Via a MNF-I press release:

A military panel found Sgt. Jorge Sandoval from Laredo, Texas,
not guilty of murder Sept. 28.

Sandoval was found not guilty of murdering an unknown male April
27. He was also found not guilty of murdering an unknown male May 11;
placing an AK-47 rifle on the body and failing to ensure humane
treatment of the victim while he was being detained.

Sandoval was found guilty of placing command wire on the body of
the male victim on April 27.

The military panel will reconvene Sept. 29 for Sandoval's
sentencing. He can face between six months to five years in prison.

Some background here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:29 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Based upon their statements in last night's Democratic Presidential debate, the leading candidates have surrendered the thought of a near-term military pullout from Iraq.

From the Associated Press:

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Senator Christopher Dodd and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said that they would pull out American military forces if elected president, but with Richardson currently polling at only 3% and Dodd not even on the radar at 1%, what they feel, frankly, matters little.

As Bryan notes at Hot Air, "The netroots ain't gonna like this."

He's quite right, but at this point, they seem not to matter.

"Captain Ed" Morrissey gives General David Petraeus credit for shifting the debate over the war:

How far has General David Petraeus moved the debate on Iraq? His testimony on the surge, and the effects of the surge itself, has made it much more difficult for Democrats to argue for withdrawal and defeat...

[snip]

...Americans don't like to lose wars, and given the successes that Petraeus has generated, more Americans see an opportunity to persevere in Iraq. Leading Democrats realize now that running as the party of defeat when we continue to gain ground may sound good in the primaries, but will be disastrous in the general election.

What we may--and I caution, may--be witnessing here is a bursting of the progressive blogosphere's image of its influence over the rest of the Democratic Party.

I'm not stating by any stretch of the imagination that the entire online progressive community has been neutered as the result of a presidential primary debate that few American watched, but it should be sobering nonetheless for groups such as A.N.S.W.E.R., Code Pink, and others who have made their primary political issue the full, near-term withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi soil.

The three front-running Democratic candidates have said, in no uncertain terms, that they will not commit to a pull-out during the next presidency. The very vocal supporters of these groups have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the Democratic frontrunners do not think that their arguments are viable.

General Petraeus' Congressional testimony changed few minds on Iraq, but the testimony of men and women on the ground as to the effects of the "surge" seem to have created a groundswell of what may not be support for the war, but is certainly at least tolerance among the American people to give our military and the Iraqi people the chance to continue the campaign.

It was this tolerance and trust of our soldiers and the Iraqi people that anti-war types have tried since 2003 to undermine.

They've constantly played the refrain over and over again of Abu Ghraib and other atrocities large and small, inevitable failure, nefarious schemes and schemas, and unnecessary deaths that would only end, and could only end, if American forces turned tail and fled Iraq, to let it become a failed state. Worse, they often protrayed Iraqis themselves as a blood-lusting "other," that longs only for war and martyrdom, instead of stability, opportunity, and hope for their children.

But Iraqis love their children.

With the help of American sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines, Iraq's villagers and tribesmen have joined in their own grassroots efforts towards stabilizing Iraq, with both provincial Sunnis and Shias fighting back against terrorists, extremists, and criminals responsible for so much of the nation's violence. They do so by forming their own federally-recognized militias, the police and the Army, and joining a political process they once shunned. The small towns and villages are leading, and larger towns and national politicians seem to be slowly following their lead, even as outsiders from al Qaeda and Iran find Iraqi lands to be less hospitable and far more lethal than they once were.

When a terrorist car bomb decimates a tribal militia checkpoint guarding a village, and the townspeople rebuild and re-man the checkpoint even as the dead are being laid to rest, that makes a statement. When terrorists blow up a police recruiting center and potential recruits step into the footprints of those who have fallen before them, it makes a statement.

This is a budding grassroots effort that Americans watching the conflict are willing to get behind.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have grasped this truth.

The netroots, it seems, will take a while longer.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:48 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 805 words, total size 5 kb.

The New York Times has a very informative article up this morning by Sabrina Tavernise and James Glanz about the Blackwater/Nisour Sqaure shooting. The article focuses on the Iraqi government claim that Blackwater security contractors opened fire unprovoked on Iraqi civilians.

IraqÂ’s Ministry of Interior has concluded that employees of a private American security firm fired an unprovoked barrage in the shooting last Sunday in which at least eight Iraqis were killed and is proposing a radical reshaping of the way American diplomats and contractors here are protected.

In the first comprehensive account of the dayÂ’s events, the ministry said that security guards for Blackwater USA, a company that guards all senior American diplomats here, fired on Iraqis in their cars in midday traffic.

The document concludes that the dozens of foreign security companies here should be replaced by Iraqi companies, and that a law that has given the companies immunity for years be scrapped.

Four days after the shooting, American officials said they were still preparing their own forensic analysis of what happened in Nisour Square. They have repeatedly declined to give any details before their work is finished.

Privately, those officials have warned against drawing conclusions before American investigators have finished interviewing the Blackwater guards. In the Interior Ministry account — made available to The New York Times on Thursday — Iraqi investigators interviewed many witnesses but relied on the testimony of the people they considered to be the four most credible.

The account says that as soon as the guards took positions in four locations in the square, they began shooting south, killing a driver who had failed to heed a traffic policemanÂ’s call to stop.

“The Blackwater company is considered 100 percent guilty through this investigation,” the report concludes.

The version of events told by Blackwater employees, some Iraqi eyewitnesses, and even the early Interior Ministry accounts, relays an entirely different story:

The ministry said the incident began around midday, when a convoy of sport utility vehicles came under fire from unidentified gunmen in the square. The men in the SUVs, described by witnesses as Westerners, returned fire, the ministry said.

Blackwater's employees were protecting a U.S. official when they were hit by "a large explosive device, then repeated small-arms fire -- and to the point where it disabled one of the vehicles, and the vehicle had to be towed out of the firefight," said Marty Strong, vice president of Blackwater USA.

A senior industry source said Blackwater guards had escorted a State Department group to a meeting with U.S. Agency for International Development officials in Mansour before the shootings.

A car bomb went off about 80 feet (25 meters) from the meeting site and the contractors started evacuating the State Department officials, he said. A State Department report on the attack said the convoy came under fire from an estimated eight to 10 people, some in Iraqi police uniforms.

The guards called for backup, at one point finding their escape route blocked by an Iraqi quick-reaction force that pointed heavy machine guns at one vehicle in the convoy. A U.S. Army force, backed by air cover, arrived about half an hour later to escort the convoy back to the Green Zone, the report states.

A team from another security company passed through the area shortly after the street battle.

"Our people saw a couple of cars destroyed," Carter Andress, CEO of American-Iraqi Solutions Groups, told CNN on Monday. "Dead bodies, wounded people being evacuated. The U.S. military had moved in and secured the area. It was not a good scene."

You'll note that the Interior Ministry's current claim has quietly dropped all mention of the convoy coming under fire, and of Blackwater employees returning fire instead of instigating it.

Nor does the version of events carried in the Times account for the more than one dozen other people killed or wounded in the square, and focuses on one family, in one car. A week into this story, we are no closer to any real answers about how the events transpired, who should shoulder the blame, or if the blame for civilian deaths should be shared between security contractors, insurgents, police and innocent mistakes by Iraqi civilians.

What we can comment on is the opportunism being displayed by many in this tragedy and the political rush to judgment by both government officials and pundits.

As the Jones Commission Report has made clear, the forensic capabilities of Iraqi police investigators are dubious, at best. As a result of their lack of training and equipment for forensic evidence gathering, processing, and analysis, "CSI Baghdad" is forced to rely heavily on eyewitnesses statements and personal observations of the investigators, which of course are prone to interpretation, biases, cognitive processing errors, etc. As we have radically different interpretations from the Iraqi government, Blackwater's spokespersons, and vastly different versions of events told by various eyewitnesses, it may very well be that we never precisely find out what happened shortly after noon this past Sunday in Nisour Square.

It may not matter.

Experts intimately familiar with the political terrain in Iraq have already stated that Blackwater's guilt was a foregone conclusion, as it is a valuable political tool for a battered Iraqi government.

Likewise, political pundits outside of Iraq, primarily opponents of the Iraq War, have used this latest incident to attack Blackwater in specific and security contractors in general for past offenses, and take for granted Blackwater's "obvious" guilt in this instance as well for political reasons of their own.

Why shouldn't they?

Public perception and political self-reinforcement have far exceeded any rational discussion of culpability in this case. Who is actually to blame for instigating the shootout and deaths at Nisour Square has become sadly irrelevant. Whether or not excessive force was used does not matter. Nor does it matter that despite the factually ignorant and frankly hysterical criticisms of some, security firms operating in Iraq are indeed susceptible to Iraqi law.

The truth of this matter has become a casualty to convenience.

Not that anyone cares.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:27 AM | Comments (76) | Add Comment
Post contains 1011 words, total size 7 kb.

1 It's a sad state of affairs when the US Government has to rely on mercenaries to protect its personnel in Iraq. Why can't the US Army do this job?

Posted by: Max at September 21, 2007 10:08 AM (VRb5p)

2 Because it isn't the U.S. Army's job to babysit the State Department's personnel, perhaps?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 21, 2007 11:00 AM (ScOBm)

3 Yes, but what does Murtha have to say about this. I'm sure he will not rush to judgment.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at September 21, 2007 01:35 PM (oC8nQ)

4 Max, one might as well ask why shopping malls can't have cops patrolling the corridors and parking lots during business hours, instead of private security. It's a question of manpower and the efficient and effective use of that manpower.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 21, 2007 06:45 PM (lo4eE)

5 Another interesting point I just ran across: Blackwater was exempted from United States Armed Forces regulations that are supposed to be covering private security firms by order of the United States State Department. Submitted for your consideration.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 21, 2007 07:02 PM (lo4eE)

6 *Because it isn't the U.S. Army's job to babysit the State Department's personnel[.]* So MPs didn't do this job during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, et al.? The current batch suddenly too good to do the job "The Greatest Generation" did? hmmm...

