Word coming in right now claims that at least one primary blast thought to be a car bomb and numerous smaller blasts thought to be RPGs were detonated near the front gate of the U.S. Embassy compound in San'a, Yemen, and the blasts were followed by gunfire.

Sky News is saying the attackers were dressed as soldiers, and notes that the Yemeni branch of the Islamic Jihad had made threats just three days ago.

Reuters notes that the U.S. Embassy says no Americans were among the wounded.

According to CNN, ten police and civilians were killed, as were six attackers.

Developing...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

As I write this I'm IM-ing Michael Yon on the far side of the world, and the Iraq War's most experienced embedded combat journalist is frustrated with the lack of interest in the Afghanistan-Pakistan War. Yon's Death in the Corn, Part 1 is a riveting story in a war the mainstream media has largely abandoned in order to cover far more pressing issues, such as developing new smears to float against Sarah Palin in a desperate attempt to extend the expiration date of Tina Fey's career on Saturday Night Live.

Yon's current series of combat dispatches from inside C- Company 2 Para of the British Army in Afghanistan's Helmand Province alludes to near constant war with the Taliban, but the reader interest simply doesn't seem to be there.

Ironically, the same media that tried to subvert the war in Iraq with a flood of biased reporting is far more effectively neutering support for the campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan through negligence and indifference.

Americans will support our soldiers when they can see what they are fighting for. Americans must be able to empathize with our soldiers, and those they would set free. That is the reason Yon's iconic photograph of the Iraq war, of Major Mark Bieger cradling an Iraqi girl named Farah as he rushed to get her aid when she was mortally wounded by an car bomb, mattered so much. It proved that humanizing element. But even as powerful as his photos are, and as compelling as his writing is, Yon cannot carry the coverage of the Af-Pak War on alone.

And the Af-Pak War promises to get far worse before it gets better.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been using the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border as a sanctuary with the blessing and support of the ISI, Pakistan's most powerful intelligence service. President Bush, frustrated by the refusal of the Pakistani government to more actively act as an ally against al Qaeda and the Taliban, secretly authorized cross-border special forces raids, the authorization of which was of course loudly trumpeted in pages of the New York Times.

As a result, an embarrassed Pakistani military was compelled to announce they would fire on U.S. forces if they crossed the border. Allies? Perhaps we never really were, though we certainly liked to pretend that it were so. That illusion now seems to be falling away.

Interestingly, Pakistan's involvement, and the need to take the fight into the tribal regions, may have been one of the things that Barack Obama's army of 300 policy advisers got right, and as Chrstopher Hitchen's notes, may lead a much more involved and bloody war.

Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

Two-important questions are raised by Hitchens' article.

• Will Republican Presidential candidate John McCain adopt Obama's more muscular approach in dealing with Pakistan's support of the Taliban if elected?
• Will Barack Obama have the mettle for a rare and prolonged break with his base and the Democratic Party he has voted with 96-percent of the time if elected, to fight the war he argues must be fought?

If McCain adopts a more muscular support, his track records suggests that he is willing to shoulder the burden of being unpopular, if it means seeing the war through to victory.

Barack Obama? He's never had to stand on his own before, and I'm not sure he's even tried.

If he is elected, and rises to the challenge of his rhetoric, I suspect he'll be as surprised as the rest of us.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 752 words, total size 5 kb.

Michael Yon, currently embedded with British Paras in a combat outpost in Afghanistan, will be a guest Sunday Sept 14 at 11:00 PM on The JihadiKiller Hour on BlogTalk Radio. Listen if you can.

Yon's next dispatch "Death In the Corn" will be posted at http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ tomorrow.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Progressive university town that Chapel Hill is, they'll probably have some there protest the decision which resulted from Taheri-Azar's attempt to kill UNC-Chapel Hill students in The Pit with a rented SUV.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

You've got to be kidding me:

The attack on Camp Salerno in Khost Province was one of the most complex attacks seen so far in Afghanistan with multiple suicide bombers and a backup fighting force that tried to breach defenses on to the airport at the base. It followed a suicide car bombing at the outer entrance to the same base on Monday morning, which killed 12 Afghan workers lining up to enter the base, and another attempted bombing that was thwarted shortly after.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for all three attacks in Khost. Their spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahed, reached by telephone at an unknown location, said that 15 suicide bombers, equipped with machine guns and vests packed with explosives, with 30 militants backing them up, attacked the base, one of the largest foreign military bases in Afghanistan. He claimed that some of the bombers had gotten inside the base and had killed a number of American soldiers and destroyed equipment and helicopters. This last claim was denied by General Azimi of the Afghan military.

Suicide bombers mull about while preparing for an attack against a fortified U.S./Afghan position, receive minimal support in the form of small arms cover fire from a small band of untrained militant irregulars before helicopters chop them to bits, and this is what the Times considers a "complex attack?"

No artillery or mortar support.

No mention of any flanking attack or feints.

No mention of even minimal attempts to camouflage the suicide bombers by disguising them as civilians or base workers or members of the opposite sex.

As a matter of fact, they didn't even manage a straight ahead, mindless assault into interlocking fields of fire. They got spotted well outside the perimeter and got cut to shreds while still 1,000 yards outside the base, and the majority of the Taliban seem to have been killed as they tried to flee. Is it even fair to say they were killed in an attack, when it appears they were blown to bits before the attack began?

