, their fledging nuclear weapons program and their military (mostly composed of conscripts) before they penetrate the Iraq border, should it come to a direct confrontation between our nations.

I donÂ’t think anyone in this country wants to fight in Iran and Iraq simultaneously, but as long as we donÂ’t desire to physically invade Iran and hold ground (and we have no reason to want to do so), we can wreck far more havoc in 2007 with our assembled regional air power than we ever brought to bear in the 1990-91 Gulf War.

Then again, you cannot ascribe rational motives to a group so radicalized that it was once outlawed by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1983. The Hojjatieh do not think in mortal terms and are obsessed with bringing about their sectÂ’s "End of Days" to usher forth the Hidden Imam. What we would see as an irrational escalation that could only bring about their defeat on the battlefield, may be exactly what they hope would trigger their hoped-for apocalypse.

Strange days, indeed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 638 words, total size 4 kb.

Since C.Y. isn't around and I found my spare keys to this joint I figured I'd try them out, at least 'til they get repossessed.

This can't be good, can't be good at all.

It really looks like the Democrats and Ma Pelosi are going to be able to keep that promise of a "new direction" they made to the American people. I give it six weeks tops before we start that "phased redeployment" they've been after for so long.

Too bad they weren't specific enough.

If I were a betting man I'd say we'll start dropping bombs in the next couple of months, if Israel doesn't beat us to it.

update: Of course we'd learn about Iran building Centrifuges as John Kerry's making nice with the Iranian President and blaming Americans for the world's problems. Mr. Kerry for one welcomes our new Muslim overlords.

Posted by: phin at 04:40 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

It's only the attempted trafficking of weapons-grade uranium:

A top official at a Russian state scientific institute confirmed Friday that Georgia had sent Russia a sample of uranium allegedly seized in a sting operation and that it was weapons-grade, Russian news agencies reported.

However, Igor Shkabura, deputy director of the Bochvar Inorganic Materials Institute, said the size of the sample provided by Georgia was too small to determine its origin, the RIA-Novosti and ITAR-Tass news agencies said.

At least this buy last year was a sting; other developments make me wonder of other attempts to sell weapons-grade uranium were successful:

The standoff between Iran and the West over its alleged clandestine nuclear programme looks set to increase with a report emerging on Wednesday in a British newspaper asserting that Tehran has been acquiring North Korean assistance in preparation for its first underground nuclear test, which European officials believe could take place as early as the end of the year.

According to The Daily Telegraph, Tehran and Pyongyang have expanded their traditional military ties to the nuclear level, with the reclusive Stalinist state sharing with Iranian nuclear scientists all data and information pertaining to the first-ever North Korean underground nuclear test conducted last October.

The news is set to exacerbate tensions between Tehran and western capitals. However, it appears that Iran was aware that the development would soon be made public. Just two days earlier, it barred 38 nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from operating on its territory, in a move that has already been slammed by France as evidence of Iranian discrimination against westerners from the United Nations nuclear watchdogÂ’s inspection team.

This is of course merely speculation (that's what you guys pay me the big blogging bucks for, isn't it?), but it would appear to make quite a bit of sense.

If Western intelligence agencies are correct then Iran's own nuclear weapons program should not have yet been able to yet develop weapons-grade uranium from the cascade of centrifuges they currently have in their possession, why is Iran seeking help to prepare for a nuclear weapons test now, unless they either have, or anticipate having, a warhead ready to test in the near future?

If Iran was angling for foreign weapons-grade uranium, it might also be worthwhile to imply a far more nefarious purpose... plausible deniability. Nuclear weapons have signatures that can be traced back of their country of origin. Should a nuclear weapon be smuggled overland into the target area, a la the "neo-con" episode of 24 and then detonated, then it would be more difficult to conclusively prove who was behind the blast.

Were Tel Aviv or San Diego to suddenly disappear in a blinding flash and the uranium signature trace back to Georgia instead of Iran, then it is much less likely that the United States would have the immediate justification for a nuclear counterstrike.

This of course, is all idle speculation. Right?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 503 words, total size 3 kb.

You've just got to love how Allahpundit nailed the right level of near-hysteria in his headline about this Washington Post article: WaPo: U.S. declares war on Iran in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine.

The actual lede seems to me as a "about damn time" directive but WaPo somehow figures this is front page news:

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.

I guess this is an example of the difference between those of us who desire to actually succeed in Iraq, and those of us who don't.

Perhaps it is just my perception, but it seems to me that Dafna Linzer is gob-smacked at this idea that we would be targeting those training terrorists, and perhaps even filled with appropriate levels of self-righteous heartache, but my response is simply this: what took so freaking long?

Iranian foreign policy is in direct conflict with that of the United States across the Middle East, and they have provided military support, training, and presumably intelligence assets in both Iraq and Lebanon. They seek not to just destroy the tenuous democratic governments in these two nations and (no doubt) hopefully install puppet regimes of their own beholden to Tehran, but hope to destroy both the United States and Israel. Of course, we can't been sure of that last claim... Ahmadinejad has only stated it publicly about a dozen times, so we might be missing some nuance there.