Posted by: j at September 21, 2007 11:19 PM (Qj9lw)

7 J, your examples are prior to the Clinton Administration's drastic downsizing of the Armed Forces. Thank you, however, for providing the proof that said downsizing was a bad idea.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 22, 2007 08:56 AM (lo4eE)

8 "Thank you, however, for providing the proof that said downsizing was a bad idea." Course, to be fair, Clinton was assuming that that next administration wouldn't be stupid enough to drag us into an unnecessary war, requiring the extra manpower...

Posted by: arbotreeist at September 22, 2007 01:16 PM (N8M1W)

9 arbotreeist - You mean like the Balkans? Why did he start bombing there again without seeking approval? Why are we still there? What American interests are we protecting? Or did you mean allowing Sadaam to evade his cease fire obligations for the entire term of the Clinton Presidency so that it would be someone else's mess to clean up? It's sort of like the deal he negotiated with North Korea where there started cheating day one and everyone knew it. Bill Clinton, leave the messes behind! No wonder he was so popular internationally, he never did much.

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2007 01:31 PM (0pZel)

10 Don't forget President Clinton turning down the opportunity to grab Osama. That really turned out well, didn't it?

Posted by: C-C-G at September 22, 2007 02:00 PM (lo4eE)

11 no j, mp's did not provide security to diplomats operating in soveriegn foreign countries during Vietnam and I doubt they did during Korea and WWII. And Marines are stationed in the embassies, not MP's.

Posted by: iconoclast at September 22, 2007 03:11 PM (TzLpv)

12 "Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with Imperial Communism gone, that process can be accelerated. ... The Secretary of Defense recommended these cuts after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I make them with confidence. But do not misunderstand me: The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office." --George H. W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 29, 1992 you see, *this* is why i don't trust anyone who says they are a die-hard conservative OR a die-hard liberal, because they simply aren't capable of being honest. yes, clinton cut the military budget, as any right-winger will tell you. but they *won't* say he was merely continuing--and expanding, no doubt--a trend begun under bush sr. (likewise with a liberal: they'll blame bush [sr. & jr.] for everything under the sun before they'll entertain a disparaging thought about *either* clintons.) partisanship simply isn't honest, as CY and his apparatchiks here have demonstrated. "Thank you, however, for providing the proof that said downsizing was a bad idea." hmmm: odd that you didn’t say peep when your bedfellow “Looking Glass” suggested in a previous combox that we support Blackwater USA because “The Armed Forces of the USA are increasingly hamstrung by political correctness. A private company under the control of USA commanders is the best way around this”, effectively suggesting we phase out the military structure as we know it all together. iconclast, you are more than likely right. now insert "marines" where i've written "MPs" and let’s take it from there. CY’s amnesia (“it isn't the U.S. Army's job to babysit the State Department”) suggests that this has never been a role filled by any military personnel.

Posted by: j at September 22, 2007 05:08 PM (Qj9lw)

13 Uh, J, there was another President between 1992 and today. Did that President stop and/or reverse those cuts in the armed forces?

Posted by: C-C-G at September 22, 2007 05:24 PM (lo4eE)

14 lame, CCG. that's already been addressed ("yes, clinton cut the military budget, as any right-winger will tell you. but they *won't* say he was merely continuing--and expanding, no doubt--a trend begun under bush sr."). what hasn't is your inability to acknowledge that the cutback woes this military faces goes back further than clinton and to place blame where it is due: bush sr. AND clinton--not just the latter.

Posted by: j at September 22, 2007 05:55 PM (Qj9lw)

15 J - I don't recall anyone above blaming the cuts entirely on Clinton, but nice try. He continued the trend started by Bush Sr. and the lows military spending in the past 25 years were on Clinton's watch. Here's a link to some stats: http://www.cdi.org/news/mrp/us-military-spending.pdf Isikoff and Corn also have a pretty devastating account of what Clinton allowed to happen to our intellingence gathering capabilities in their apologia for Plamegate, Hubris. Your attempts to paint the analysis as pure partisanship ring pretty hollow in the face of facts. Is J an abbreviation for jaundiced?

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2007 05:55 PM (0pZel)

16 no, "jaded". on the right-vs-left BS. reflect carefully what bush sr. was saying: cut the defense budget by nearly a third (!) by 1997, well into the next president's term, _whomever_ that might be. i acknowledged that clinton expanded the same, and blame both equally for our having to use companies like blackwater to supplement our forces for reasons noted in another combox.* *[their contracts siphon off funds earmarked for the effort, than for the reasons that they are hard to keep accountable, are not under US military command, have ever-increasingly co-opted jobs traditionally done by american GIs, and their interactions with iraqis frequently raise the risk-levels for US forces and their allies. Â… does it not erode troop morale to see blackwater agents getting paid many times more than our troops for doing the same work, and taking the same risks?]

Posted by: j at September 22, 2007 06:06 PM (Qj9lw)

17 The things that far left fanatical kooks like j forget are: The first World Trade Center bombing, Kobar tower bombing, 2 American embassies bombed, and the Cole bombing. During all these terrorist attacks Clinton continued to cut the military.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 22, 2007 06:18 PM (Lgw9b)

18 i acknowledged that clinton expanded the same Thank you for proving my point for me.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 22, 2007 06:21 PM (lo4eE)

19 J - I read what you had to say and it's nothing new. I hear old timers at certain U.S. bases bitch that newer recruits don't get the same punishments they did when they entered the service, such as KP, because the kitchen function has been outsourced. Is that outsourcing you want to complain about too or is it just outsourcing that gets more visibility or because you may disagree with the Iraq war? What is your real point other than justifying an antiwar position?

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2007 06:22 PM (0pZel)

20 J - I've got a suggestion for you. Why don't you do a quick survey and figure out who is doing all the complaining about these security contractors. Is it a bunch of nutroot bloggers and antiwar organizations or is it broader than that? What are the specific complaints?

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2007 07:13 PM (0pZel)

21 Daley, you expect J to actually do (gasp) research? He doesn't know how, he just parrots the usual talking points.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 22, 2007 08:14 PM (lo4eE)

22 C-C-G - No, I don't actually expect him to do anything to back up his positions. Does the U.S. military object to the security contractors? That would be an interesting data point for me. Who gives a darn if a bunch of lefties who want us out of Iraq even if there is a chance of achieving an acceptable outcome, even if it means losing our credibility as an ally in future crises, even if it means losing influence for the forseeable future in the Middle East, all because of an irrational hatred of George Bush and an overarching desire to return to power.

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2007 09:13 PM (0pZel)

23 Daley, I read somewhere (and have been searching for the site, with no luck so far) that many of those that Blackwater hires for positions that might involve combat are armed forces veterans. Assuming that is true, I can't see that the armed forces would object too strenuously to those particular Blackwater people. However, I can certainly understand if the armed forces object to Blackwater employees being placed in combat positions without having at least some experience under fire, be it in the armed forces or in law enforcement (which these days are becoming very similar, for good or for ill).

Posted by: C-C-G at September 22, 2007 09:25 PM (lo4eE)

24 Speaking from Experience as a Contractor in Baghdad (and NOT with Blackwater): The Majority of the Blackwater Personnel, at the beginning of the Insurgency (I.E. 2003-Early '04) were made up of what we in Baghdad refered to as "The Cowboys" They tended to be prior service SF and Special Ops people who were making sick dinero and didn't care who was int he way. They tended to be clannish and rather anti-social toward other "Non-Elite" Contractors... I tended to avoid being around them as they were usually heavily armed and somewhat on the trigger-happy side. Occasionally there were also 'wannabes' in the Blackwater Teams as well... guys with bogus resumes and faked DD214s... they tended to get weeded out quickly, but still, the occasional 'nonprofessional' would slip through the cracks, and this could also lead to issues... think of scene in Ronin with Sean Bean: " What's the color of the boathouse at Hereford?" Anyways... per usual...

