Iran War plans...

Iran's military plans for invasion by U.S. By Iason Athanasiadis THE WASHINGTON TIMES May 31, 2006 TEHRAN -- Iran, apparently anticipating an American invasion, has quietly been restructuring its military and testing a new military doctrine that calls for a decentralized, Iraqi-style guerrilla campaign against an invading force. Iran's military planners are acutely aware that a military confrontation with technologically more advanced U.S. armed forces would be rapid and multifronted, unlike the static and slow-paced 1980-88 war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Therefore, a series of war games have been carried out since late last year to test the army's readiness. In December, more than 15,000 members of the regular armed forces participated in an exercise in northwestern Iran's strategically sensitive Azerbaijan border provinces that focused on irregular warfare carried out by highly mobile army units, according to the official MENA news agency. A second exercise was conducted in the majority-Arab province of Khuzestan in September, according to the Iranian press, aimed at quelling insurgencies in areas subject to ethnic unrest and prone to foreign influence. Involving a reported 100,000 troops, the exercise provided an example of how the Islamic Republic would respond to further disturbances in the strategic, oil-rich province that has been the scene of a year-old terrorist bombing campaign. Iranian officials, including the interior and the intelligence ministers, as well as several religious leaders, have repeatedly blamed the disturbances on British forces occupying nearby southern Iraq. At the same time, a European military attache in Tehran told The Washington Times that the Revolutionary Guard is moving away from a joint command with the ordinary army and taking a more prominent role in controlling Iran's often porous borders, even as it makes each of Iran's border provinces autonomous in the event of war. In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he was not aware of any improvement of Iran's military capabilities, but noted that if such developments are taking place, people in the U.S. government are watching. Defense analysts said it makes sense for the Iranian regime to give the impression of upgrading and modernizing its military, but they questioned the need to prepare for guerrilla-type warfare because a full-blown U.S. invasion is not likely. "It's probably a smart policy for the Iranian leadership to get this out in order to convince the U.S. military that they are ready for guerrilla resistance from the get-go," said Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution. "They know they can't repulse our air strikes -- we can strike from a long distance making it hard to shoot us down -- so the only thing they can do in that case is move assets to secret locations," he said. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies dismissed the reports of the Iranian military acquiring new capabilities, saying it has been training in asymmetric tactics for years. Iranian war planners expect that the first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy the oil-rich Khuzestan region, secure the sensitive Strait of Hormuz and cut off the Iranian military's oil supply. Foreign diplomats who monitor Iran's army say that Iran's leadership has acknowledged it stands little chance of defeating U.S. armed forces with conventional military doctrine. The shift in focus to guerrilla warfare against an occupying army in the aftermath of a successful invasion mirrors developments in Iraq, where a triumphant U.S. military campaign has been followed by three years of slow, indecisive struggle with insurgent and terrorist forces. The Iranian preparations come as the United States refuses to rule out military action over Iran's suspect nuclear programs. "Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on "Fox News Sunday" last week. • Nicholas Kralev in Washington contributed to this report

Iran moving to war footing?

The Captain at Captain Quarters has some inciteful analysis of what is going on in Teheran. We need to learn from history, as we are reliving 1938 all over again... "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made it clear that he sees European opposition to his nuclear program a threat, and returned one in kind. Speaking to the German magazine Der Spiegel, the Iranian president warned Europe that they will "suffer the consequences" if they did not capitulate:Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Europe that it should support his country's nuclear program or "suffer the consequences." In an interview to be published in the German Der Spiegel on Sunday, Ahmadinejad also expressed his doubt regarding the Holocaust, saying that even if it had occurred, the Jewish state should have been established in Europe, not in Palestine. The article in DS has not yet been released, but the Jerusalem Post blurb indicates that Iran's president has not yet tired of following the playbook of Adolf Hitler in dealing with the West. Alternating between veiled threats and offers of diplomacy, Ahmadinejad has attempted to split the coalition of nations opposing its development of nuclear weapons. In this case, it looks like Ahmadinejad wants to stress the reach of Iranian weapons and the fact that most of Europe falls within their range. Nor is that the only parallel between Hitler and Ahmadinejad these days. The messianic Shi'ite has conducted a purge of high-level political opponents from national offices, seemingly with the blessing of the Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. The New York Times reports on the "consolidation" underway in Teheran: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to consolidate power in the office of the presidency in a way never before seen in the 27-year history of the Islamic Republic, apparently with the tacit approval of Iran's supreme leader, according to government officials and political analysts here. ... Mr. Ahmadinejad is pressing far beyond the boundaries set by other presidents. For the first time since the revolution, a president has overshadowed the nation's chief cleric, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on both domestic and international affairs. He has evicted the former president, Mohammad Khatami, from his offices, taken control of a crucial research organization away from another former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, challenged high-ranking clerics on the treatment of women and forced prominent academics out of the university system."Parliament and government should fight against wealthy officials," Mr. Ahmadinejad said in a speech before Parliament on Saturday that again appeared aimed at upending pillars of the status quo. "Wealthy people should not have influence over senior officials because of their wealth. They should not impose their demands on the needs of the poor people." In this theocratic system, where appointed religious leaders hold ultimate power, the presidency is a relatively weak position. In the multiple layers of power that obscure the governance of Iran, no one knows for certain where the ultimate decisions are being made. But many of those watching in near disbelief at the speed and aggression with which the president is seeking to accumulate power assume that he is operating with the full support of Ayatollah Khamenei. The Times notes that the elimination of the fog surrounding the exercise of power in Iran gives the US an opportunity for meaningful direct talks for the first time since the revolution 27 years ago. However, what the Times fails to comprehend is that, much like the Nazi "consolidation" in the early days of their rule, the accumulation of power to one man allows for streamlined internal decisionmaking, not external, where Khameini always held the power. That kind of structure lends itself to one purpose: war. Ahmadinejad, working under Khameini's approval, is stripping all of the potential elements of opposition to war from his government. Arrests have not yet come, but this is certainly a politicial purge, attempting to guarantee a political purity in the government under Ahmadinejad. Nor is this limited to the secular government. Khameini appears to be using Ahmadinejad to bypass the rest of the Guardian Council and establish himself as the only cleric whose opinion matters. It reduces the amount of time needed for decisions and eliminates any potential for time-wasting dissension. Why else would all decision-making power get concentrated in the hands of two men, and all mechanisms for dissent eliminated? Other warning signs exist as well. Iran, like Germany in the late 20s and early 30s, has a restive population wishing for a sharp improvement in their standard of living. Ahmadinejad has to either deliver that or explain why he cannot. For this purpose, he has turned to Islamic anti-Semitism and as the Times reports, he has started to raise up a new intellectual elite that uses Jews as a scapegoat for the domestic woes Iranians suffer. They quote an unnamed political-science professor in Teheran as saying, "He is reshaping the identity of the elite. Being against Jews and Zionists is an essential part of this new identity." He has also started large government-works programs and promised all sorts of welfare to garner a populist following.We have seen this path before. The world should recognize the signs, and the West had better start looking for Churchills rather than Chamberlains, and quickly."