I look upon this as a favorable development, but Allah has his full weltschmerz on:

The aim, obviously, is to beat back Iran influence across the region until theyÂ’re back to this point and are ready to make a deal on nukes. Like the surge, itÂ’s a good idea thatÂ’s years too late. Unlike the surge, which will be led by Petraeus, itÂ’s being run by BushÂ’s same old crew. I have no faith in them at this point to anticipate contingencies or react effectively when they occur, so color me reluctantly, cautiously pessimistic.

He makes a very valid point; we've been very reactive in Iraq instead of pro-active, which to my mind, means we've still got far too much of the war-fighting decision-making coming out of the White House instead of in the theater of operations, where these decisions should be made.

I have some hopes that nomination of Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to command American forces in Iraq will change how we fight there. Petraeus has been in Iraq twice, and has learned from the school of hard knocks what doesn't work, and also, hopefully, what might, as he helped draft the Army's new counterinsurgency manual.

In the past, the United States Army has excelled at countering insurgencies and perhaps with the right leadership, it can do so again, but it remains to be seen if a lame-duck Administration and a mewling Congress will actually allow the military the time, resources, and rules of engagement necessary to win.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 743 words, total size 5 kb.

According to a centcom.mil press release, 100 members of "The Council" in Diyala were killed and 50 more were detained in operations of the past few weeks. They were all terrorists.

U.S. and Iraqi forces killed 100 terrorists, detained 50, and dismantled a large terrorist group in January during Operation Turki Bowl, the senior U.S. Army officer in IraqÂ’s Diyala province said yesterday.

The operation, conducted from Jan. 4 to 13, occurred south of Balad Ruz in the Turki Village, Tuwilla and 30 Tamuz areas of the province. During the operation, U.S. Army and Iraqi soldiers isolated and defeated a terrorist group known as “The Council,” Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, told reporters via satellite connection from a news conference in Iraq.

“The group, made up of former Baath Regime members, al Qaeda and Sunni extremists, refused to participate in any political dialogue and preferred attacking innocent civilians in the Diyala province,” Sutherland said.

Did U.S. media outlets cover this victory where 100 terrorists were killed and 50 were captured? No. They responded with hardly a whisper.

They certainly found plenty of time to discuss it when 100 civilians were killed, however.

100 dead civilians is front page news around the globe, especially here in the United States, but 100 dead terrorists? It barely garners a mention.

It seems it has become a fairly standard practice to report half the war in the American media, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that Americans are against a war where all that ever seems to occur the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

To use a metaphor of a basketball game (and I'm shamelessly stealing this from a local radio host by the name of Bill Lumaye), it is as if the media consistently reports that the local college team scored 70 points in Wednesday night's game after scoring 68 the Saturday before and 63 the Wednesday before that; you're only getting part of the story, and certainly not enough to know who won.

Without knowing how the other team did, you don't know the whole story, and as the on-going saga of the Associated Press/Jamil Hussein scandal reminds us, it doesn't help when even that partial score is grossly exaggerated.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:03 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

Bryan could have--and I'll argue he should have--named this post something else.

How about Why We Fight.

This is what I want you to think of when you hear Democrats in the House and Senate (along with the Republicans defectors) talking about defunding the troops and argue against the very surge of troops so many of them supported until Bush agreed with them.

Photo courtesy of Michael Yon.

Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer and so many others argue that they have the views on the Iraq War that they do "because of the children." Which children? These that they would abandon?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:46 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Just... read.

And keep in mind that this is the fate Dean, Pelosi, Durbin, Hagel, etc would abandon even more Iraqi families to face.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Don.t shoot the messenger, I'm just repeating what Sky News said:

A leftist group has reportedly claimed responsibility for a rocket attack on the US embassy in Athens.

The Greek government said it had received two calls claiming the guerrilla group Revolutionary Struggle was behind the attack.

Public Order minister Vyron Polydoras said it was "very likely" a domestic group was behind the blast.

The rocket slammed into the embassy toilet in the early morning strike, causing slight damage but no injuries.

Reuters more clearly defines the weapon as an RPG-18, a kind of rocket-propelled grenade.

It's too bad for Huff 'n Puffer Mark Seery; no American soldiers died.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:27 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

From yonder White House.

Have at it. I'm going to be a bad political blogger and not read this until after Bush's speech, but I'm guessing the new way farward is neither through Damascus nor Tehran, so I'm sure I'll be disappointed anyway. more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 2995 words, total size 18 kb.

It looks like both coalition forces and the insurgents might be changing tactics in Baghdad, as a signifigant combat operation in Baghdad enters a fourth day:

Hundreds of U.S. and Iraqi troops battled with insurgents in a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency in central Baghdad Tuesday.

The firefight began before dawn and followed two days of violence in the neighborhood that left as many as 50 insurgents dead.

The U.S. and Iraqi troops came under attack by snipers, mortar rounds, and small arms fire.

By midday Tuesday (4 a.m. ET), the U.S. military sent in fixed-wing aircraft and Apache attack helicopters to support the ground forces.

U.S. military sources said the insurgent group included elements from the Saddam Hussein regime, foreign fighters, and members of al Qaeda in Iraq.