Posted by: Big Country at September 22, 2007 09:44 PM (8dJDM)

25 BC, thanks for that. I hadn't considered the "trigger-happy" types, I imagine the armed forces would take a dim view of having them in-country and armed.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 22, 2007 11:21 PM (lo4eE)

26 thanks indeed, Big C. i can't imagine the standard US soldier--the guy WE're supposed to be rallying 'round, contractors be damned--being in support of anything remotely resembling your description of blackwater. “[F]igure out who is doing all the complaining about these security contractors.” The “complaining,” as you call it, from military personnel started right off the bat, especially after abu graib. in this 2004 article, the captain grasped early the consequences of widespread use of contractors for security personnel; his points and opinion follow: From “Outsourcing the Profession: A look at Military Contractors and their Impact on the Profession of Arms,” by Marc O. Hedahl, Capt, USAF NRO/IMINT/IGO 1—“he final report written by Lt. Gen. Anthony Jones and Maj. Gen. George Fay on Abu Graib concluded that the use of private contractors as not only translators but interrogators were a key part of the problem. 50% of interrogators at Abu Graib at the time of the abuses were private contractors; 36% of the proven abuse incidents involved private contractors, and 35 % of those contract interrogators have not had any formal military training.” [why were none of them held accountable, unlike their military counterparts?] 2 – “We do not have sufficient oversight directly managing these contracts. There are currently only 14 people managing the greater than $18B of private contracts in Iraq.” [that was then. look at the US GAO report issued last December to see how little has changed.] 3 – “[Blackwater] reports that 30% of its current labor force lacks formal military training.” [see marine colonel (ret.) thomas x. hammes’ recent interview with “Frontline” on his experience in iraq dealing with contractors’ (as a whole) lack of any formal military training and the predictable results.] 4 – “The Outsourcing can also negatively impact the ability to retain crucial, skilled personnel within the military itself. For example, there are reportedly more former British Special Forces soldiers working for PMFs in Iraq than in the entire British Armed Services.” 5 – “Worst of all, we have ripped the profession apart. We have fractured our training, our accountability, and our ethical codes. I do not believe that the crisis has yet reached the point where talk of the military profession is meaningless, but I know that we cannot fight alongside and independently of large numbers of mercenaries for extended periods of time without becoming mercenaries ourselves, not because of the effect that their actions will have on ours, but merely because their existence destroys the ability for the profession to exist at all. If we ever reach such a point, our uniforms, our medals, and even our codes of honor truly will become nothing more than anachronistic window dressing.” [wow. one man’s opinion, to be sure, but still: wow.] (http://www.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE05/Hedahl05.html) on another, but related, note, reports like this one from 2005 have been trickling out of iraq since the beginning of the war, reports in which military (former or current) personnel have themselves been sources for stories detailing abuse by contractors: “U.S. Contractors in Iraq Allege Abuses “There are new allegations that heavily armed private security contractors in Iraq are brutalizing Iraqi civilians. In an exclusive interview, four former security contractors told NBC News that they watched as innocent Iraqi civilians were fired upon, and one crushed by a truck. The contractors worked for an American company paid by U.S. taxpayers. The Army is looking into the allegations. “The four men are all retired military veterans: Capt. Bill Craun, Army Rangers; Sgt. Jim Errante, military police; Cpl. Ernest Colling, U.S. Army; and Will Hough, U.S. Marines. All went to Iraq months ago as private security contractors. …. “They worked for an American company named Custer Battles, hired by the Pentagon to conduct dangerous missions guarding supply convoys. They were so upset by what they saw, three quit after only one or two missions.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/) it all begs the questions--what ever becomes of these allegations? what security contractors were held accountable for abu graib? why is it only ever the military who is held accountable when an iraqi civilian is killed in a firefight? what impact has this double standard had on military morale?

Posted by: j at September 23, 2007 04:48 AM (Qj9lw)

27 J - You sound like a truther, raising questions without attempting to answer them. Abu Ghraib interrogators are not a security detail. Having only 30% of a work force not ex-military doesn't sound like a lot. What experience did the rest have, police or other law enforcement or nothing? Hasn't the British military gone through an even more drastic downsizing that the U.S.? Where do ex-British professional soldiers find work? Why not follow some of your own red herrings to their own conclusions Jaded? The $18 billion of contracts you throw on the table are not all security contracts. Who made the decision to employ security contractors? Was it the State Department or people holding the contract awards? Is this standard practice is third world type contries with a high degree of risk? It's easy if you try a little honesty rather than partisanship.

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 23, 2007 08:08 AM (0pZel)

28 Okay, J, what's your solution to this problem? Pull soldiers off the surge and jeopardize the gains we have made, so that Iraq backslides? Pull State Department people out of the country? Complete withdrawal from Iraq, and thus cause the genocide that even the NY Times admits will happen? It's easy to sit in your comfy chair and bitch and moan and complain. Now do some hard work and come up with a workable solution.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 23, 2007 10:41 AM (lo4eE)

29 C-C-G - I haven't seen it yet, but I'm waiting for J to make the usual lefty objection that if we can't provide security for our people we had no business starting this illegal war in the first place. It all just illustrates what a quagmire it is to people like J.

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 23, 2007 11:31 AM (0pZel)

30 I for one feel this has turned into one major Cluster F**k...You have JAG lawyers under every rock,insane REO,Soldiers scared to shoot because of the REO...2 SF Snipers up on Murder charges for doing their job as ordered...A Marine spec-ops unit thrown out of Afgahnistan for a supposed 10 mile running gun battle for lack of trainning "Give me a break" by the way both charges were brought by the same Perfume Prince LT Gen kerny. A press corp who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the arse...A Democratic party who under mine the troops at every turn(My party by the way) You tell me how you win like that!!!! And Radical Islam watching and waiting with a very big simle on their face...

Posted by: Tincan Sailor at September 23, 2007 11:58 AM (L4HGI)

31 Oh, I imagine my comment will provoke that reaction. What J and lefties like him/her don't realize is that we do not inhabit a perfect world--or a perfectable one, either. Sometimes you have to go with a less than ideal solution because it is better than the alternatives. Using contractors for security fits that description, I think. It's not ideal, but it's better than removing soldiers from more critical missions, and I'd venture a guess that's precisely why it's being done.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 23, 2007 11:59 AM (lo4eE)

32 BTW, the Iraqis claim they have a videotape that shows the Blackwater guys shooting without provocation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6941512,00.html

Posted by: The Voice of Reason at September 23, 2007 12:41 PM (K1Emm)

33 Yeah, VOR, and OJ claims he's innocent. Let's see this video, if it exists. Just claiming to have it means nothing.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 23, 2007 12:47 PM (lo4eE)

34 While you split hairs on inanities, your hired mercenaries kill more innocent people on the roads of yet another nation. Disarm and jail these thugs. They are no different from the fanatics in their suicide trucks. Both kill innocent people and claim the moral high ground. A proliferation of morons let loose by a nation so full of itself and so blinded by its own sense of righteousness that it has lost the ability to see the consequences of its actions.

Posted by: Shubhs at September 23, 2007 02:12 PM (xg3UO)

35 Shubhs, what about the members of the Party of the Donkey who want us to pull out and leave the tribes to a real civil war, thus causing genocide? What about the ability to see the consequences of those actions? But that's okay to idiots like you... if a difficult situation develops, you're content to tuck tail between your legs and run, rather than face it, and the consequences, and try to make it better. Better see a doctor about that BDS before January 2009.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 23, 2007 02:34 PM (lo4eE)

36 J: OK: Abu Ghraib. Been there personally. Done that. Up CLOSE and PERSONAL I grow weary of all you armchair assholes taking the MSM version without actually asking or KNOWING anything from a first person point of view. The interrogators at Abu Ghraib were resolved and absolved COMPLETELY by the Taguba investigation. The ONLY contractors who had ANY true involvement were part and parcel from the Titan Corporation and not only that, but were actually Lebanese and Local/Third Country Nationals who were hired by Titan as translators and subcontracted through CACI. I know this for a fact as many if not all of the interrogators were/are my friends and I worked with them for almost two years. (BTW part of the reason we never heard anything else about it was that the Christians In Action don't like any press coverage) No, I myself am not an interrogator, nor do I speak for any of the companies in any way shape or form. What I am is a Patriotic American who would rather see a POS terrorist go through humiliation and physical discomfort rather than lose a single American Soldiers life. The Quote Torture UnQuote utilized is far less harsh than what a standard US Fraternity puts its pledges through. I for one grow weary of that dead horse being dug up and flayed every time soemthing untward happens here. Its the Lefts Pentultimate Example of "American-Military-Evil" and is used every single time to whip and beat down those who disagree with them. It's the Lefties "Nuclear Option" so to speak. And for those of you who think I'm wrong on this: To give an idea of how jacked up the situation is in dealing with 'detainees'... An Iraqi male was found immeadiately after an ambush of a convoy in which one female soldier lost her life. Said Iraqi male was caught WITH an RPG-7B shoulder launcher IN HIS HANDS. According to Iraqi law, BECAUSE he wasn't caught ACTUALLY in the act of firing said rocket, the presumption of innocence is maintained. In other words, despite having caught this joker with literally a 'smoking gun' in hand, he was released within a week because his claim was that he had 'found' the launcher sitting on the ground... this being the case in the Majority of circumstances. Yeah... they are all 'innocent'... Many times in the Local Employment screening cells would we find former 'Fedayeen Saddam' trying to gain employment on Bases shortly after their release from the Division or Battalion Holding Areas. (They were easy to spot as they have tatoos on the back of thier hands) and after being caught and asked exactly what they were doing, they would for the most part invariably and openly admit that they were there to gain a job on base to first infiltrate and then set up 'something' to try and kill as many Americans as possible. One guy even had the brass to ask me for a cigarette and openly admitted that he had just gotten released from Abu G for having fired rockets into Balad... As long as this kind of crap goes on, and the partisan bullshit keeps erupting, we're never going to get anywhere in this....

Posted by: Big Country at September 23, 2007 02:35 PM (8dJDM)

37 Thank you Big Country. It is amazing to me how the left in this country attempts to speak with an air of authority yet proves its ignorance time after time.

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 23, 2007 02:55 PM (0pZel)

38 Uh, Big C., aren't you thinking of Army Provost Marshall Donald Ryder's report made prior? Because if anything, Taguba later buried the Ryder Report. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen "who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by 'setting conditions' which were neither authorized" nor in accordance with Army regulations. "He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse," the Taguba Report said. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. "I suspect," Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib," and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.

Posted by: j at September 23, 2007 04:01 PM (fd/rX)

39 "I grow weary of all you armchair assholes taking the MSM version..." Uh, read my post again, Big C: I was quoting a paper written by a USAAF captain who was himself referencing a report written by two Army generals and their findings. No MSM sources there, champ. "The interrogators at Abu Ghraib were resolved and absolved COMPLETELY by the Taguba investigation." Uuh...maybe we're dealing with a reading/comprehension thing here because aren't you thinking of Army Provost Marshall Donald Ryder's report made *prior*? Ryder merely stated that there was *potential* for abuse, and not actual abuse at the time of his writing. Later, Taguba *buried* the Ryder Report. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen "who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by 'setting conditions' which were neither authorized" nor in accordance with Army regulations. "He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse," the Taguba Report said. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. "I suspect," Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib," and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action. From MY armchair, that hardly sounds like a 'complete absolution'.