Iran moving to war footing?

The Captain at Captain Quarters has some inciteful analysis of what is going on in Teheran. We need to learn from history, as we are reliving 1938 all over again... "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made it clear that he sees European opposition to his nuclear program a threat, and returned one in kind. Speaking to the German magazine Der Spiegel, the Iranian president warned Europe that they will "suffer the consequences" if they did not capitulate:Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Europe that it should support his country's nuclear program or "suffer the consequences." In an interview to be published in the German Der Spiegel on Sunday, Ahmadinejad also expressed his doubt regarding the Holocaust, saying that even if it had occurred, the Jewish state should have been established in Europe, not in Palestine. The article in DS has not yet been released, but the Jerusalem Post blurb indicates that Iran's president has not yet tired of following the playbook of Adolf Hitler in dealing with the West. Alternating between veiled threats and offers of diplomacy, Ahmadinejad has attempted to split the coalition of nations opposing its development of nuclear weapons. In this case, it looks like Ahmadinejad wants to stress the reach of Iranian weapons and the fact that most of Europe falls within their range. Nor is that the only parallel between Hitler and Ahmadinejad these days. The messianic Shi'ite has conducted a purge of high-level political opponents from national offices, seemingly with the blessing of the Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. The New York Times reports on the "consolidation" underway in Teheran: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to consolidate power in the office of the presidency in a way never before seen in the 27-year history of the Islamic Republic, apparently with the tacit approval of Iran's supreme leader, according to government officials and political analysts here. ... Mr. Ahmadinejad is pressing far beyond the boundaries set by other presidents. For the first time since the revolution, a president has overshadowed the nation's chief cleric, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on both domestic and international affairs. He has evicted the former president, Mohammad Khatami, from his offices, taken control of a crucial research organization away from another former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, challenged high-ranking clerics on the treatment of women and forced prominent academics out of the university system."Parliament and government should fight against wealthy officials," Mr. Ahmadinejad said in a speech before Parliament on Saturday that again appeared aimed at upending pillars of the status quo. "Wealthy people should not have influence over senior officials because of their wealth. They should not impose their demands on the needs of the poor people." In this theocratic system, where appointed religious leaders hold ultimate power, the presidency is a relatively weak position. In the multiple layers of power that obscure the governance of Iran, no one knows for certain where the ultimate decisions are being made. But many of those watching in near disbelief at the speed and aggression with which the president is seeking to accumulate power assume that he is operating with the full support of Ayatollah Khamenei. The Times notes that the elimination of the fog surrounding the exercise of power in Iran gives the US an opportunity for meaningful direct talks for the first time since the revolution 27 years ago. However, what the Times fails to comprehend is that, much like the Nazi "consolidation" in the early days of their rule, the accumulation of power to one man allows for streamlined internal decisionmaking, not external, where Khameini always held the power. That kind of structure lends itself to one purpose: war. Ahmadinejad, working under Khameini's approval, is stripping all of the potential elements of opposition to war from his government. Arrests have not yet come, but this is certainly a politicial purge, attempting to guarantee a political purity in the government under Ahmadinejad. Nor is this limited to the secular government. Khameini appears to be using Ahmadinejad to bypass the rest of the Guardian Council and establish himself as the only cleric whose opinion matters. It reduces the amount of time needed for decisions and eliminates any potential for time-wasting dissension. Why else would all decision-making power get concentrated in the hands of two men, and all mechanisms for dissent eliminated? Other warning signs exist as well. Iran, like Germany in the late 20s and early 30s, has a restive population wishing for a sharp improvement in their standard of living. Ahmadinejad has to either deliver that or explain why he cannot. For this purpose, he has turned to Islamic anti-Semitism and as the Times reports, he has started to raise up a new intellectual elite that uses Jews as a scapegoat for the domestic woes Iranians suffer. They quote an unnamed political-science professor in Teheran as saying, "He is reshaping the identity of the elite. Being against Jews and Zionists is an essential part of this new identity." He has also started large government-works programs and promised all sorts of welfare to garner a populist following.We have seen this path before. The world should recognize the signs, and the West had better start looking for Churchills rather than Chamberlains, and quickly."

Why We Fight...