Not that I'm singling out the Times for crappy coverage of the attack, The Scotsman account sounds like a Monty Python skit:

NATO troops and Taliban fighters clashed today after a group of the insurgents, backed by suicide bombers, tried to breach the defences of the main US base in south-eastern Afghanistan.

Backed by suicide bombers? I guess that is one way of making sure there will be no retreat.

The attack on the French base, by contrast, had far more deadly ramifications, with 10 French soldiers killed and another 21 wounded, but for the Times to try to inflate the importance or the complexity of the Taliban attack on Camp Salerno beyond the buffonish, ill-advised and utter failure that it was isn't simply bad reporting, but verges on making excuses for the other side.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.

1 C'mon, CY! Once you understand the coding of the stories, it's much easier. If the Taliban attack, it's a complex attack (b/c that means that they're able to attack, which means George W. Bush failed us). If it succeeds, it's an offensive, and we're about to lose. If it fails, then the evil Americans shot them in the back as they fled, and that's just not sporting. Haditha and Abu Ghraib all over again! Of course, the code would be different if a Dem were in power.

Posted by: Lurking Observer at August 19, 2008 01:17 PM (QlYAH)

2 The Scotsman account sounds like a Monty Python skit Yes... this one.

Posted by: Russ at August 19, 2008 01:20 PM (5fmXL)

3 Very clever, Lurking Observer

Posted by: ECM at August 19, 2008 01:43 PM (q3V+C)

4 Since the media is actively rooting for the enemy they have to do something

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 19, 2008 03:36 PM (kNqJV)

5 What happened to all the doomsday Iraq coverage in the MSM?

Posted by: Saltine at August 19, 2008 04:15 PM (9v34C)

6 It all depends on the meaning of "complex". 15 suicide bombers? Complex stupidity.

Posted by: Biscuiteater at August 19, 2008 07:31 PM (2JF/+)

7 What really grinds my gears is to hear His Lord High Hopechangeyness, the Obamamessiah (PBUH) spouting how the surge failed and yadda yadda yadda.... It's wearing on me that he keeps saying how there's been no 'reconcilliation' and all the other shytte he's been pushing... I'd really love to see General Patreaus come out and say something publicly like "Oh so sorry Senator 143... It's only been what? Not even 9 months? Aaaaannnnd just what have YOU accomplished in the senate in the same timeframe? Besides becoming the most egocentric, presumptuous and fatuous candidate this side of Caligula? Siddown and Shuddup and let us work."

Posted by: Big Country at August 19, 2008 07:48 PM (niydV)

8 Well, a bungled attack by muddled suicide bombers and "insurgents" probably looks like Omaha Beach to most members of the MSM. Their experience with military strategy amounts to playing "Battleship" when they were kids.

Posted by: Donna at August 19, 2008 08:58 PM (oEqhN)

9 You seem unwilling to refer to the entire statement made in the article: "one of the most complex attacks seen so far in Afghanistan." Why? Are you familiar enough with all the Taliban attacks made over the past few years that you can say with certainty that this is not accurate? If so, please provide the context. PS, you might try finding "military contacts" (I believe that's your term) who can pass along military terminology that doesn't make you look silly repeating it.

Posted by: skylark at August 19, 2008 10:15 PM (B5Q3+)

10 The term "complex attack" is used by both the UNDSS and ANSO in their daily incident reports here in Afghanistan. It means an attack using more than one weapon system (small arms, RPG's, mortars etc..) Under that definition virtually every attack here is a complex attack because of the use of RPG's. I am familiar enough with Taliban attacks over the past four years (I'm also a retired Marine infantry officer) to say without reservation that this was not one of the most complex attacks by the Taliban - about 3 dozen better examples come immediately to mind. If the NY Times had a reporter here worthy of the name they would know that. But it is hard to report on Khost when your hanging at the Gandymack in Kabul enjoying sundowners and hash every evening. Can't expect the poor babies to actually get around and see something for themselves now can we? Nor is it fair to expect that they know anything about the fundamentals or dynamics of military operations...I mean it has been only four years since the first journalist embeds - the "profession" needs time to catch up (I guess?)

Posted by: Baba Tim at August 19, 2008 11:04 PM (hmXME)

11 skylark - You are just another lib who doesn't know enough about military matters to comment intelligently about the post. Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to remain silent until you learn enough to frame and intelligent question instead of making yourself look stupid?

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 19, 2008 11:24 PM (i/fLn)

12 Baba Tim: Thanks very much for the helpful info. However, do you see anything in the article that suggests the NYT meant the term in the more technical way that the UNDDS and ANSO use it? Especially in the sense that if an action is either a "complex attack" or isn't, there could be no such thing as "one of the most complex attacks." For example, here is the way I see the incident discussed in the article: "Taliban insurgents mounted their most serious attacks in six years of fighting in Afghanistan over the last two days, including a coordinated assault by at least 10 suicide bombers against one of the largest American military bases in the country, and another by about 100 insurgents who killed 10 elite French paratroopers." .... "As a result, this year is on pace to be the deadliest in the Afghan war so far , as the insurgent attacks show rising zeal and sophistication. The insurgents are employing not only a growing number of suicide and roadside bombs, but are also waging increasingly well-organized and complex operations using multiple attackers with different types of weapons , NATO officials say." From the rest of your comment, it doesn't seem like you're relying on the technical definition either, but in your opinion it is not one of the more complex - in the sense of sophisticated - attacks over the past several years. I suppose that's arguable. However, the blogger didn't even bother to put it in that much context, did he? By the way, it seems the NYT is not alone in reporting that Taliban fighters are using more "complex" tactics: DoD: Armed Forces Press Release (The Pentagon seems to think the attack on the French qualifies as a "complex attack" in the technical sense.) Stars and Stripes As to whether the NYT reporter is "worthy of the name" or not, I won't judge, but a quick search shows that Ms. Gall's byline appears on over 1300 NYT articles, with nearly 1,000 of them on the war in Afghanistan, dating from November 2001. Before that she was based in the Balkins and wrote for the NYT on the conflicts in that region. (For some reason the system would not let me post a link to the article archives, but if you click on her hypertext byline, you will be taken there.)