Posted by: j at September 23, 2007 04:15 PM (fd/rX)

40 my apologies for the double post; got a blank screen after the first attempt.

Posted by: j at September 23, 2007 04:27 PM (fd/rX)

41 J - What does Abu Ghraib have to do with contract employees pulling security duties again? Aren't you just looking for any black mark against contractors to deride the whole process rather than follow the subject of the post?

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 23, 2007 05:21 PM (0pZel)

42 @CCG: "what about the members of the Party of the Donkey who want us to pull out and leave the tribes to a real civil war" Mate, to us outside the cosy world of the United States, these are just your internal politics...irritants, tangential to the real issue. This situation wouldn't be there in the first place if you, the 'foreign fighters' there, let us not forget, didn't poke your fat ignorant nose there five years ago. Of course, hindsight is 20-20 and all that...yada yada. Pardon my naivete, but arming a bunch of trigger-happy thugs and letting them loose with a mandate to kill at will, civilians included, isn't what the rest of the world understands to be conflict resolution. My country won't let a bunch of unregulated indisciplined armed mercenaries like these even enter our airspace.

Posted by: Shubs at September 23, 2007 05:24 PM (xg3UO)

43 J - Have you read "Unhinged" by Michelle Malkin? It does a pretty good job documenting violence and looniness of the left in this country in pursuit of its political goals, although she doesn't try to tar everyone. Anne Coulter does try to tar the entire left with most of her columns, which is closer to what you are trying to do with contract employees in Iraq. Do you like Anne Coulter or being on the receiving end of Anne Coulter columns? How do you think contract employees or relatives of contract employees feel about being described as murderers and thugs by your uninformed ilk?

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 23, 2007 05:29 PM (0pZel)

44 J: To finish this in short but sweet mode... (I had attempted to post a longer response but the damned thing got eaten! GGGGRRRRRRR!!!) Essentially: Abu G has not one damned thing to do with the current issue. The "Scandal" is used as a bludgeon on any and all opposition to the Leftist Dogma of "Contractors Out of Control" or "Evil Military Out of Control." You use incorrect terms like "security contractors at Abu Ghraib" and other such terms in order to create the idea that they are somehow tied to the current Blackwater issue. Its the whole Goebbels Ideal of 'repeating it enough makes it a valid truth.' *(Thus I can equal Progressives/Liberals with Nazism... and seeing that Socialism is part and parcel of the Progressive Agenda it bears that the National Socialist Party WERE the NAZIS!) But besides that, I have to say that no one, not any of the Witless Neocon AIPAC scum nor Ted 'Learn to Swim' Kennedy or their ilk have ever set foot on the ground in Iraq for any REAL time or meaningful experience. Us contractors work 12 to 18 hours a day, 7 days a week... its been 9 months since I saw my wife or kids, and 6 months since I had my last beer on a 2 day trip to Egypt. We sacrifice huge amounts, and get damned near "NO respect" as the late great Rodney would say, and sure, we make good $$$, but thats what has to be done if we want to get ahead in the current economy. Until you've been on the ground, you really have NO idea whats going on over there.

Posted by: Big Country at September 23, 2007 06:15 PM (8dJDM)

45 J: To finish this in short but sweet mode... (I had attempted to post a longer response but the damned thing got eaten! GGGGRRRRRRR!!!) Essentially: Abu G has not one damned thing to do with the current issue. The "Scandal" is used as a bludgeon on any and all opposition to the Leftist Dogma of "Contractors Out of Control" or "Evil Military Out of Control." You use incorrect terms like "security contractors at Abu Ghraib" and other such terms in order to create the idea that they are somehow tied to the current Blackwater issue. Its the whole Goebbels Ideal of 'repeating it enough makes it a valid truth.' *(Thus I can equal Progressives/Liberals with Nazism... and seeing that Socialism is part and parcel of the Progressive Agenda it bears that the National Socialist Party WERE the NAZIS!) But besides that, I have to say that no one, not any of the Witless Neocon AIPAC scum nor Ted 'Learn to Swim' Kennedy or their ilk have ever set foot on the ground in Iraq for any REAL time or meaningful experience. Us contractors work 12 to 18 hours a day, 7 days a week... its been 9 months since I saw my wife or kids, and 6 months since I had my last beer on a 2 day trip to Egypt. We sacrifice huge amounts, and get damned near "NO respect" as the late great Rodney would say, and sure, we make good $$$, but thats what has to be done if we want to get ahead in the current economy. Until you've been on the ground, you really have NO idea whats going on over there.

Posted by: Big Country at September 23, 2007 06:15 PM (8dJDM)

46 Shubs - What is your country Mate and is it at war? Does it have foreign suicide bombers infiltrating it to kill its own citizens and those trying to bring peace to it? What exactly is your frame of reference Mate?

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 23, 2007 06:16 PM (0pZel)

47 Big Country, when ya get back, if you're near the panhandle of Idaho, drop me a line. I'll buy you a steak and a beer.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 23, 2007 10:09 PM (lo4eE)

48 Hey, J, I note that you've replied several times and yet not answered my question. So I'll repeat it so you don't have to scroll back. What is your solution to the "problem" you think you've exposed? Or are you just someone who delights in saying "that's not the way to do it," without having any idea what the right way is?

Posted by: C-C-G at September 23, 2007 10:37 PM (lo4eE)

49 @daleyrocks: "What is your country Mate and is it at war? Does it have foreign suicide bombers infiltrating it to kill its own citizens and those trying to bring peace to it? What exactly is your frame of reference Mate?" Yes, to all of the above. We have been in a proxy war with an Islamic state for the last three decades. Long before your countrymen knew how to even spell 'terrorism'. My country has foreign terrorists infiltrating it on a regular basis to try and kill our citizens. Does yours? Fact check: Iraq is not 'YOUR' country. The only infiltrators you get in your country are there to earn a quick buck, and I don't think Canadians are really dying to get into the US. My country has not invaded any other country, and we don't have armed mercenaries killing civilians in any other country. So, I think I am entitled to a little moral superiority here. Thank you. America's way is not the only way, nor is it always the correct way. An intelligent people will acknowledge that, and try to correct a bad situation. You can only rectify something when you admit it is broken. Hubris does not help resolve anything. An unregulated armed militia like Blackwater is no different from the Mahdi Army...dispensing instant justice from the barrel of a gun. For once, step back and look the truth in the eye. These arguments are for argument's sake. You know it as well as anybody here. They screwed up. They should pay for their crimes. But they won't. Because they are Americans. Because in your eyes an American thug's freedom is worth more than the life of an unknown Iraqi. That is my frame of reference my friend. And if you care to wake up and look around, you will find it is the frame of reference of most people around the world. This war's time is up. And Blackwater is just the first step to that end.

Posted by: Shubs at September 24, 2007 12:26 AM (xg3UO)

50 Big C., i bear you--or anyone else in this--no ill will. as you say, in a multi-faceted situation as you're in (and the rest of your family, by proxy), the truth of a matter is hard to discern for the rest of us. stateside, we're made to rely on information that is often inaccurate, regardless of who is putting it out, and it can create an atmosphere of distrust among individuals that more often than not are seeking the same thing. i look to what the military has said in its official capacity when i mention abu graib, not to broadbrush contractors into an easily digestible lump you've called "Contractors Out of Control," or some other such thing--for that reason my posts listed non-blackwater groups such as CACI and Custer Battles, etc. i *know* you aren't all in the same boat, and perhaps a more careful reading of the general point i--and others far more qualified than i--have tried to make would reflect that. i accept responsibility for my tone, however, and apologize if it sounded judgemental or condescending--as an american, you are entitled to whatever honest work you've set yourself to. i wish i could say i said it first, but i'll say it anyway: enjoy that first bottle of suds when home. cheers, j

Posted by: j at September 24, 2007 12:36 AM (Qj9lw)

51 Shubs - Your comments says nothing. It's a bunch of platitudes signifying a bunch of crap. If you think you've got moral superiority, good on ya, you just sound like another superior Brit or euroweenie with an I hate America fetish.

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 24, 2007 01:53 AM (0pZel)

52 daleyrocks: I was just waiting for the 'anti-american' card to be waived...and right on cue, here it is! Yet another convenient, all-encompassing label to hide and justify any kind of uncomfortable truth. Anyway, not my war and not my country. But get this straight. The only 'platitudes' the world is tired of hearing are of the moral kind that come from the current American administration as they go about reducing nations to rubble, killing people and destroying lives and societies, all in the pursuit of the elusive goal of global domination. All the while frothing at the mouth preaching about freedom, democracy and liberation. And sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not European and I don't 'hate' America. It's only in caricatures of your perceived enemies that you see this 'hatred'. It does not exist. Nobody 'hates' you for your 'freedoms'. That logic, that line of thinking is so inherently stupid that it defies belief that people of an advanced and educated nation like yours can even fall for it. But I don't think you are ignorant of that fact either. It's just that your pride does not allow you to back down from a point of view that you know is wrong.