New York Post May 29, 2006 -- ABOARD USS KEARSARGE IT'S been 56 months since the onset of the Long War. Time for a break. So this most modern of the Navy's warships - recently back from the Mideast and in training for a return trip - turns her bow toward New York City and Fleet Week liberty for her 1,800 sailors and Marines. What sort of a ship is she? "Forty-thousand tons of twisted steel and sex-appeal," says Rear Adm. Garry Hall, with a broad smile. "There's no beach beyond our reach." It's a time-tested trope, no doubt about that, but no less true for the re-telling - certainly not the beach part. Kearsarge can put 2,000 Marines and their equipment across a contested coastline in a matter of hours and sustain them for as long as it takes to get the job done. And there have been many jobs since 9/11. Kearsarge has ferried Marines to combat in the Mideast. Its helicopters flew combat resupply missions during the early weeks of Operation Iraqi Freedom. There have been two additional months-long deployments to the Mideast since then, the most recent ending last September - but not before Kearsarge came under terrorist rocket attack while pierside in Aqaba, Jordan, on Aug. 19. (The ship was undamaged, but a Jordanian sentry was killed.) Soon Kearsarge, refreshed and replenished, will return to the region - as it must for as long as it is necessary for the Navy to project power in service of American security interests. But how is the crew holding up? Amazingly well, says Hall, given the stress. "More than 70 percent of the youngsters [aboard ship] enlisted after 9/11," he adds proudly. A Naval Academy graduate from upstate Buffalo, he commands the Navy's Amphibious Group Two, a 27-ship flotilla served by thousands of sailors, aircrewmen, pilots and Marines - the latter a singular group indeed. Meet Maj. Chris Curtin of the 10th Marine Regiment, a 35-year-old out of Bridgewater, Conn., Norwich University and - most recently - the Syrian-Iraq frontier. That on-again, off-again hotspot doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. Once upon a time it was a sieve; al Qaeda fighters and other terrorists entered Iraq with virtual impunity and then set about their deadly tasks. Lately the traffic has been choked down - not eliminated, but perhaps brought under control. That's a critical step in controlling the Iraqi insurgency. For this, thank Curtin and his comrades. Pressed for details, the major smiles wryly, a hint of amusement in his eyes, and just keeps his counsel. It wasn't his first trip to Iraq, nor is it likely to be his last - and if not Iraq, then somewhere equally as demanding, equally as dangerous. Such is life for a major of Marines as the Long War proceeds. He has a wife and three children, but America must come first. They know it, he knows it - and that raises a fundamental question. Why? "I love my country," Curtin says. That's it? "The adventure," he adds. "And I like the people." The twinkle leaves his eyes. "I am part of something larger than myself. I am part of an organization that stands for something." Indeed it does, and thank God for that. Thank God for men like Maj. Curtin and the thousands upon thousands of young Americans now under arms - men and women equally dedicated to faithful service to America, never mind the challenge and never mind the danger. And, of course, for all those who have fallen - and who will fall - to maintain America as an exemplar of peace and freedom in a too-often brutal, benighted world. The sailors and Marines of Kearsarge get it. As the ship entered New York Harbor last week, the topside chatter stopped twice: When she passed the Statue of Liberty and, again, when she rendered honors to Ground Zero, they stood proudly to parade-rest. And then they, too, smiled. For they, too, are part of something larger than themselves, and they know it.

The Good news from Iraq..

From Chickenhawk at www.noendbutvictory.com: "Looking for good news coming out of Iraq? You’ve come to the right place. Regardless of the fact that Murtha Focker thinks soldiers have nothing better to do in Iraq than kill” innocent civilians in cold blood“. By the way, if those comments don’t agitate you to the point of boiling rage like it does us troops, he’s also being awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in Boston on Monday (22 May). Well, before my blood begins coagulating in the boiling furnace of my body over this news, let’s get to the good stuff: May 16 - Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldiers observed three terrorists with two bongo trucks emplacing a roadside bomb on a highway southwest of Baghdad. Attack helicopters destroyed both bongo trucks, killing one terrorist, as another fled to a nearby home. Coalition Forces cordoned off the area and detained the man. After searching the impact area, Soldiers discovered two AK-47 rifles, a rack system, a set of night vision goggles, six 155 mm rounds, a car battery, detonation cord, a pressure plate mechanism and a long-range transmitter base. Coalition Forces are currently searching for the third terrorist. The wounded terrorist received medical treatment prior to being detained for questioning. May 16 - Terrorists attacked Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldiers on patrol in the Baghdad neighborhood of al Mansour in a drive-by shooting. The Soldiers from 1st Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment followed the truck to the al Abbas Mosque and observed the terrorists entering the building. Soldiers from 2nd Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division and Coalition Forces surrounded the mosque. The Qada chairman negotiated with the Imam in order to gain entry and detain the terrorists. While they were waiting, the U.S. Soldiers searching the truck used in the drive-by shooting discovered a machine gun, a sniper rifle, an anti-tank mine, rocket-propelled grenades and a launcher. Once permission was given by the Imam, Iraqi Soldiers respectfully searched the mosque and the surrounding compound. There were no explosives found in the mosque. However, IED making materials and a large weapons cache were found on the compound. Eleven military-aged males were detained for questioning. May 17 - Iraqi Police and Coalition Soldiers killed three terrorists and wounded 10 others in two separate incidents in Mosul. Soldiers from 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team observed a group of insurgents burying an improvised explosive device on a roadway southwest of the city. The troops tracked the movements of the insurgents before engaging them with small arms fire. The terrorists jumped into waiting vehicles and fled the area. Troops from the 1st Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Iraqi Army Division and Coalition personnel searched a local hospital and identified nine men with gun shot wounds received from the engagement. Once we found them, did we torture them and saw off their heads? Nope. The men were treated by hospital doctors and detained. In another incident, three civilians were attacked by terrorists on a highway outside of Mosul shortly after noon. The terrorists were driving two separate cars and chased the civilians’ vehicle and fired into it several times. Coalition troops responded to the gunfire and killed three terrorists driving in one of the cars. Iraqi police officers pursued the remaining car until it stopped. The four terrorists fled on foot. Officers wounded and captured one individual. The remaining three are cleaning their shorts and counting their blessings…while they have them. May 19 - Iraqi police officers found and cleared a bomb that was hidden in a shrine east of Baqubah. The device was composed of an anti-tank mine with a remote control detonation device. Iraqi explosive ordnance disposal personnel dismantled the device and removed the components for later disposal. No injuries or damages were reported. May 20 - Soldiers from the 4th Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Iraqi Army Division found and cleared a cache south of Bayji. The cache contained 60 23 mm high-explosive rounds and an assortment of mortar rounds and bomb-making components. The materials were destroyed on site by a controlled detonation. No injuries or damages were reported. In all, about 69 IEDs were prevented this week from built and/or detonated against our soldiers, American contractors, and Iraq civilians. This saved the lives of approximately 550 people. This week was a very busy week with Coalition and Iraq soldiers killing and capturing terrorist cell leaders, destroying a huge base of insurgent operations, and responding to multiple insurgent attacks. We ARE still winning the war against these terrorists. We’ve shown them that the man they look up to (Zarqawi) can’t even operate a weapon. And this man is leading them?! They’re runing out of components in the meantime and have to wait for more. The problem (for the terrorists, that is) here is that we’re killing and capturing these guys on the borders before they can get to the cities."