Posted by: skylark at August 20, 2008 12:18 AM (B5Q3+)

13 PS to Baba Tim - You didn't go to Servite, did you?

Posted by: skylark at August 20, 2008 12:23 AM (B5Q3+)

14 I doubt that if we lost a battle that handedly,without killing a single enemy combatant, the newspapers would describe it as "bold", "complex", "sophisticated", or "coordinated". ABC called it a "daring attack on a major American installation" It's odd that they use such a positive adjective for such buffoonery. Daring? I suppose it was. But not in the way they mean it. I wonder if the writers even believe the narrative. -Militants launched a bold, highly complex, sophisticated, coordinated, daring attack on a major American installation, in which they totally failed and got gunned down like fools, without killing a single American. But it was bold, darn it.

Posted by: brando at August 20, 2008 12:51 AM (Gs5OS)

15 PS on Carlotta Gall: Looks like she gets around a fair amount. PBS interview

Posted by: skylark at August 20, 2008 02:35 AM (B5Q3+)

16 skylark - Nice try. An appeal to authority? She's written a lot of articles so she must know something? The attack on the french base was complex at least? Try reading for comprehension instead of scorecard keeping and you might do better. CY explicitly differentiates between the two attacks. You still haven't said why you believe the attack with the 10 suicide bombers and 15 people standing around with their thumbs up their butts was complex.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 20, 2008 07:30 AM (i/fLn)

17 Have you ever tried herding suicide bombers? Its like trying to herd cats. That's complicated stuff.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 20, 2008 09:22 AM (6L459)

18 The complexity of an attack is not really the issue, the fact that the attack utterly failed in it's apparent objective is what should really matter. This is just one more example of the MSM's disgust with the US military. The terms they use tell it all as they give all credit to the Taliban and never mention the US Military in a positive light. It does not show any insight or intelligence on the reporters part, just her bias.

Posted by: AlpacaRob at August 20, 2008 10:08 AM (aMBco)

19 In ref to AlpacaRob's post, I'd say we could go a step further: it was their best effort yet, and still failed miserably. I absolutely love it when the Taliban gather in a nice, neat mob so we can gun more of them down before they can do any damage. Thanks for making such an attractive target, boys - keep up the good work.

Posted by: Tim at August 20, 2008 10:33 AM (3Wewy)

20 If only they could understand the complex nature of the 4000 American soldiers who have given their lives for freedom, thankyou.

Posted by: biscuiteater at August 20, 2008 12:06 PM (2JF/+)

21 I see that multiculturalism has made its way into war reportage.

Posted by: tsmonk at August 20, 2008 12:34 PM (PTFqS)

22 The spread was four suicide bombers, no closer than 2,000 yards, and three self inflicted bloody crotches from trigger happy Taleban. The Taleban took the money. For the next clash replace the three bloody crotches with six unplanned defecations and two martyrs from RPGs loaded backwards.

Posted by: Bel Aire at August 20, 2008 09:21 PM (xU01p)

23 daleyrocks- My comment about the reporter was in response to a commenter who made certain observations about NY Times reporters. He is welcome to make up his mind about her qualifications and so are you. I am certain you will take the time to read a few of her articles before you do, dilligent researcher that you are. By the way, you have your facts wrong about the incident and about the fighters. It appears that Bob does too. Long War Journal But that's not so much the point. Bob took a single qualified sentence in the article - that it was one of the most complex attacks seen so far in Afghanistan - and parsed and twisted it so he could lecture us on a false issue. At the same time he had some conventional warfare terms he wanted to throw around, no matter how inapplicable they might be to the question. Plus, hey, they got killed! Another irrelevancy. The question is whether this particular attack qualifies as "one of the most complex seen so far." According to Baba Tim it's debateable. Fair enough, then debate it in the context of what you actually know or are willing to research about the history of the conflict. It seems to me to at least fit within the NATO official's description of attacks that use multiple attackers with different types of weapons (the latter of which, according to Baba Tim, would seem to make it qualify as a "complex attack" in the technical use of the term). Of course Bob and a some of his commenters don't seem to have a problem inflating the single sentence into a condemnation of liberal media, etc. etc., all the while ignoring the actual point of the article - that Taliban attacks are escalating, and getting more sophisticated and more deadly overall. An assessment which the Pentagon and NATO, among others, share. They must be making excuses for the other side.