Posted by: Shubs at September 24, 2007 02:17 AM (xg3UO)

53 CCG, i haven't ignored your question; indeed, i've thought long about it and have no off-the-cuff answers. part of me alikens it to a doctor telling his patient, 'look, you continue in the fashion you're going and you'll be dead in a year', knowing the patient is going to go home and do nothing different. only difference is, our patient is the gov't of the good ol' US of A and at this point, it has made it clear that doesn't *want* to implement change--the supplanting of the GI from yesteryear's brown boot army IS THE POINT. the blueprints were on the table long before 9-11 or iraq: smaller, faster, more efficient. in-and-out of a hotspot. get the job done and go home. hire out someone to peel the potatoes: our guys don't have the time to sit around and cook sh*t like the mess sarge on M*A*S*H. sounds good, no? well, that's what they thought--and the rummy plan was in full effect when WHAM! they ran into an engagement like iraq. and now they're FUBAR, like their pretty plans. our allies are scratching their heads, thinking, wtf? and our enemies like china and russia are laughing their asses off. well, imo, the only way out is the way we came in. sure, we can expect it'll be a mess, but nearly anyone who'd really want to--and be able to--sucker punch us at this point could, and this isn't making anyone more apt to pick up democracy anywhere it already isn't. so why are we, a two-ton gorilla, swiping at gnats? just because they landed a good one, once or twice? hell--even *that* could've been prevented if they'd given operations like able danger a chance to work, imo. i am firmly in the camp that says, any country as internationally active as ours *has* to come to grips with a constant threat of terrorism. russia has, the UK has, india has, israel has, etc: you sleep around, you'd better be willing to risk an STD, regardless of how you wrap it. the real question is: does terrorism really pose as existential a threat to the US as does, say, china? not hardly, imo. so about the contractors: they're a symptom of a problem and not the problem itself. recall the troops, re-tool and re-build: every country has had to do it and it didn't necessarily mean their end. NOT recalling them in time COULD, however, as it did for the USSR after their afghan safari. so: 1-recall the troops: we did in vietnam and, even though old scores were settled after we left, the domino effect in the southeast never happened. i mean, think about it before you shout, "Cut&runner!!"--what did we *really* lose? we STILL split the sino-soviet axis AND started SALT talks--i.e., our biggest enemies and threats (the ones we were trying to impress by staying in Vietnam) didn't seem to think less of us. 2-re-tool: dump the humvee; more MRAPs. invest in better armed, longer-ranged Predators, etc. more eyes-in-the-skies and whatnot. papers will be written, theses developed and debunked, and "What should the 21st century US Army look like?" questions asked. has happened since rome was trounced at carrhae. 3-rebuild: invest in the soldier, dammit, not just his rifle. first thing to do is ram a sizeable increase in pay thru congress and restructure the VA. rebuild defense from the ground-up. whittle the contractors' pool down to a nub, like it once was. sure, they need to come on base to teach a class in arabic or run a cable line into housing on-post, but that should be it. "No guns for the hired help" should be a rule, because the hired help isn't going into battle, bottom line. also, as a fan of smedley butler, i think posse comitatus should apply outside of the US as much as it does within. these are a few thoughts. you asked, and i gave your queston the value of my time i think it deserved. no doubt others think differently, but such is our american way and i wouldn't have it any other.

Posted by: j at September 24, 2007 02:21 AM (Qj9lw)

54 So MPs didn't do this job during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, et al.? Ummm, no. What do you think the department of state's DSS is for? Fetching donuts?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 24, 2007 07:52 AM (/G4Xe)

55 Shubs - I don't believe you were waitng for the anti-American card to be played in the thread, I believe you played it. Here are a few of your quotes: A proliferation of morons let loose by a nation so full of itself and so blinded by its own sense of righteousness that it has lost the ability to see the consequences of its actions. This situation wouldn't be there in the first place if you, the 'foreign fighters' there, let us not forget, didn't poke your fat ignorant nose there five years ago. I don't go in for your cheap mind reading tricks of assuming you know what others think so you can buzz off on that. You continue to claim moral superiority without revealing its source. Sweet!

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 24, 2007 08:57 AM (0pZel)

56 So, J, you'd withdraw and leave the Iraqis to the genocide that even the NY Times says would happen? Even if the "domino effect" never happened in Southeast Asia, millions lost their lives that might have been saved if we hadn't pulled out. Ever hear of the killing fields? You say we didn't really lose anything... does the massive loss of life after we cut and run mean nothing to you? Do the lives of those who look different--different skin tone, different eye shape--mean nothing to you? You just dug yourself a real deep hole there, neighbor.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 24, 2007 09:00 AM (lo4eE)

57 Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/24/2007 A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by: David M at September 24, 2007 10:22 AM (gIAM9)

58 J - It was good of you to take some time and effort to construct a comment rather than use stale talking points. Nice

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 24, 2007 11:14 AM (0pZel)

59 now before we rush to judgment, lemme say this: not necessarily gonna happen, even if the Times says it will. consider: 1- iraq has no history of sectarian violence; our presence (and make no mistake, it would be the same if it were russia's or saudi arabia's) is, according to some, *itself the catalyst* for the sectarianism. even during the iran-iraq war, there was little evidence that the shia bloque in iraq costituted a fifth column within, working with the iranians. instead, iraq--largely shia--fought *as one* against the only other shia gov't in the middle east. the longer we stay, i think, the deeper the hole is being dug for a once and future iraqi gov't, as anyone who works with the coalition is immediately out any street cred. 2-iraqis don't want to see iraq split into three fractions/factions, but the US is going ahead with it anyway. why? consider this news article from the other day: "BAGHDAD (AFP) — Hundreds of Shiites and Sunnis marched on Wednesday in protest at the building by US troops of a tall concrete wall separating their northwest Baghdad neighbourhoods, an AFP photographer said. The protesters complained that the wall would promote sectarianism and demanded its removal." (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i9vMA27D7Fu1r_4jW_jmdsEa1KKg) i take their protests to be a good sign, one that says they're willing to fight for what's theirs. without that, this whole thing will surely have been a failed venture, imo. 3-what to do with the kurds, however? they are certainly not going to give up any of their hard-won sovereignty, and even if they *are* our most reliable allies in the country, their increased autonomy threatens the whole region, from turkey to northern iran. i am at a loss here; it gets even stickier, with rumors of ongoing israeli-kurdish arms-and-cash deals going down all the time. 4-iranian influence is *not* welcome in iraq, itself also a good sign. (wish i could add to this but am short on time.) 5-Ahmadinejad is a delusional fool, but kept on a short leash by Supreme Leader Khamenei, who is himself commander-in-chief; head of all security ops and intel; and alone possesses the power to declare war. ergo, i think 90% of the president's rhetoric can be disregarded, and mention him only to preempt any suggestion that he's another reason we have to stay. in short, it isn't that i feel nothing for iraqis. rather, it is *because* i think highly of their capacity to get over this *if we let them* that i think that iraq is salvageable. iraqis are dying NOW and fleeing the country NOW: the threat of "it's all gonna go to hell if we leave" is tautological. so is it really just a matter of deciding how much hell-at-once or how little hell-over-a-longer-time are they gonna have to endure before they get their country back? i wouldn't like to think so, but that might be the $64K question.

Posted by: j at September 24, 2007 11:28 AM (Qj9lw)

60 @daleyrocks: Whatever. Just don't put your cowboy boots on my nation's soil. Stay out, and maybe we can be friends.

Posted by: Shubs at September 24, 2007 12:19 PM (vPJAs)

61 J: Thanks for the kind rebuttle... nice to see a non-hostile response. I also, after reading your last, happen to agree with you on the majority of your points. The Iraqis... the 'everyday Joe Iraqi' on the street tends to want this whole mess to blow over... The biggest issue which NO ONE on either side has EVER really touched on was the violence that keeps happening (i.e. kidnapping and murder and general thievery) can be attributed in large to desperation AND the fact that Saddam opened the door to every single prison in Iraq as the invasion commenced. To give you perspective on this: Imagine every single jailed inmate in the state of New York being released and in some cases, armed by their former jailers... Thats according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (googled it) That would be upwards of 75,000 criminals cut loose all at once. Just imagine the chaos that would happen if only 10% of them return to crime or even violent crime. Throw in the raging unemployment, the standing military of 1.5million men under arms being suddenly 'out of work' but still armed, the influx of 'foriegn fighters' and a culture that pretty much encourages "Getting what you can when you can" in the Body Politic, and you have a recipe foor complete and total breakdown of any and all services. Personally, I hope we get the hell out soon, despite the fact that it'll leave me unemployed CCG: Appreciate it sir! I may just have to tell you to do me a favor and take a Iraq Vet out to dinner instead... he or she deserves it much more than I! Besides... 30 Days and I got me some R&R... or I&I... (Intercorse and Intoxication!!!!! LOL)

Posted by: Big Country at September 24, 2007 01:57 PM (8dJDM)

62 Stubs - Since you haven't disclosed your country, it makes it a little hard to refute your points. I suppose that is the way you want it.

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 24, 2007 02:47 PM (0pZel)

63 J - Your point #1 - No history of sectarian violence - Do you mean because the Shia were firmly under the boot of the Sunni. Now that things have changed, plus with Iranian support of some of the leading Shia clerics (where did they spend their exiles?), and some of the factors Big C mentioned, it's a whole new ball game there. The Sunni aren't used to being out of power and the Shia want their turn at the top along with some revenge for sins of the past IMHO. Every one has to become convinced of the benfits of working together and sharing power.