Why America wins wars..

Larry Schweikert Interview with Frontpage magazine: "This book emerged from the research I have done over 15 years of teaching a class that I used to call "Stirrups to Star Wars." After the release of A Patriot's History of the United States, as I looked at my next project, it seemed obvious, what with the War on Terror and the ongoing fight in Iraq, to write a book about America's military past. FP: You point to seven major characteristics that have combined to make American fighting forces the best in the world. What are they? Schweikart: First, in most conflicts we have relied on citizen soldiers---volunteers---who have joined willingly. But even when we have had drafts, as in Vietnam and in the Civil War, the number of volunteers is staggering. Two-thirds of our troops in Vietnam were volunteers, for example. This has resulted in the military, with a couple of exceptions, almost perfectly reflecting the economic and regional profile of the United States as a whole. Those exceptions are Hollywood (virtually unrepresented in the modern military) and the northeast section of the U.S.---John Kerryland. Second, we push autonomy down like no military in human history. One U.S. officer, working with some of our Middle Eastern allies, concluded that a U.S. sergeant had more operational autonomy than an Egyptian colonel. Because we rely on free troops, there is a certain respect for each man and woman's abilities and a general assumption that you can give an American almost any task and it will be accomplished. Likewise, we promote from within the ranks like few militaries ever have; move people into the officer corps regardless of caste or origins of birth; and willingly promote people on the battlefield, occasionally jumping them several ranks at once.Third, we learn from loss. Now, to most westerners this seems commonsensical. But there are several cultures, including aspects of the Arab culture that we are now fighting, in which it is a shame to make an error, but a double shame to admit it. How can a military figure out what went wrong if it cannot ever admit it screwed up? We energetically study our battlefield losses (and successes), and analyze them seven ways from Sunday. The result is, we seldom make the same mistake twice. The Battle of Kasserine Pass was a great example of this, where we looked at poor leadership, inadequate training, and flawed weapons, and fixed them all by the next time we fought the Germans. Fourth, we have unprecedented inter-unit and inter-service autonomy. Our people talk to each other, and work with each other, something that has been extremely difficult for other militaries or terrorist groups. We then use technology to link units together into an unprecedented degree, whereby in the next few years literally a tanker will be able to talk directly to a pilot overhead without going through his headquarters, then calling the pilot's headquarters, then the pilot. Fifth, we embrace technology---largely due to private property rights---and willingly employ anything that gives us an edge. Yes, there were exceptions: the Thompson .45 caliber submachine gun took a long time to gain acceptance, and there was a reluctance to adopt the submarine. Often, though, this reflects less military myopia than it does some constraint in another area. For example, in the Civil War, the Spencer repeater eventually became a far superior weapon to the Springfield musket, but was not adopted early because preliminary tests showed a lot of jamming, and also (perhaps more important) because each cartridge for a Spencer cost $2 (2006 dollars), and at a rate of fire of seven shots per 10 seconds, well . . . you can go through some serious money very quickly. The War Department just didn't think it could afford that rate of fire. Still, Col. John Wilder, of the Indiana "Lightning Brigade," felt so strongly about the Spencers that he had his regiment's soldiers purchase the rifles for themselves, and if they couldn't afford it, Wilder personally loaned them the money because he believed in the potential of a higher rate of fire. Sixth, we embrace life. Like most western armies, we subscribe to a concept of sanctity of life that means that we treat enemy prisoners well---Dick Durban not withstanding---and we even seek to rescue our own POWs when possible. I've never found any other nation or group do this----make a determined and regular attempt to rescue its own POWs. In fact, after I wrote the book, I found yet another example of an attempted (unsuccessful) POW rescue.Last, we tolerate dissent. This will surprise a lot of people on both sides of the aisle, but anti-war protestors actually make our troops more lethal. It works like this: since the First World War, at least, anti-war protestors have found they could not make any headway in popular opinion by emphasizing "collateral damage" of American war efforts. The only tactic that ever worked was to emphasize U.S. casualties. Except this had its own unintended effect: the military, sensitive to "excessive" casualties, consistently studied doctrine, weapons, and so on, revising its policies so as to make U.S. soldiers even more deadly killers. It is absolutely true that such anti-war people damage the immediate war effort, but over the long run, they make the military better than ever because of relentless self examination by the military. Schweikart: One of the most pernicious was that Vietnam was fought by the poor, uneducated, largely black draftees. In fact, nearly 2/3s of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers; only 12% were black---exactly proportional to the U.S. population at the time; and the education level of the average soldier was about what it was for a