Posted by: skylark at August 20, 2008 11:24 PM (79kdb)

24 "Of course Bob and a some of his commenters don't seem to have a problem inflating the single sentence into a condemnation of liberal media, etc. etc., all the while ignoring the actual point of the article" skidmark - Based on your comments here and their laughable connection to reality (a present vote can not in any way be considered to have the effect of a no vote?), it seems indeed it is your function to cherry pick Bob's sentences or words and attack them rather than focusing on the substance of his posts. If your focus wasn't to merely produce snarky comments on subjects which you are woefully uninformed, people would take you more seriously.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 20, 2008 11:53 PM (i/fLn)

25 "skidmark - Based on your comments here and their laughable connection to reality (a present vote can not in any way be considered to have the effect of a no vote?), it seems indeed it is your function to cherry pick Bob's sentences or words and attack them rather than focusing on the substance of his posts. If your focus wasn't to merely produce snarky comments on subjects which you are woefully uninformed, people would take you more seriously." Well, aren't you the clever one. Am I supposed to come up with an equally juvenile nickname for you? I suggest you go back and read what I posted in the Obama thread again. Cherry picking BO's sentences and words? Hello, it was an entire post, premised on his own private interpretation of a single sentence from an article, so he could trash the NYT. The substance of his post was that, notwithstanding the article's clear statement that the attack was ONE of the most complex seen yet in Afghanistan, the NYT was inflating a "laughably incompetent Taliban rout as a 'complex attack.'" Aside from the fact that it actually probably did qualify as a "compelx attack" in the technical sense of the term, the rest of the post is almost entirely factually incorrect. Evidently he thinks all guerrilla maneuvers should fall into the conventional warfare mode to be considered the least bit "competent." Thus, using a few inapplicable terms he's cut and pasted from Wars R Us, he can pronounce the entire incident "laughably incompetent." This was an incident where SEVEN suicide bombers got to within just over half a mile of a fortified American base. They were discovered "shortly" before they were to make their assault. They were coordinated enough to use a diversionary tactic like mortar and rocket fire while the bombers made their way to the target. Their plan was not dependent on heavy armed support or large numbers, and it was not a full on frontal assault. Any stealth mission like that can be taken out by an overwhelming show of force. So what? But these facts do show us how clueless your favorite blogger is. For instance, he insists they should have tried "flanking attacks" because...well, yeah, they could have surrounded the base. He's incredulous bombers on a stealth mission didn't "manage a straight ahead, mindless assault." Oh and maybe best of all, he sniffs: "No mention of even minimal attempts to camouflage the suicide bombers by disguising them as civilians or base workers or members of the opposite sex." Uhm, does the concept of stealth under cover of darkness escape him completely? There, I'm pretty sure I've focused on the substance of his post.

Posted by: skylark at August 21, 2008 08:55 PM (B4ZzX)

26 skidmark - You seem to have a learning disability of some sort. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have been employing more complex attacks in Afghanistan this year. That is a fact. The attack on Camp Salerno described by Carlotta Gall was not one of them, which was the point of Bob's post, which has yet to trgister in your brain. He is mocking the NY Times for that description. The Scotsman described the attack as brazen. There is no mention of complexity in describing the attack at Long War Journal or in the ISAF press release describing how all the attackers got chewed up before they dot within 1000 meters of the base. Complex is a fiction created by the NY Times to describe the attack. If you find another story describing it that way please feel free to cite it here. Temember, reading is fundamental, especially for comprehension. You continue to be just a skidmark on this site.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 21, 2008 11:45 PM (i/fLn)

27 And so you are reduced not just to calling other commenters puerile names, but to repeating "Is not!" Is NOT !!!" I'm not sure "reduced" is the right word, though. I don't see where your posts have ever really surpassed that level. You take care now.

Posted by: skylark at August 22, 2008 12:27 AM (B4ZzX)

28 Left out of prior: "The attack on Camp Salerno described by Carlotta Gall was not one of them, which was the point of Bob's post, which has yet to trgister in your brain. He is mocking the NY Times for that description." He just doesn't seem to be able to do it in any accurate way. But once again...you take care, little buddy.

Posted by: skylark at August 22, 2008 12:33 AM (B4ZzX)

29 skidmark - I believe you are the only commenter I renamed on this thread. You are also the only commenter on the thread who had difficulty understanding the concept of the post. Explain to me who has issues again please.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 22, 2008 10:44 AM (i/fLn)

30 Just a coincidence that I am the only one who disagrees with the post.

Posted by: skylark at August 22, 2008 08:18 PM (TWoHp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via WRAL:

Mohammed Taheri-azar, the man accused of trying to run over students at UNC-Chapel Hill two years ago, pleaded guilty Tuesday morning to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder.

He will be sentenced later this month.

Taheri-azar was accused of driving a Jeep Cherokee through The Pit, a popular student gathering space on campus, in March 2006.

He was charged with nine counts of attempted murder. At the time of the attack, Taheri-azar told police he wanted to injure people in response to the U.S. government's treatment of Muslims abroad.

This is the Pit, the area where Taheri-azar, a UNC graduate, tried to kill his fellow students. In a March 5, 2007 court appearance he stated he "hates all Americans" and "hates all Jews."

Shockingly, the Iranian-born American citizen didn't hate American enough to leave it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

That is what Reuter's says this picture portrays.

The caption reads, "Palestinian youths attend a summer camp organised by the Islamic Jihad movement in Gaza City July 30, 2008."

The Islamic Jihad, of course, is a terrorist group established with the goal of wiping out the Jewish state of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state. Their interests include Qassam rocketry, suicide bombings, and martyr operations.