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 24, 2007 02:55 PM (0pZel)

64 "Do you mean because the Shia were firmly under the boot of the Sunni[?]" inside the corridors of power, this was true. iraqi christians were overrepresented (vis-a-vis their numbers in the country) in saddam's gov't to the exclusion of the shia, even. but in the neighborhoods of baghdad, shia-and-sunni intermarriages were common, and christians largely unmolested. *outsiders* were seen with distrust, and kurds (and iranians and saudis, et al) were considered outsiders. "with...some of the factors Big C mentioned, it's a whole new ball game there." again, to a certain degree, yes. Big C brought up a very relevant point about the prisoners that gets zero play in the media when it comes to hard-core discussions on iraq, and *has* to be brought into play on the matter. now, not all of the ex-cons were of the worst stripe--many were simply political/religious enemies of saddam or his family. but enough of them were that they have to be considered a factor in the insurgency, at least in it's earliest days. with that said, i'm not sure i'd say it's a "whole new ballgame" but it *does* factor into this, somehow; it's just out of my league to opine on how, exactly. "Every one has to become convinced of the benfits of working together and sharing power." i couldn't agree more, and i think the purple fingers were proof that the street long ago become convinced that a.) it was a good thing to be rid of saddam and b.) it's do-or-die time, with regards to keeping iraq intact.

Posted by: j at September 24, 2007 03:44 PM (Qj9lw)

65 No history of sectarian violence? Uh, J, you conveniently forget Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. I'd say a gas attack by a member of one sect (Sunni) upon another sect (Kurd) is "sectarian violence." Stop believing everything MoveOn tells you.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 24, 2007 07:24 PM (lo4eE)

66 Big Country: I happen to know a Marine Sergeant quite well (I believe he's commented here once or twice) and he knows he's got a standing invitation for a steak. Alas, the closest he's gotten to my grill has been Utah, so far, but he keeps promising to come around someday.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 24, 2007 07:44 PM (lo4eE)

67 Iraq has serious problems and will continue to have them for years to come. Our own nation was conceived in blood in 1775, but we did not establish our constitution until 1788, thirteen years later. Why do we expect overnight magic in Iraq? After WW2 US troops remained in Germany and Japan for several years (hint they are still there). Attacks against our troops in Germany continued well past 1985, FORTY years later! While stationed there in the mid 80's, we were constantly reminded to be vigilant bacause groups supported by enemies of freedom opposed us. The majority of the attackers were foreign, but we also faced abuse from home grown America haters. I was stationed at Pirmasens, home to the green party. Many members of my unit were attacked while down in town. Outsourcing has its ups and its downs. Generally contract employees are cheaper to maintain for many functions from cooks to gate guards. Many needs go beyond what soldiers are capable of. I'm not dissing troops here, I'm being real. A lot of our kids in the Military have a high school diploma and little more. True officers all have college educations, and most senior NCOs as well, but joe the private is often fresh out of high school, full of patriotic zeal, and in need of good guidance. Its hard to put up a good security detail for state dept from that. Blackwater et al are specialists. With prior experience, these guys provide a level of security higher then most MP companies can accomplish. Units like the OSI cando it, but they are already taxed to the max with their own details. I doubt they could spare ten men for a convoy for one day, let alone every day. Looking back at Vietnam, it had its economic reasons. At the start of the war, it was a primary source of rubber, before we learned to synthisize plastic from crude. It was a crucial chess piece for many years. Were atrocities comitted there? Yes they were, hundreds of times, maybe even thousands. 99.9% by the NVA and VC units. Its the same then as now, Dan rather reported back then. If you think nothing happened when we left, think again, and learn to do research. Many Vietnamese were killed by the communists. They even killed Viet Cong because they had leadership skills. The educated masses were slaughtered. Teachers, lawyers, doctors, killed because they had educations that taught them about life beyond the walls of communism. The murder also spread, Laos, Cambodia, even into Thailand. Millions died for no reason except that we supported bad policies, and let communists infiltrate our colleges here at home. Wise democrats should support the troops in Iraq, and an invasion of Iran. Islam opposes all that is dear to democrats. Furthermore, think what a full blown civil war in Iraq would do to the WORLD economy. The violence would spread. be assured of that. People would flee to surrounding countries for safety, and those countries would be attacked by the radicals because they provided shelter. These groups will behave like Mafiosos given the chance. The world depends on oil. sorry, its a fact. Desert storm was about oil. Bush Sr. admitted it, only fools deny it. This is about oil too, but its not about stealing it as so many try to imply. Its about staving off economic disaster, and ecological disaster as well. We all though Saddam had WMD. That was a common train of htough on both sides of the isle. That was not the only reason for kicking his ass out of power. It is the only reason not proven valid. BUT it has also not been proven invalid either. It never will be either way. Saddam may have had them and may have shipped them to Syria, or crazy as it sounds, Iran. Yup, bitter enemies them two! ROFL@U. Saddam sent his air force into Iran to save them from destruction by the USAF prior to desert storm. Anyone remember the joke? what does Saddam call his airforce? Its the I Ran Air Force. Old but so true!

Posted by: Jeremy at September 24, 2007 09:33 PM (FHbDj)

68 Very good points, Jeremy. Pulling out of Iraq would also embolden the Islamoterrorists... they'd be slapping each other on the back yelling, "we chased the Americans off!"

Posted by: C-C-G at September 24, 2007 10:19 PM (lo4eE)

69 J - I think you need to do some more work on your Iraqi history. The Sunni dominated the Shia economically as a result of their political power. Look at WWII forward.

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 25, 2007 12:05 AM (0pZel)

70 "...you conveniently forget Saddam's gassing of the Kurds." no, i didn't forget, but their gassing wasn't an act of ethnic cleansing *per se*: they revolted against saddam's rule (making them more like chechen separatists), declared themselves part of a greater kurdistan, and received iranian funding and support as an iranian effort to give saddam hell, basically. while their ethnicity cannot be ignored as part of the larger context (ie, no doubt their brutal surpression was only made easier to carry out given their cultural differences with the rest of iraqis), it was not for this reason in-and-of-itself that they provoked saddam's ire. equally so with iraq's shia marsh arabs: they revolted with iranian support and were also surpressed, but not strictly *because* they were shia but *because* they revolted. either way, however, these aren't the individual groups that the Times has earmarked for slaughter should we pull out. the kurds are the most heavily armed and organized group of the lot, and it would take a joint iranian, iraqi, turkish and possibly even syrian effort to break kurdistan--only iraq just isn't anywhere near being able to mount anything like that, and the other countries don't have the stones or organizational skills to do it. the Times has predicted widespread bloodshed in baghdad in particular, a city that simply does *not* have the history of sectarian violence it is currently beset by.

Posted by: j at September 25, 2007 12:39 AM (Qj9lw)

71 "The Sunni dominated the Shia economically as a result of their political power." again, true, but it is a stretch to try and link that to the spate of sectarian violence currently plaguing the country, for the simple reason that now, NO ONE has the power. the multi-sect gov't is impotent, which means ALL (non-kurdish) iraqis feel impotent. *the coalition presence* seems to be the catalyst here, folks, in encouraging the sectarianism, and there is no reason to believe that that can't be alleviated by a coalition withdrawal. the longer we stay, however, the more bad blood is sown and the harder it will be for ANY future sharing of power.

Posted by: j at September 25, 2007 12:51 AM (Qj9lw)

72 You need to study your history, J. In the mid-9th century the Abbasid caliphate began a slow decline. Turkic warrior slaves known as Mamluks became so prominent at the caliphÂ’s court that they almost monopolized power. In 945 the Buwayhids, an Iranian Shia dynasty, conquered Baghdād. However, they allowed the Abbasid caliph to remain in office as a symbol of continuity and legitimacy. In 1055 the Seljuks, a Turkic Sunni clan, drove out the Buwayhids and reestablished Sunni rule in Baghdād. The Seljuks respected the Abbasid caliph but allowed him to be only a figurehead. At the end of the 11th century Seljuk power started to decline. In 1258 Baghdād was conquered and sacked by Hulagu, grandson of the great Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan. Hulagu had the caliph executed along with large numbers of Muslim clerics. Mongol horse cavalry and governmental neglect wrought havoc with the elaborate irrigation system that the Abbasids had established. Iraq became a neglected frontier area ruled from the Mongol capital of Tabrīz in Persia. In 1335 the last great Mongol ruler of this region died, and anarchy prevailed. The Turkic conqueror Tamerlane sacked Baghdād in 1401, again massacring many of its inhabitants. Ottoman Turkish and Iranian rulers vied for supremacy in Iraq until the Ottoman Empire finally secured control in the 17th century. The region was brought under Persian control in 1508. The Ottoman Turks conquered much of it in 1534. The Persians recaptured Baghdād and large parts of Iraq in 1623, holding them until 1638, when Iraq was again brought under Ottoman rule. For almost three centuries thereafter Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. Courtesy MSN Encarta encyclopedia. To summarize: 945: Shia take over. 1055: Sunni take over. 1258: Mongols take over, rule from Persia (modern day Iran). 1355: Anarchy. 1401: Turks take over with a massacre. Persian and Turkish rulers fight over Iraq for decades. 1508: Persia finally gains the upper hand. In short, the ancient history of Iraq is one of almost constant warfare among the various tribes in the area. The only thing that stopped the warfare was the Ottoman Empire taking over and placing a heavy iron boot on the tribes, a tradition that continued through the British occupation and on to Saddam's day. If we leave now, there is every possibility that those ancient tribal feuds will start up again.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 25, 2007 09:16 AM (sOYAM)

73 J - You showed a brief spark of hope there but now you've gone back to displaying industrial stength stupid, conflating history with current behavior. No sectatian violence in Baghdad under Sadaam, why should there be any now if we leave? Doh! Could it be brutal repression of regime opponents during his regime had anything to do with keeping the population cowering in fear? What's a few rape and torture rooms and mass graves between friends, after all? Relatives disappear? Don't worry, it's probably not because thet're from the wrong sect or tribe or said something against Sadaam, everyone is free to intermingle, intermarry and express their views here. Do you actually believe what you write?