non-soldier. Other myths are that the returning vets had higher levels of mental disease, drug addition, and/or suicide. (Not true at all). Yet another that, because of my background as a rock and roll drummer, I find most interesting, is that the music industry helped "change attitudes" against the war. In fact, no antiwar songs came out until public opinion had substantially shifted against the war, making anti-war music profitable. I found for this book that Jimi Hendrix, who was in the 101st Airbornea and who faked being a homsexual to get out, did so only because he wanted to play his guitar non-stop, and as late as 1968 he spoke very favorably of the U.S. military, once defending our position in Vietnam to European interviewers (to their horror). A broader myth is that the military "lost" Vietnam. If you look at the 1965 statements of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as given to Pres. Johnson, on what it would take to win, in that year---1965---the military said it would take 1 million men, round the clock bombing of the north, cutting the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and mining Haiphong Harbor. Yet by 1969, we had just over half that number, had never engaged in serious, sustained bombing of the North, and never even made an attempt to sever the Ho Chi Minh Trail.It's worth mentioning, as a final myth, that Ho Chi Minh ("the Enlightened One," or, "that little Ho," as I like to call him) was not a communist. He was a diehard communist, not a "nationalist." FP: Americans may have won many wars, but isn’t the War on Terror different? Schweikart: Absolutely not. In fact, it is extremely close in all respects to the Filipino Insurrection, of 1899-1902, and the subsequent "insurgency" and "Moro wars" that lasted until about 1910. First, the number of troops deployed in Iraq as a share of total U.S. Army/Marine strength is almost exactly proportional. Second, the objective of Emilio Aguinaldo, like that of Abu Musab al-Zarqari, was to force a change in U.S. policy politically by affecting U.S. elections. Aguinaldo hoped to unseat William McKinley, Zarqari, Bush. Third, almost all "insurrections" or "guerilla wars" of the 20th century have been won by the "government." In this case, that would be us---and this includes Vietnam. The record is that the government won 8/11, losing China and Vietnam. Fourth, despite what the Left thinks, there is a relentless mathematics about warfare: you can only lose so many men, then you run out of fighters and especially suicide bombers. An interesting aspect of news coverage in Iraq/Afghanistan is the utter blackout on numbers of enemy forces killed, wounded, or captured. There is a good reason for this: we are kicking butt like you wouldn't believe. My estimates are highly flawed, because they are based only on reported numbers (which no one disputes), and the real numbers are likely far, far higher, but so far I estimate we have killed or imprisoned more than 20,000 terrorists and jihadis. I don't care how many kooks they have running in from Syria or Yemen, it's clear they are nearly out of bodies. We killed perhaps 1,000 just in Fallujah---one sniper alone accounted for 100 kills! Several months ago, either Time or Newsweek ran an article about the "women" of terror-dom, and noted that the terrorists had to start recruiting women. Why? Because we have killed all their male suicide bombers. As Victor Hanson shows about the battle of Okinawa, the Japanese ran out of kamikaze volunteers. Well, it's easier to force a "volunteer" to engage in a suicide charge if you have a formal army structure and bayonets at their backs, but in an asymmetric warfare situation, it's virtually impossible to force people to be suicide bombers. So they are running out of peeps. As the line goes in the movie "Major Payne," when Major Payne is being mustered out, "There's got to be some people that need killin'," his superior responds, "No, Major, you've killed them all." Finally, some people argue that this is a "different kind of war" because we are fighting an "ideology," not an army. Exsqueeeeze me? What was World War II? Seems to me we defeated two ideologies, Japanese bushido-ism and Nazism, then, in the Cold War, defeated another, communism, largely without firing a shot. Schweikart: Several weeks ago, an exasperated Bill O'Reilly asked a guest, "Why is it we can turn kids into soldiers in six weeks [sic] and we can't turn the Iraqis into a fighting force after a year?" He's completely wrong. We do not turn boys and girls into soldiers in "six weeks" or even a more accurate "nineteen weeks" of training. Rather, what happens is that we take Americans who have absorbed more than 200 years of a specific fighting culture and we turn then into soldiers. This will turn some people off, but the fact is we are attempting to turn the Iraqis into Americans. We are trying to teach them self-governance, individual autonomy, free-market principles, the ability to ignore shame and to learn from loss in order to improve, the abilty to put aside tribal and sectarian differences to work together, and the need to push autonomy down. As they absorb those principles---as they already already are---their military will rapidly replace our forces in Iraq. On the broader issue of the "War on Terror," we will win because we're Americans. We will win because to beat us, you have to be us. Those countries that have come the closest to defeating us have had to embrace large parts of our American way of war---but since they can never accept all of those principles, and this even applies to CHINA---they cannot beat us. They know it, and our military knows it. Only the American Left hasn't figure this out yet.

Russia continues to fall apart..