This isn't a "summer camp" as we would recognize it. This is the modern Hitler Youth.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:22 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

That is one intriguing interpretation of today's disclosure that Iran would be getting the long range Russian surface-to-air missile system known as the S-300PMU-1 (SA-20), and that the system would be deployable in as soon as six months from their expected September arrival.

The Russians no doubt relish the contortions the West is going through over Iran's nuclear program, but at the same time, their intelligence organizations are telling them that Iran is working on developing nuclear weapons and missile technologies that can also threaten Russian interests.

By selling the Iranians advanced weapons systems and then disclosing their most likely deployment dates, the Russians are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

They've outlined the outside window of Iran's greatest vulnerability to an air assault on its nuclear program and command and control facilities. It only remains to be seen now whether or not American and Israeli leaders will strike with enough force to irreparably destroy key elements of the Iranian nuclear program, or if they will make the deadly mistake of trying to avert a nuclear war "on the cheap."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:58 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

...another province, Diwaniyah, was handed over to Iraqi government control.

This means that for the first time, a democratically-elected Iraqi government is in charge of a majority of the country (10 of 18 provinces). The largest province and former home of the Sunni insurgency, al Anbar, is on the cusp of being handed over as well.

You would think that turning point such as the Iraqis taking over the control of the majority of their country would be a moment that editorial writers, always looking for moments pregnant with symbolism, would gush over.

Alas, Iraq isn't as newsworthy with victory so near at hand (and with the anointed candidate faltering so badly), and so this milestone goes all but unreported.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:18 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

Matthew Yglesias wants to get into a framing discussion and attempts to argue than an ABC poll was unfair to his man-crush/candidate.

Without nailing down the dishonesties in Yglesias' attempts to recast McCain's position, let's get into the specifics of what will be lost by Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan.

Logistically, it is deemed quite improbable, verging on impossible, for U.S. combat forces to perform an orderly withdrawal in 16 months. A withdrawal of personnel is possible, but at the cost of leaving behind hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in taxpayer-purchased equipment that would have to be repurchased stateside, increasing future government debt, promising us yet another tax increase courtesy of Obama.

A commenter of his (Allan) claims that "Obama supports removing our troops from Iraq in an orderly process," but that is the height of fantasy; those who work in logistics have noted that his plan would promote chaos and unnecessary stresses on the supply chain and limited port facilities that have to process, decontaminate, pack, and ship outbound equipment and supplies.

This is simply the logistical argument, ignoring the dangers of a too-quick handover in provinces where Iraqi forces are still not deemed capable of taking the lead. Considering the stellar progress and trajectory of security gains and government progress in the last year, it is possible that in 16 months that the Iraqi security forces can take the lead in the eight remaining provinces where the U.S. is in charge of security, but it would be foolish and counterproductive to predetermine the removal of the safety net U.S. forces would still provide as Iraqi forces become more competent and confident.

Unless, of course, you have some vested interest in defeat.

Then there is the simple common-sense matter of which troops Obama wants to remove (combat forces). As a Iraqi war soldier or Marine (I forget which) remarked last week, who's going to be left in Obama's Army in Iraq, cooks and truck drivers?

Who is going to protect our remaining troops and positions and backstop the Iraqis if Obama pulls out our combat troops? Supply clerks? Dental hygienists?

Obama's plans for Iraq, like all of his other plans, are formulated with the impulsiveness and lack of concern for the unintended consequences of international affairs we'd expect from a neophyte government official not even one term removed from an inconsequential and lackluster state government stint, and a responsibility-free community organizer job before it.

Like so many things attached to the name Obama, his withdrawal plan for Iraqi is based upon irresponsible promises divorced from what he can actually deliver without causing far more hurt, a truism of his campign that can just as readily be applied to his domestic and foreign policy perscriptions.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:10 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

You have to give credit where credit is due: the Washington Post isn't quite ready to surrender to victory in Iraq, and they're not above hyping a desperate bid for relevance by waning Shia militias as a significant tactical adaptation.

U.S. Troops in Iraq Face A Powerful New Weapon by Ernesto Londoño of the Washington Post Foreign Service was a much better article the first time I read it over a month ago in Bill Roggio's far more useful Long War Journal article, which the Post mentions but doesn't link. I can only assume that the Post failed to link Roggio's article because is so much more competently written.

While Londoño seems intent on describing a weapon system that is a an improvement over past improvised devices in describing a weapon that has killed at least 21 people, he buries the fact that 18 of those 21 (16 civilians, two Madhi Army militiamen) were killed as a result of the jury-rigged bombs failing, and detonating in their launchers.

The so-called IRAM is a crude, desperate weapon apparently designed by the Judean People's Front.

I'm not surprised that the Post would try to hype potential bad news in Iraq, but a crude weapon that has killed six times more people on the launching end than the receiving end seems more ripe for mocking than fear.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:50 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

They aren't quite ready for coalition forces to leave just yet, but the dramatic gains in terms of security and political successes now have the Iraqi government suggesting a possible U.S. withdrawal.

The Iraqis are confident in their ability to handle their own affairs, and I can certainly understand them wanting Iraq fully back in Iraqi hands. They're hoping for a pull-out in the 2011-13 timeframe and would like to try to establish a deadline based upon "conditions and circumstances" on the ground.