Posted by: daleyrocks at September 25, 2007 09:54 AM (0pZel)

74 Just a fun one... Un-PC as Hell but it sticks in my mind: when asked abouit Iraq and the Iraqis, my best friend Lil Country responded vis-a-vis Saddam and his way of treating the population of Iraq "Not that I would ever condon Saddam or his murderous tendancies... I totally UNDERSTAND it... three months here in Baghdad and I'm ready to commit genocide!"

Posted by: Big Country at September 25, 2007 11:45 AM (8dJDM)

75 Daley, J writes out of ignorance. Ignorance of the history of Iraq (as I pointed out this morning), ignorance of what is currently going on there, and just plain general issue ignorance. Mind you, if he would arm himself with the facts he may in fact be intelligent enough to draw a valid conclusion from them; I cannot say, because his aforementioned ignorance makes it impossible to determine his intelligence.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 25, 2007 06:48 PM (sOYAM)

76 Oooh, looky! A new troll! Or perhaps an old one with a new sock, if ya get my drift... time will tell.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 26, 2007 09:01 PM (sOYAM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

According to Janes Defence Weekly and carried in the Jerusalem Post, a Syrian SCUD-C missile exploded while being armed with a chemical warhead in late July, spreading a lethal mix of nearby WMDs. Dozens were killed:

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

As you may imagine, other bloggers are tracking this story, and Ynet news adds detail, including that the specific warhead in question was loaded with mustard gas, and that the explosion started due to a fire in the Scud-C's engine.

Chemically and historically, most weaponized mustard gas weapons retain their lethality for decades, but I'd still like to know the answer to some questions about the missile's fuel system to gauge how much of a direct threat this was or wasn't to Israel and to American forces in Iraq.

SCUD-C missiles are single-stage liquid-fueled missiles. Obviously, an empty missile does not catch fire and explode with enough force to detonate surrounding materials. Therefore, this SCUD-C was obviously fueled. This leads to the following questions:

• How are these missiles typically stored in peace-time Syria, full of liquid propellant, or empty?
• Is there any sort of practical shelf-life to the liquid fuels used to power Syrian SCUD-C missiles?
• Are they capable of being stored full of fuel for extended periods of time, or are they only fueled shortly before launch?

The mere act of mounting a mustard gas warhead on a missile does not necessarily mean that an attack is imminent, but if we knew more about how long a loaded Syrian SCUD-C can remain fueled, we might have a better idea just how serious of a threat this may have been.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:29 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.

As Rusty notes, the media largely ignores her.

Several of the local Arizona media outlets (AZ Family (NBC), KPNX, AZ Central) carried the story, but several other local media outlets including the local Fox News, CBS, and ABC affiliates did not.

No national media outlets have carried the story at all.

Her absolute moral authority apparently doesn't matter as much as that of some.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

I sent the following last night to a source intimately familiar with the Iraqi Interior Ministry:

...could the sudden [Iraqi government political] attack on Blackwater possibly be in retaliation for the "Jones Commission" report that panned the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior and advocated disbanding the national police?

...I would not be surprised if the backlash over Sunday's shooting was planned, and waiting for an event to pin it on.

I wanted to know if the situation with Blackwater "smelled."

His response:

Bob,

Blackwater doesn't smell: It's all about internal politics.

Bolani walks a thin line: he is a Shia without strong party
affiliations. He was the least objectionable Shia to a Sunni minority
who knew they'd never get one of their own into that Ministry.

Bolani is beholden to MNSTC-I/CPATT for supplies, training and money
-- but he also needs support in Parliament and among tribal leaders to
get things done (recruiting, intelligence and minimizing attacks on his
police officers as they try to establish peace).

By attacking Blackwater and standing up to the US over this, he gains
internal support for projects that the US can't help him with. He'll
eventually back down because he can't stay where he is without US
support, but he can't advance internal security without assistance
from other groups as well.

I predict this will end in a compromise: a few people will be fired,
Blackwater will ratchet down their posture a bit and the mission will
continue.

Related thoughts here.

Update: Bryan has an excellent roundup on this subject at Hot Air, and there is more about contractor licensing at the Washington Times

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

I've avoided commenting on the Blackwater story until this point because there simply wasn't enough detail on this specific incident.

It just got more interesting:

The ministry said the incident began around midday, when a convoy of sport utility vehicles came under fire from unidentified gunmen in the square. The men in the SUVs, described by witnesses as Westerners, returned fire, the ministry said.

Blackwater's employees were protecting a U.S. official when they were hit by "a large explosive device, then repeated small-arms fire -- and to the point where it disabled one of the vehicles, and the vehicle had to be towed out of the firefight," said Marty Strong, vice president of Blackwater USA.

A senior industry source said Blackwater guards had escorted a State Department group to a meeting with U.S. Agency for International Development officials in Mansour before the shootings.

A car bomb went off about 80 feet (25 meters) from the meeting site and the contractors started evacuating the State Department officials, he said. A State Department report on the attack said the convoy came under fire from an estimated eight to 10 people, some in Iraqi police uniforms.

The guards called for backup, at one point finding their escape route blocked by an Iraqi quick-reaction force that pointed heavy machine guns at one vehicle in the convoy. A U.S. Army force, backed by air cover, arrived about half an hour later to escort the convoy back to the Green Zone, the report states.

A team from another security company passed through the area shortly after the street battle.

"Our people saw a couple of cars destroyed," Carter Andress, CEO of American-Iraqi Solutions Groups, told CNN on Monday. "Dead bodies, wounded people being evacuated. The U.S. military had moved in and secured the area. It was not a good scene."

An Interior Ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf, said, "We have revoked Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq. As of now they are not allowed to operate anywhere in the Republic of Iraq. The investigation is ongoing, and all those responsible for Sunday's killing will be referred to Iraqi justice."

According to the new details in this CNN story, the Blackwater contractors were evacuating State Department personnel after a car bomb explosion when they came under small arms fire from 8-10, including personnel in Iraqi police uniforms.

It is far, far too early to think that Blackwater's security detail in this incident are anything close to being cleared, but as at least some of the wounded are admittedly not civilians as mentioned in various accounts, and multiple witnesses describe an explosive device or devices starting the ambush, followed by small arms fire, which is a typical ambush tactic. It appears that this may not be an open-and-shut case of "contractors gone wild" as some have hastily opined.

It is worth noting that the Iraqi government response could be in retaliation for the "Jones Commission" report released just weeks ago, that panned the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior for corruption and advocated disbanding the national police. I confirmed with an Iraq War analyst last night that it was possible that the backlash over Sunday's shooting (not the shooting itself) was planned in advance in retaliation for the report.

He was not stating that the attack itself was orchestrated to get Blackwater compromised, just that MOI and al-Maliki's government may have had a contingency plan set up to take advantage of such a situation when it arose to wrangle concessions from the State Department, while possibly create some political breathing room for al-Maliki's embattled government coalition.

This very well may have been a political ambush designed to take advantage of the already foundering reputations of contractors in Iraq, and Blackwater may have been pre-targeted to take advantage of the fact that they are essential to State's security.

Update: Via email this morning from Bill Roggio of The Long War Journal:

1. State uses Blackwater extensively, so this incident gives the Government of Iraq some leverage. I expect State to negotiate to get Blackwater back online, and it will happen.
2. Maliki needs political cover, much like he did attacking the US for raids in Sadr City last year. In the end the raids didn't stop. And in the end I think BW will be in operation in Iraq after some wrangling.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:01 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 727 words, total size 5 kb.

Did I say "unload on?" I meant echoed:

At this wind-swept base near the Iranian border, the main points of Gen. David Petraeus' testimony to Congress were met with widespread agreement among soldiers: The American troop buildup is working, but the military needs more time.

Most of the soldiers at FOB Delta, some 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, were out on patrol or sleeping when Petraeus' comments were broadcast late Monday and Tuesday in Iraq.

But some heard it and others have read about it, and say they agree with their commander's assessment.

Staff Sgt. Matthew Nicholls of the 71st Medical Detachment, visiting FOB Delta from his post in southern Iraq to do an assessment, said the military still needs time to clean up mistakes made after the 2003 invasion, including the need to build an Iraqi army from scratch and to secure the borders.

"I think our initial assessment was too rosy," he said after reading about the hearings while sitting in the library at the recreation center. "It takes time to build an army and I think we should've secured the borders right away."

The 36-year-old from Mobile, Ala., also said American politicians need to be more understanding.

"They can be critical because they are politicians and their main goal is to be re-elected, but they see a much more limited piece than the troops on the ground," he said.

[snip]

Sgt. Nathaniel Killip, 24, of Indianapolis, caught part of the general's presentation on TV and said he agreed that withdrawing all U.S. troops or setting a date to do so before Iraqi security forces have proven themselves ready to take over would open the doors for insurgents to attack.

"They're just going to lay back and wait until it's a softer target," he said.

No doubt ad writers for MoveOn.org are desperately clawing through thesauri and dictionaries attempting to find synonyms for betrayal that rhyme with "Killip" and "Nicholls."

Off-Topic Update:Support citizen journalism. (hey, I only ask for donations one week a year... the other 51 weeks are free!)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:57 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 8 kb.

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

Who...

• ...claims that Democrats in Congress have failed to listen to the will of the American people to stop the Iraq War by surrendering?
• ...claims that we're sacrificing the blood of American soldiers for the greed of corporations?
• ...considers Noam Chomsky one of the West's greatest thinkers?
• ...thinks that the news media are right-wing tools, loyal to an empire-hungry dictator?
• ... still uses the worn-out "no blood for oil" argument?
• ...blames America for global warming?
• ...loathes capitalism, and thinks we are just pawns to a creeping globalism?