To go along with its negative population growth, Moscow is seeing its former empire crumble. Kremlin loses its grip on a dying empire By Richard Beeston UK Online Four former Soviet republics are set to abandon eastern commonwealth and look West. ONE of the last vestiges of the Soviet Union appeared to be crumbling yesterday, when four former republics signalled that they were pulling out of the organisation established to keep the Kremlin connected with its lost empire. At a meeting in Kiev the leaders of the pro-Western states of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine pledged to form their own association to promote democratic values. They also hinted that they would leave the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which was created 15 years ago as a group representing most of the former Soviet republics. While the CIS never fulfilled any great economic or political function, its very existence was supposed to reflect Moscow’s continued influence from Eastern Europe to the Caucasus and on to Central Asia. But ties between the Kremlin and some of its former client states have deteriorated in a wave of democratic movements that swept pro-Western leaders into power in Georgia and Ukraine and encouraged anti-Russian sentiment in Azerbaijan and Moldova. The new group will be called the Organisation for Democracy and Economic Development and will be based in Kiev. It will rival the CIS, which is based in Minsk, the capital of Belarus, where it is headed by Vladimir Rushailo, a tough former Russian Interior Minister. Viktor Yushchenko, the Ukrainian President, said: “Our citizens are giving us a mandate to develop strong democratic and successful states.” The move is seen as a huge snub to Moscow, which has not been invited to join. It faces the prospect of being left in a CIS of eight states, including Belarus, regarded as the last dictatorship in Europe, Armenia, and the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The splits within the CIS ranks have been growing in recent months. Moscow, which backed Mr Yushchenko’s opponent in the Ukrainian elections, clashed with Ukraine this year when it suspended gas sales, causing an energy crisis across Europe in the middle of winter. The Kremlin has also rowed openly with Tbilisi over Russian support for two breakaway regions in Georgia and its reluctant withdrawal of troops from the country. Moscow’s recent decision to ban the import of Georgian and Moldovan wine has strained ties further. Azerbaijan has provoked the ire of Moscow by developing close ties with the US, and building an oil pipeline to pump crude from the Caspian Sea to Turkey, bypassing traditional Russian control over energy supply routes. Moldova signalled yesterday that it may be the first country to quit the CIS. President Voronin said that the issue would soon be debated in parliament, where the move was likely to be approved. Zurab Nogaideli, the Georgian Prime Minister, said that his country was also debating the value of remaining in the CIS, and that the question of withdrawal would come up before parliament this summer. “Many in Georgia have been very critical of the CIS, of its performance, of its efficiency, and we, as a government, are accountable to the people’s concerns,” he told The Times during a visit to London. He said that Georgia had attempted to make the CIS more efficient and capable of dealing with important bilateral disputes, such as the Russian wine ban, but that the CIS was incapable of addressing real issues. “What is the sense in having an organisation that fails to discuss basic issues that affect the countries concerned?”, Mr Nogaideli said. “It seems to me that Russia itself is not interested in the CIS, in reality. They want to keep it as an organisation, but they don’t want it to be an effective and functional organisation. Russia only keeps it for prestige.”

Operation Noble Duty getting underway...

Support our Troops this Memorial Day 2006: Honoring Our Soldiers Supply drive organized by bloggers as thank you to U.S. soldiers. Austin, TX (PRWEB) May 4, 2006 — A coalition of bloggers is being formed for a supply drive to help the Texas Military Family Foundation and the soldiers they are working so very hard to honor and support. Julie Curtis-Win, Executive Director, has dedicated her life to this cause, and she needs your help. “The Texas Military Family is an organization with a small staff, a few great volunteers, and a lot of love. The Texas Military Family Foundation provides family members of returning soldiers flags to have while they await the arrival of their loved ones. TMFF also assists all deploying soldiers with playing cards, stickers, phones and a hug of encouragement before they load the plane to go forward on their mission.” Operation: Noble Duty is our way of saying “thank you”; to Julie, to the Texas Military Family Foundation, and to all the brave young men and women in uniform that Julie and her staff work with every day. Sponsored by Bill Crawford of “All Things Conservative,” haystack of “No End But Victory,” and Tim Saler of “TimSaler.com,” we are asking for donations in many different areas. While money is always helpful, there are many other things that the Texas Military Family Foundation desperately needs. Please contact us to find out how you can help. Let’s give something back for those who give so much for us. Contact Information: Bill Crawford: alamocitycommando(at)yahoo(dot)com; haystack: hickpolitics(at)gmail(dot)com; Tim Saler: public(at)timsaler(dot)com Texas Military Family Foundation: www.tmff.us All Things Conservative: allthingsconservative.typepad.com No End But Victory: www.noendbutvictory.com

We are winning the war in Iraq..