Considering the present situation in Iraq, I certainly think that a pullout in that 3-5 year window is certainly possible, though I can understand why some in Washington may be leery committing to date-based withdrawal schedule, just as I can understand why Iraqis would like to have a specific date to look forward to. As the Iraqi government and coalition forces negotiate, perhaps the best option—and to my mind, the most logical—would be a compromise agreement, that says by X date, Y forces should withdraw if Z conditions have been met, and if not by that date, as soon as those conditions are met.

This would give Iraqis not just a date to look forward to, but give them more incentive to make sure that security and political needs of their citizens are being addressed.

What would be hilarious in watching these developments—if it wasn't so pathetic—are progressive Democrats crowing about this recent decision by Iraqi officials, insisting that a timeline for withdrawal is exactly what they've been asking for all along.

Not so fast.

Some progressives have been pushing for a withdrawal since before the first bomb dropped on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Some are genuinely opposed to the idea of all wars for any reason, some were opposed to a war launched for reasons they disagreed with by a government they disagreed with, and some fickle souls began pushing for withdrawal only once the conflict became more bloody, expensive, and protracted than they assumed it would be.

However they got to that position, they got there by the worst days of the war in 2006, when Sunni and Shia militias were locked in a deadly sectarian conflict verging on open civil war, and coalition forces were taking heavy casualties. At the time John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Congressional Democrats were calling the loudest for a timeline for withdrawing American forces in Iraq, the safety and security of the Iraqi people and the success of their nation was the last thing on their minds.

Democrats wanted American troops pulled out of Iraq as soon as logistically possible, without preconditions, even if it plunged that nation into open an civil war that could cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, even if such a headlong withdrawal led to genocide, even if such a morally bankrupt decision led to a widespread regional war.

It was and is a craven, reprehensible act of cowardice, mirroring the shameful behavior of the Copperhead Democrats 140 years earlier who wanted to abandon Blacks to slavery in the South to sue for peace in the U.S. Civil War.

The Copperheads of today's Democratic Party color themselves "progressives" for championing the abandonment of a group of people (slightly lighter in skin tone than the last time) to a fate potentially as bad or worse than the slaves of antebellum, and make no mistake: the modern Copperheads care no more about "liberty and justice for all" than did their forebearers.

Then as now, it was about their selfish personal desires, hopes of amassing political power, and disdain for a stubborn Republican President. Then as now, they could rely upon their friends in the media to carry forth a call for appeasement and abandonment.

But the situation now in Iraq is far different now than it was when progressive Democrats began advocating the abandonment Iraqi civilians to a bloody fate.

Now, it is an increasingly competent and confident Iraqi government itself that builds hope of a U.S. withdrawal, based upon their growing strength and the continuing vanquishment of terrorists, criminal militias, and common gangs.

A timeline for withdrawal based upon Iraqi and coalition successes is to be commended as a beacon of hope for a brighter future for a new and sovereign democracy in the Middle East, just as the timeline of abandonment and defeat advocated by progressive Democrats should be regarded by history as a mark of shame.

Update: A bit dog barks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:52 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 758 words, total size 5 kb.

Three gunmen ambushed Turkish police outside the U.S. consulate in Instanbul, Turkey today, in an attack that left all three attackers and three Turkish police officers dead, but not before the police killed their assailants.

The attack was carried out with handguns and a pump shotgun, indicating this was not the work of an organized terrorist organization such as al Qaeda or Hezbollah. These groups have a well-documented history of using large vehicle-borne explosives to carry out attacks against fortified positions such as embassies and consulates. Using such short-range weaponry in such a poorly executed and apparently ad hoc assault, the attack had virtually no chance of success, and no one was apparently injured inside the consulate.

A fourth man seen with the three attackers never left a gray car seen at a nearby carwash moments before the ambush, and escaped after his compatriots were killed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:15 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

"...a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

Such were the famous words of Shakespeare's MacBeth, though they apply equally well to empty Iranian threats against U.S. Naval vessels in the Persian Gulf in case of conflict between our nations.

The simple fact of the matter is that should tensions escalate, U.S. capital ships have no need to be in the Persian Gulf to control the Iranian shoreline and the Straits of Hormuz.

The image above, pulled from Google Maps, shows, small body of water on the left is the Persian Gulf. The large body on the right is the Gulf of Oman, outlet to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean (larger map).

U.S. carriers, amphibious assault ships, and larger surface ships can easily leave the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz if a strike on Iran is imminent, far removing them from the range of Iranian surface ships, aircraft, and radar stations. This negates the threat of Iranian anti-ship missiles, and turns the threat of blindly-fired ballistic missiles into irrelevancies splashing down in empty seas.

Iran would retain the ability to strike Israel, and could no doubt stir up trouble in Iraq via it's terror cells there, or even an open but suicidal direct assault against American forces in Iraq and elsewhere on land throughout the Gulf region, but the threats of a Iranian counterstrike against U.S. Naval forces is little more than bluster.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:38 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Tell the Democrats we're running out of people to which we can surrender.

Abu Khalaf (a pseudonym) was the top al Qaeda leader in Mosul, al Qaeda's last reputed stronghold in Iraq, until American soldiers shot him full of holes. Further south, al Sadr's Madhi Army may be falling apart, with perhaps as few as 150 military members.