Select from:

1. Keith Olbermann
2. Osama bin Laden
3. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
4. all of the above

The correct answer is...
more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:57 PM | Comments (64) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

According to several news organizations, The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, perhaps better known as the Jones Commission Report, states that Iraq's national police force is so broken that they should be disbanded and began over again from scratch.

So says the U.K's Times Online:

The Iraqi national police force is riddled with militia and corruption and should be disbanded, a panel of retired US military officers has told Congress.

The 20-member panel also said today that the Iraqi Army was incapable of acting independently from US forces for at least another 18 months, and "cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven".

[snip]

The commission members, who spent three weeks in Iraq this summer and conducted 150 interviews, were most damning about the Iraqi national police. They said that its parent body, the Interior Ministry, was a ministry "in name only" and rife with sectarianism and corruption. The entire 26,000-member police force should be scrapped and rebuilt anew, they said.

Ann Scott Tyson and Glenn Kesler of WaPo echo a similar account:

Senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq rejected an independent commission's recommendation yesterday to disband the 25,000-strong Iraqi national police force, saying that despite sectarian influences the force is improving and that removing it would create dangerous security vacuums in key regions of the country.

Looking at these and other contemporary articles on the subject, a casual reader skimming the headlines would likely come away with the impression that we've got to fire all of Iraq's policemen and start over from scratch.

But what you would probably gather from these accounts is not a full and accurate representation of what the commission says [the report actually says far more, and covers the Iraqi military as well, but we're focusing on this one aspect for the moment]. I know, because I have a copy of the 152-page report in front of me right now.

The Jones Commission does advocate the disbanding of the 25,000-man Iraqi National Police, but what neither article mentioned is that the NP is the smallest element of the various police forces under the Ministry of the Interior.

The Commission states something quite different regarding the much larger and widespread Iraqi Police Service in their conclusion on page 108 of the report:

Conclusion: The Iraqi Police Service is incapable today of providing security at a level sufficient to protect Iraqi neighborhoods from insurgents and sectarian violence. The police are central to the long-term establishment of security in Iraq. Tbe be effective in combatting the threats that officers face, including sectarian violence, the Iraqi Police must be better trained and equipped. The Commission believes that the Iraqi Police Service can improve rapidly should the Ministry of the Interior become a more functional institution.

There are more than 200,000 civilian personnel in the Iraqi security services, and the commission indicates that the biggest problem for the bulk of those police officers in the Iraqi Police Service is that they undertrained and under-equipped. Tehy also state that if they received the training and material support they need, they are expected to improve rapidly.

Funny how the media reports forget to mention that on page 102, the Commission notes that in 2004, the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team requested funding for 6,000 police advisors to train a force of 135,000, and that Congress only approved funds for 1,000 advisors. Today, the Iraqi police have over 230,000 officers, and only 900 international police advisors and roughly 3,500 military personnel filling these necessary advisory roles.

Harry Reid and the Democrats keep shrieking that it is time for a "change of course" in Iraq.

Perhaps they could start by providing the police with the funding for the advisors they need, which by the way, is another Commission recommendation that you won't hear too many Democrats repeating.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 627 words, total size 4 kb.

They're calling it, "Lightning Hammer II," and it seeks to build on the gains made in pushing al Qaeda out of Baquba and surrounding areas in Diyala Province.

About 14,000 Iraqi security forces stationed throughout Nineveh province and 12,000 U.S. soldiers are conducting the operation, which started Wednesday evening.

The military said the operation "follows Lightning Hammer I ... to deny al Qaeda safe haven in the provinces" of Salaheddin, Nineveh, Diyala, and Kirkuk.

The military said the original Operation Lightning Hammer -- August 13 to September 1 -- ousted militants from the Diyala River valley, northeast of Baquba, the capital of Diyala province.

"Al Qaeda cells were driven from Baquba in Diyala due to Operation Arrowhead Ripper in June and July and then pursued in the Diyala River valley during Operation Lighting Hammer in August," Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning and Multinational Division-North.

I'd tell you more, but right now, there doesn't seem to be a lot more to tell. As of this particular moment, CNN seems to have the only account of this 26,000-man offensive in northern Iraq, and I'm unable to find any story related to a new Iraqi offensive on Google News.

Now, it could very well be that there are reporters and photographers embedded with those units taking part in the offensive that simply haven't had time or opportunity to file reports, but it is a matter of record that the wire service and larger individual news organizations largely missed out on the start of Lightning Hammer I in Diyala Province, and once the operation was underway, they only entered the battlespace very briefly--some literally staying just hours--before helicoptering back to Baghdad.

If America wonders why we get so little good news coming out of Iraq, they might want to consider that at least part of that reason is because news organizations aren't where the news is occuring.

Update: CNN seems to be merely reporting highlights of the military press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20070906-05
September 6, 2007

Operation Lightning Hammer II expands pursuit of al-Qaeda Multi-National
Division - North PAO

TIKRIT, Iraq - Iraqi Security Forces and Coalition Forces continued
their relentless pursuit of al-Qaeda in northern Iraq by launching
Operation Lightning Hammer II, Wednesday evening.

The operation, involving approximately 14,000 ISF, partnered
with more than 12,000 CF, is spearheaded by Soldiers from the 4th
Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, partnered with members of the
2nd and 3rd Iraqi Army Divisions, and Iraqi Police forces stationed
throughout Ninewa province.

In addition to the thousands of Soldiers and their ISF
counterparts participating in Lightning Hammer II, attack helicopters,
close-air support, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Stryker Vehicles and tanks
compliment the combined effort. This operation follows Lightning Hammer
I in the series of offensives to deny al-Qaeda safe haven in the
provinces of Salah ad Din, Ninewa, Diyala and Kirkuk. Operation
Lightning Hammer I, from Aug. 13 to Sept. 1, succeeded in driving enemy
elements out of the Diyala River Valley, northeast of Baqouba.

"Al-Qaeda cells were driven from Baqouba in Diyala due to
Operation Arrowhead Ripper in June and July and then pursued in the
Diyala River Valley during Operation Lighting Hammer in August," said
Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning and
Multinational Division-North. "Our main goal with Lightning Hammer II is
to continue to pursue and apply constant pressure to the terrorist cells
operating in MND-N, and destroy them where they attempt to hide."

"Our combined forces' commitment to hunt al Qaeda and its
operatives remains as strong as ever," said Mixon. "We will not rest
until al Qaeda in Iraq is driven from northern Iraq, and Iraqi citizens
have a safe and secure homeland."

I'll see if I can make contact with PAO covering this operation and provide more information as it becomes available.

Update: I checked in with the Task Force Lightning PAO, and he told me that there are a total of 11 embedded journalists in Northern Iraq. A grand total of one is from a major wire service, and five of them are in Diyala. The remaining northern provinces of Ninewa, Salah Ad Din, and Kirkuk have a total of two embedded journalists each.

How many of them are actually covering operations related to Operation Lightning Hammer II is unknown.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:59 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 739 words, total size 5 kb.

On CNN:

Three terror suspects held in Germany planned to carry out "imminent" and "massive" bombs attacks on a U.S. air base and Frankfurt's international airport, according to prosecutors.

The suspects, two Germans aged 22 and 29 and a 29-year-old Turk, received terrorist training in Pakistan and had close ties to al Qaeda, according to Jorg Ziercke, president of Germany's Federal Criminal Investigation Office.

Ziercke said the group was united by a "hatred against American citizens" as it planned attacks against Frankfurt airport, a popular international travel hub, and Ramstein air base, a major transit point for the U.S. military into the Middle East and Central Asia.

The group had amassed 680 kg (1,500 pounds) of hydrogen peroxide to make bombs, German federal prosecutor Monika Harms told reporters on Wednesday.

Harms said the three suspects also planned to attack bars and restaurants popular with Americans.

She said the planned attacks would have been among the biggest yet on German soil. Possible scenarios would have been car bombings used in simultaneous attacks.

Officials said the hydrogen peroxide could have produced a bomb with the explosive power of 540 kg of TNT.

The article goes on to speculate that the attacks could have been planned to have occurred on September 11.

The bombers were clearly attempting to build triacetone triperoxide (TATP) bombs, a favorite of terrorists that nevertheless often fails because of its instability. Occasionally it explodes during the production/bomb preparation steps, and other times, an improper mix leads to a bomb that either burns instead of detonating, or fails to ignite at all.

Frankly, until we know more about them and learn about their amassed equipment and technical know-how, I'm going to be quite skeptical that they could have manufactured high-grade TATP in quantities sufficient to build successful bombs of the size this report suggests. I may very well be wrong, but after the failures of the second London bombers, and the Glasgow bombers, I have very little faith in the competence of the surviving al Qaeda bomb builders remaining in Pakistan and Afghanistan who train terrorists such as these.

Update: I just contacted Yassin Musharbash, one of the two Spiegel reporters who have written the definitive post on this terrorist event thus far (h/t: Hot Air, which has an excellent round-up, as always).

He has confirmed my earlier hunch that triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, was the specfic peroxide-based explosive that these suspected terrorists were planning to use. This was the same kind of explosive used successfully in the 7/7 London tube bombings, and then fizzled in similar attacks just two weeks later on 7/21.

Pajamas Media is following the story as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:26 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

It smells like... well, you know what it smells like if you've ever been on a cattle ranch:

I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

I asked her why she is telling me this.

Her answer was really amazing.

By all means, please go over and read Maccabee's post. When you do, see if you can spot what appears to be wrong with the story, and then check your answers against mine. Who knows? You might just catch a few things I've missed. more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:31 PM | Comments (110) | Add Comment
Post contains 652 words, total size 4 kb.