The following article is from one of my favorite authors- Ralph Peters. The guy flat out says it like he sees it no matter what. New York Post May 23, 2006 -- WITH the formation of Iraq's new government, it's a good time to take stock of where we stand in our confrontation with Islamist terror. You wouldn't know it from the outrageously dishonest headlines, but we're winning. We could do even better, if we put national security above partisan politics. Our enemies are far from giving up, of course. But they realize now that Americans won't quit after suffering the first dozen casualties. That came as a shock after the cowardice of past presidential administrations. Our enemies can still grab the tactical initiative by killing the innocent, but terrorists around the world have been shoved onto the strategic defensive. We tend to overlook that. So let's consider just how far we've come: * The mainstream media said it couldn't be done, so the Iraqis did it: Under new Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, they formed a permanent government based on free elections. (Those free elections were supposed to be impossible, too - remember? Yes, Iraq could still break into bloody bits. But it hasn't, despite ceaseless predictions of doom. Now the great danger isn't from terrorists but from a premature troop draw-down before our midterm elections. We could throw it all away over a few congressional seats. * Headlines from Afghanistan always read "Five Soldiers Killed and Wounded," not "150 Taliban Killed." If today's journalists reported the Battle of Midway, we'd read "U.S. Aircraft Shot From Skies," with a brief mention of the destruction of the Japanese carrier fleet buried at the bottom. The Taliban was decisively defeated. That doesn't mean it's gone. The religious madness the Taliban represents will remain at the edges of Afghan life - it's part of the cultural package, just as bigotry haunts the fringes of our society. But Afghanistan's a far less-menacing place than it was. In the real world, that's enough. * Pakistan's a worsening problem - overshadowed by the less immediate issue of Iran. Taliban remnants and al Qaeda terrorists survive because the Pakistani military is afraid to go into the country's tribal areas to root out them out. Riddled with extremists, nuclear armed and incapable of controlling its own territory, Pakistan should have Washington in crisis mode. * Al Qaeda has been broken. Yes, its remnants remain deadly. Yes, autonomous terror cells pose a growing threat. But the organization behind 9/11 has seen its surviving leaders driven into caves and remote villages where they live in constant fear. Islamist terror may have moved beyond al Qaeda, but our government and our military deserve credit for shattering the greatest international terror ring in history. * The United States has taken this war to our enemies and to their homelands - without suffering another terrorist strike on our soil. While that long-awaited strike still seems only a matter of time, the greatest strategic surprise to this columnist has been the inability of our enemies to hit back to date. Kudos to the feds and the folks in uniform. In the Global War on Terror (or whatever it's called this week), the cardinal indicator of success is what doesn't happen. * A fundamental reason why we've remained safe from further attacks on our homeland has been intelligence successes. While our intel system is far from all it could be, it's not nearly as incompetent as it's portrayed to be. Poor intel has become an easy excuse for flawed decision-making. We need to be honest with ourselves: No matter how much we improve, we'll never have perfect intelligence. To pretend otherwise is to lie to the American people. Instead of blaming our institutions, leaders in both parties have to lead. * Domestic politics hurt us in our struggle against terrorists. The phony claim that the government "spies on American citizens" is about party sympathies and the upcoming elections, not about threats to our freedom. To the chagrin of a biased media, a convincing majority of Americans believe it's just fine to listen in on terrorist phone calls. If journalists really cared about our right to privacy, they'd be tackling online auction houses, corporate information-sharing and Internet spyware - not wartime efforts to prevent another 9/11. * At least 40 times more Americans will die on our highways this year than will be lost in Iraq. More Americans will be murdered in Prince George's County outside of Washington, D.C., than are likely to die in Afghanistan. We're doing pretty well overseas; our crunch-time strategic problems are here at home: the inexcusable lack of a serious alternative-fuels policy; the need to face our immigration crisis with honesty, decency and respect for the rule of law - and, above all, a political system held captive by extremists on the left and right, corrupted by an irresponsible media culture. Plenty remains to be done. We must see our Iraq mission through to the end - unless the Iraqis fail themselves. We must restore integrity and common sense to our foreign policy by ceasing to pretend that the Saudis are our friends and by living up to our rhetoric about support for democracy. And we need to take a very hard line on China's currency manipulation and cheating on trade. Still, any fair-minded review of the last several years of American engagement abroad would conclude that, despite painful mistakes, we've changed the world for the better. The results have been imperfect, as such results always will be. But the bewildering sense of gloom and doom fostered my many in the media is as unjustified as it is corrosive. Our global report card right now? A for effort. B for results. C for consistency. D for media integrity. And F for domestic political responsibility. Ralph Peters' next book, "Never Quit the Fight," hits the stores in July.

The Iraqi Army is growing in strength and power..