So, will someone please bring me up to speed on Barack Obama's position this hour? Is he still insisting that it is 2006 in Iraq, that the situation is untenable, and that the best thing we can do is withdraw all our forces in an expensive, resource-abandoning retreat that many experts suspect could trigger a regional war that makes today's gas prices look like a bargain and trigger a worldwide depression?

I ask, because it's rather difficult to keep up with his positions these days as he continues to throw his principles, campaign promises, friends, mentors, and supporters under the proverbial bus to bow at the alter of political expediency.

I kid, of course.

I don't seriously think Obama will change his position on Iraq being lost, as that is the only viable issue of his campaign once you eliminate his Carteresque economic schemes, head-in-the-sand energy policy, his Clintonian heathcare plan, and his beautifully empty platitudes. What he and his allies will try to do is attempt to redefine losing and winning, and try to cast obvious developing successes as defeats. If he can't successfully redefine success into failure, Barack Obama is finished as a viable candidate.

Update: Dr. Krauthammer is equally unimpressed with Obama's constantly shifting positions, and the media's unwillingness to challenge him.

It's an odd relationship Obama has with journalists. He treats them with the arrogant disdain of last night's 2:00 AM hookup, and still they pine over him, happily used, as they're shown the door.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:47 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

You won't easily find it on Fox News or CNN or Google News, but somewhere, between the shocking news that Don Imus might have a race-relations problem and the ground-breaking development that Palestinians have engaged in self-defeating random violence, most of us seemed to miss that a dream is more than halfway towards completion.

Al Anbar province in Iraq, once described as all but lost, will become the tenth Iraqi province handed over to Iraqi government control:

The U.S. military will transfer control of security in Anbar Province to Iraqi forces this week, the governor of the region said Monday, a remarkable turnaround given that the region was considered lost to insurgents less than two years ago.

Anbar will be the 10th of 18 provinces in Iraq to return security matters to Iraqi control since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, but it will be the first Sunni Arab region to do so.

Mamun Sami Rasheed, governor of Anbar Province, said the handover ceremony would take place Saturday. "We have been dreaming of this event since 2003," he said.

With ten provinces down and eight to go, we are passing a milestone of sorts. More than half of the country will be under the control of a democratically-elected Iraqi government, the first freely-elected Arab government in modern history. You would think that Democrats would be thrilled at this step towards freedom, as the turnover also means we are one small step closer to a withdrawal from Iraq, which they claim to be their goal.

Barack Obama isn't trumpeting the good news, however. Left-leaning blogs also appear to be silent on the issue, or nearly so, if Memeorandum is a guide. Instead, liberal bloggers there seem more interested in reacting to Glenn Greenwald's latest long-winded rant about FISA (while ignoring Greenwald's own history of wiretapping, of course).

Al Anbar? It doesn't seem to exist.

With ever passing day that Iraq inches towards success or takes a dramatic leap, it becomes ever more apparent that many Democrats in this country, be they members of the news media, the new media, elected officials, or the activist left, don't just want the United States out of Iraq. They want us cast out or withdrawn in defeat.

The al Anbar handover is symbolic in nature as well as practical, and good news for two Democratic nations. Sadly Democratic leaders cannot join in sharing the good news, because what is good for the United States and what is good for the citizens of Iraq is not good for Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama.

How sad this day must be for Democrats that are more loyal to their nation than the spite-based political ideology of their fellow travelers.

Update: Peter Wehner, writing at NRO's The Corner, concludes:

Iraq has gone from broken to fragile and slowly mending. Even now, though, leading Democrats seem wholly uninterested in the outcome in Iraq; all they care about is withdrawing American troops. It is a commitment they hold with ideological and theological intensity – and if they are ever allowed to act on their convictions, misery and death and defeat would follow.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:47 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 4 kb.

It has been fascinating—and often more than a little infuriating—to watch the anti-Administration wing of the anti-war movement over the past year.

I'd like to first make that distinction clear: there are those who are against the concept of warfare to resolve conflicts, and those that are against this war in specific because they have an acute loathing for their domestic political opposition, led by the current President. Make no mistake: so many of those who presently claim to be anti-war now would change their position on military intervention in an heartbeat if it meant intervening in Darfur or (_fill_in_the_blank_), if it satisfied their political desires and could be painted as a "humanitarian" mission.

Those politically-motivated progressives that see anti-war sentiment as little more than a way to grab power via the ballot box have been most aggravating and occasionally amusing. They saw that an unpopular and protracted war was a way to market themselves to pick up seats in Congress in 2004 and 2006, and hoped perhaps they could ride anti-war sentiment to the White House in 2008.

They rallied behind an eloquent dove of a candidate who has repeatedly promised America to withdrawal U.S. forces on a rigid 16-month timetable, regardless of condition on the ground or the effect it would have on the Iraqi people or on the stability of the region.

That timetable was predicated upon conditions on the ground in Iraq in 2006, when violence was spiraling out of control, and it seemed all but assured that Iraq would become a failed state. Obviously, a lot has changed in the time since Barack Obama predicated his campaign on achieving defeat, and in the past year in particular.

Violence dropped as U.S. and Iraqi forces moved off-base and into the communities, and as the communities themselves began rejecting insurgents, terrorists, gangs, and rogue militias. The Iraqi Parliament, once almost as ineffective as our current Congress, has passed important reconciliation legislation, including an amnesty law that has already led to hundreds of captured insurgents, including Associated Press personnel, to be set free.