They said the group was waging a sophisticated, coordinated battle, and was fighting against 400 U.S. troops and 500 Iraqi soldiers.

Combat started Saturday when Iraqi troops came under fire when trying to recover bodies dumped near a cemetery.

At this stage of the war it is rare for Sunni insurgents to engage in a multi-day battle against coalition forces, for obvious reasons: they have lost every single major engagement they have ever engaged in since the 2003 invasion, usually suffering heavy losses. They simply lack the training, support, weaponry or numbers to prevail in such conflicts, and so it is of note that they seem to have chosen to make a stand, of sorts, in this Baghdad neighborhood at this time. Why? What are they protecting, and what are they trying to prove? Why have they not slipped away under the guise of civilians as they so often do?

There is some sort of prize involved here, be it material, personnel, or philosophical. I'll be watching this story with great interest, and will provide updates as I can. This particular battle bears watching as a portent of what "surge" operations in Baghdad may look like in months to come.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:51 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

John Keegan has an article today in the U.K. Telegraph titled, 50,000 more US troops can save Iraq. His article refers to the expected surge of US troops into Iraq, presumably to engage and suppress Sunni and Shia terror groups.

All sorts of pundits have all sorts of opinions on whether or not a surge would be effective. In very general terms, those pundits that are left of center, and a few on the right, hold the view that sending in more soldiers is simply giving the various terror groups more American soldiers to shoot at, and that adding more troops will not appreciably change the military of political situation on the ground in Iraq.

These concerns are not without some merit. If we send more soldiers over to merely increase the number of patrols and IED hunts (like the one Bill Aradalino just completed) without any sort of a change to our offensive strategic and/or tactical goals, then yes, all we are effectively doing is providing more targets with very little chance of seeing much in the way of a long-term change.

That said, in his article Keegan speaks of the kind of offensive-minded surge that could make a profound difference on the shape of the conflict, and potentially shape Iraqi politics as well:

The object of the surge deployment should be to overwhelm the insurgents with a sudden concentration, both of numbers, armoured vehicles and firepower with the intention to inflict severe losses and heavy shock. The Mahdi Army in Sadr City should prove vulnerable to such tactics, which would of course be supported by helicopters and fixed-wing aviation.

Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates.

The cost of such tactics is likely to be high but not unbearable if enough armoured vehicles are used to protect the attacking troops. The advantage of committing recently arrived troops to such operations is that they will come to operations fresh and enthusiastic. Though there is the disadvantage that they may not be familiar with local conditions or topography, this need not be a disqualification since the purpose of a surge strike would be to create a shock effect, not to alter local conditions by informal action.

The British contingent recently demonstrated that such overwhelming tactics have their effect. After their surprise move into Basra with massed columns of fighting vehicles and Challenger tanks, they succeeded in dominating the chosen area and evoking respect from the local militias.

If additional forces are specifically sent in with the goal of crushing the Sadrist Mahdi Army, affiliated criminal gangs and Shia death squads operating out of Baghdad's Sadr City and Najaf, along with elements of the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists operating out of Ramadi and other areas, then this will be a worthwhile operation to surge in these additional troops.

As I've noted previously, Sadr City may be a slum that is home to two-million people, but it is a compact slum, which can be cordoned off relatively easily and systematically demilitarized by whatever means are deemed necessary. Some will be quick to attempt to compare it to Fallujah, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is little indication that the Mahdi Army is as dedicated or as well-trained as were the terrorists of al Qaeda, despite any expected interference of Iranian Special Forces, and I doubt there will be a full-on military assault as a result. Odds are that most Sadrists will surrender or run, not fight, leaving their weapons caches behind.

Once Sadr City is cleared, US forces can (and probably should) impose checkpoints to keep the surviving Shiite death squad members from picking hteri habits back up after the sweep, even as they consider whether or not they need to also pay a visit to Najaf, an Iraqi city where U.S. Marines previously battled the Mahdi Army, and where al-Sadr's family traditionally draws power. One thing is almost certain: Muqtada al-Sadr should not be allowed to survive. Period.

Once the Madhi Army is fractured and Sadr City's remaining death squads under lockdown, the US military's attention should turn to the Sunni insurgency in Ramadi, where local forces and the U.S. military is slowly taking back the city from Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda on a block-by block basis. While it has gone mostly underreported in the media, this city is where the battle against the Sunni insurgency seems to be at it's most concentrated, even as al Qaeda forces and influence seem to be a on a slow constant ebb.

If the Shiite militias in Baghdad and southern Iraq can be curbed, and the Sunni terrorists in al Anbar are forced into retreat, then the surge will have been worthwhile. If we fight an offensive campaign with the 30,000-50,000 troops projected to be sent to Iraq, then we have a chance to win. If we donÂ’t use our soldiers in an offensive manner, and use them to merely augment our currently forces on their current, mostly defensive missions, then I fear this surge will have been wasted.

While I'm sure he doesn't even know I exist, my counsel to the President would be this: Send them in for combat, or donÂ’t send them in at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 938 words, total size 6 kb.