Though leading Democrats like Harry Reid still insist that the war is lost, and the Speaker of the House insists that any progress must be due to Iran's moderating influence (and not the success of American and Iraqi forces in killing those carrying out those "moderating Iranian influences" it has become obvious to most of the world that the Iraqi experiment just might work and is well worth pursuing.

Austin Bay noted this morning that freshman Senator Hopeandchange may be trying to distance himself from his adopted policy of purposeful defeat (h/t: Instapundit):

Obama still touts his pull-out — sort of, occasionally, okay, less occasionally. Obama, like his cohort of supporters, is politically committed to defeat. Obama will now rely on rhetoric to assauge the DailyKos-crowd and obscure his shift on Iraq. He will change his position– and Samantha Power prepared the way several months ago in her ill-fated BBC interview this past spring. Obama thinks he can get away with it: he just backed out of public financing.

The NY Times on the deal before the vote. And Fox.

The real rubes in this election wonÂ’t be the rural Midwesterners Obama slandered, the ones who cling to their guns and religon. It will be the gray-haired profs with ponytails, clinging to their cannabis and liturgy of defeat.

When Obama quietly slinks aways from his signature issue and the anti-Bush wing of the anti-war movement loses their defeat-at-any-cost pledgemaster, what will become of the anti-war progressive fringe?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:21 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 598 words, total size 4 kb.

Over at The Donovan, proof that this generation of military leaders is learning from mistakes made in the past.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Via email from a trusted source, a VOI account. It looks like al Sadr is going to continue his Iranian-backed insurrection against the Iraqi government:

The anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada
al-Sadr on Friday expressed intention to authorize setting up "cells
to resist the occupation", head of the political bureau of Sadr's
Movement said.

"The declaration by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr to form cells to resist the
occupation comes in full conformity with the approach of the
Sadrists," Sheikh Liwa Semaysam told Aswat al-Iraq- Voices of Iraq-
(VOI) on the phone.

The key Sadrist leader added that these cells will "have a written
authorization by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr to carry out their task, on
the condition that arms will only be in their hands for use against
the occupier and none else."

Sheikh Semaysam, a close aide of Sadr, provided no further details.

If true—and apparently, it is—al Sadr is attempting to split and sanction a military wing off of the Madhi Army and Iranian "Special groups" to continue insurgent operations, while making at least a face-value attempt to demilitarize the organization.

Intresting, isn't it?

Iran tried to infiltrate Iraqi government at all levels, along with militia groups and criminal gangs. Obviously, as PM Maliki's clearing out of Sadrists from Baghdad to Basra proved, the government route has failed, and the militia route is on the ropes.

As a result, al Sadr is apparently attempting to craft an Iraqi Hezbollah, entrenching his group socially as an Iranian-supported shadow government with it's own insurgent military wing. Iraq's security forces and government are far less fractured than those in Lebanon, so it seems unlikely that al Sadr's hopes will come to fruition, but the development does raise an interesting question, namely: is this the best Iran has left?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:45 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Over at Hot Air this morning, Ed Morrissey points to an article in the Weekly Standard about Barack Obama's opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization:

These designations are more than just rhetorical; labeling the IRGC as a terrorist organization brings to bear a range of powerful sanctions that crack down on its ability to work in the global financial system.

The proximate cause of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a growing dossier of evidence from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, documenting the IRGC's role in financing, training, arming, and directing extremists in Iraq responsible for the murder of hundreds of American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians.

Of course, that's not the full extent of the IRGC's malign influence. The group is an acknowledged supporter of terror (a fact even Senator Obama concedes), training, financing and arming Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and most recently, the Taliban. At home in Iran, the IRGC now dominates the regime, with 9 out of 21 seats in the Ahmadinejad cabinet held by former IRGC and IRGC-affiliated officials. The IRGC is also a vital player in Iran's licit and illicit economies, and dominates important sectors like construction.

Needless to say, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment won broad support in the Senate, passing 76-22. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for it, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Senator Dick Durbin.

Senator Obama, however, was one of a handful of senators who opposed the amendment--which had aroused the ire of the left-wing blogosphere. In the frenzied minds of DailyKos and Moveon.org, Kyl-Lieberman--or "Lieberman-Kyl," as they preferred to call it--was nothing less than a stealth declaration of war on Iran.

So if the National Journal's Most Liberal Senator is still taking marching orders from Kossacks and the "General Betray Us" radicals of Moveon.org, where, precisely, is Obama's claimed but never seen bipartisanship? It doesn't exist. It never has.

As Ed astutely notes:

There are only two reasons to oppose the application of sanctions on Iran. Either one wants to go to war and skip all of the other options, or doesn't believe Iran to be a threat and a sponsor of terror. Into which group should we put Barack Obama?

Obama, who resolutely refuses to acknowledge changing fortunes in Iraq (the more than year-long string of successes there are not changes he can believe in), obviously takes the later, "see no evil" view.

Pro-Palestinian Obama will try to gloss over his record (such as the Kyl-Lieberman vote) and his past associations today as he addresses AIPAC. Perhaps someone in the audience will ask Obama why he allowed a pair of grants totaling $75,000 to go to the Arab-American Action Network, a group that calls the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe," while director of the ultra-liberal Woods Fund.

Barack Obama supports Israel the way R. Kelly supports Girl Scouts. It's time someone calls him on it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 4 kb.