San Francisco Gate May 22, 2006 Fallujah, Iraq -- Maj. Jeff Woodie sat in the headquarters of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Camp Fallujah, looking a lot like a proud father. He and some of his team had pulled up chairs around a conference table containing a laptop and overhead projector. The commanding officer of the Marines in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, sat at the head of the table and a small group of Iraqi officers from the 3rd Battalion sat to his left. Through an interpreter, the Iraqi officers briefed the general on an operation they proposed to conduct the following day. They talked about communications, supply and possible enemy activity, among other things. It was mundane, routine, as military meetings go. But it had a huge significance in this arena. The general gets briefed on, and must approve, any battalion-size operation in this area. In the past, the Americans had done the briefings on Iraqi operations. This was the first time an Iraqi battalion had planned and coordinated an operation and then briefed the general. "This is a good, solid plan," Zilmer told the Iraqis. "Good luck." This is the future of the war in Iraq. It is a war slowly switching from one fought by Americans to one fought by Iraqis. Whenever there is a raid or a fight or a search, American forces try to "put an Iraqi face on it." That is the new mantra. President Bush has repeatedly said that American troops will stand down as Iraqi forces are able to stand up. But what does this mean as a practical matter? How long will it take to recruit, train, support and put into the field enough soldiers and police officers to do the jobs now tasked to Americans? The short answer is: The United States intends to turn over all battlefield operations to Iraqi Security Forces by the end of the year. That doesn't mean U.S. troops will be going home, just that the Iraqis are supposed to handle all the fighting by then. Theoretically, it will mark the beginning of the end of the U.S. presence in Iraq. But the success of this program is in no way assured. There remains a strong and vibrant insurgency. Those fighters view the Iraqi army as an extension of the American military, and they attack them with the same intensity. Maybe more. As it stands, there are no easy answers regarding the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Time frames are generally considered guidelines more than actual deadlines. American and Iraqi officers say there are simply too many variables to know for sure how long the process will take. To the U.S. soldiers and Marines, getting it wrong means failure. And failure means all the Americans who died here died in vain. "I don't want this to be another Vietnam," said a senior officer. He did not want to be identified because it's not considered appropriate to talk about such things. "I don't want to be that old veteran 20 years from now bitching about how we could have done something good in Iraq, but it all turned to crap. I don't want that." That sentiment is commonly expressed by a great number of troops serving in Iraq. To see how the training of Iraqis is going, a reporter-photographer team from The Chronicle spent six weeks recently going from unit to unit, embedding with U.S. adviser teams who were themselves embedded with Iraqi army and police units. The project was green-lighted because the American military is eager for people to know the scope of the advisers' work in Iraq. Woodie, 47, leads an Army adviser team working under the control of the Marines outside Fallujah. He advises an Iraqi brigade stationed at one of the few military bases that actually belong to the Iraqis. It's called India Base. The major, like the rest of his team, is a reservist. He works as a construction project manager in the Richmond, Va., area and is seriously thinking about running for Congress when he gets back to the States this summer. He's affable and never seems to tire of working with his Iraqi soldiers. The nature of his assignment means he has to be a soldier and a diplomat at the same time. Woodie has the job down pat. A soldier in Woodie's unit said of his boss, "The major is a cross between Col. Kilgore in 'Apocalypse Now' and Santa Claus. He could be mayor if he wanted to." Woodie will jump out of a humvee and, assault rifle at the ready, clear a ditch of possible insurgents or roadside bombs. And the next minute he'll pull up in the middle of the road and start handing out candy to kids. "What's your name?" he asks every child who approaches. "Achmed? How are you, Achmed? My name is Jeff. Nice to meet you." On the morning after the Iraqi officers briefed the U.S. general, the Iraqis and their American advisers rose before dawn and prepared for the mission. It was not complicated -- they were to set up a cordon in an area of Nasser Wa Salaam, a mixed Sunni-Shiite city outside Fallujah. The Iraqis knew what they were doing. Everyone loaded up with fuel and ammo, locked and loaded. They drove their Nissan pickups out the front gate of India Base, an Iraqi facility, and into the adjacent town. Some jumped out and set up positions at intersections while others gathered on a street, the eastern edge of the neighborhood to be searched. Staff Sgt. Alex Reyes, 36, of Virginia, went along with one squad. "Don't bunch up. Spread out," he said to the Iraqis. "What are you doing? What are you doing? Cover. Cover. Watch the street." The battalion is pretty good, Reyes said, but with a tendency to get sloppy. It can be, he said, a little like herding cats. The Iraqi soldiers, of course, are nowhere near as good as the Americans in terms of equipment, training or professionalism. But they're better than U.S. troops in gathering intelligence. "Americans might know how to clear a house better, but the jundi know the people," Woodie said, using the Arabic word for soldiers. "Iraqi troops know if someone is from this area or not. They can tell by the accent, by clothing, what someone has in a car. They're very good at this." The insurgents consider Iraqi troops to be puppets of the American occupying forces and attack them incessantly. Iraqi soldiers are killed much more frequently than are U.S. troops. In March, there were 31 American deaths and an estimated 193 Iraqi soldiers and police (the casualty numbers do not distinguish between the two). In April, there were 76 American deaths and an estimated 201 Iraqis. Two Iraqi soldiers stood outside a home being searched that day in Nasser Wa Salaam. They were supposed to be standing guard outside, in case of an insurgent attack. But no threat seemed imminent, so they smoked and joked, rifles held loosely, muzzles down. "He only want woman," the shorter one said in English. "He can think of nothing else." He proceeded to make goo-goo faces at his pal, raising his eyebrows and running his tongue around his lips, causing the other to lunge at him and give him a smack. A few minutes later, the rest of the Iraqi soldiers came out of the house and encountered a group of residents, who cornered one of their officers to complain about security in the city. "Why do you come here to search my home?" one man asked. "I am no terrorist. They come at night and you do nothing!" The officer asked if the man had information about insurgents. "The only way we can help you is if you tell us what you know," he said. The man raised his palms to the sky and shrugged, putting on a pained face. The gesture said, "Talking about this will get me killed." After a long morning, the Iraqis found no insurgents. Only one extra AK-47 magazine and 100 rounds of ammunition, which they confiscated. The plan for getting out of Iraq goes like this: The U.S. military is slowly getting off the streets in cities across Iraq. American soldiers and Marines still go on patrols and convoys still truck supplies and personnel throughout the country. But wherever possible, the troops are leaving their humvees parked and taking helicopters to get where they want to go. This means fewer roadside bomb attacks and, more important, less friction and interaction between American troops and Iraqi civilians. The Americans also are turning bases over to the Iraqis. It's called "base consolidation." It doesn't mean fewer U.S. troops -- just fewer bases and more troops on them. The number of bases already turned over is a bit unclear because in most cases it's a transitional process. But the Iraqis this month took over a major installation: Camp Blue Diamond, the former headquarters of the 1st Marine Division, whose shoulder patch is a blue diamond. The base, near Ramadi, is now home to the Iraqi 4th Division, while the Marines are consolidated at Camp Fallujah, a few miles down the road. But even Camp Fallujah is on the block. The Marines are talking about leaving that space and moving troops out to the desert air base at Al Asad. The order to "put an Iraqi face" on any operation where it is possible means U.S. troops and Iraqi troops go on missions side-by-side. Sometimes, that works out well. Some Iraqi units are well-trained and experienced. They need little or no American supervision. Others, less so. The point is to try to get the Iraqi people to see the conflict as one pitting insurgents against Iraqis, not just the Americans. "We'll be the windbreak for the Iraq army until it's ready to stand on its own," said Col. Steve Zotti of Omaha, Neb., a military-transition team leader in Fallujah. The U.S. military program in charge of building up a new, professional army is under the control of the Multi-National Security Transition Command -- Iraq. It's known as MNSTC-I, and called "Mensticky." MNSTC-I set up training centers for Iraqi recruits and coordinates the use of American advisers, who help and provide logistical support for Iraqi units. As of March, there were about 100,000 Iraqi soldiers serving in 100 battalions across the country. There also were about 90,000 police officers. All of Iraq is one big battle space, to use a key military phrase, as fighting can and does break out anywhere. Different units, both American and Iraqi, have responsibility for the battle space around them. As individual Iraqi units are considered ready for combat, they are given the battle space that was once owned by their corresponding U.S. outfit. MNSTC-I says Iraqis own about 50 percent of the battle space in Iraq right now. But their battle space is mostly the safe and calmer areas of the nation. It does not include great swaths of Baghdad and Anbar province, home to Ramadi and Fallujah, where some of the toughest insurgent fighting continues. The American timeline calls for the Iraqis to control 100 percent of the battle space by the end of the year. "The Iraqi army doesn't have to be good," said the MNSTC-I officer. "They have to be JGE: Just Good Enough." The greatest obstacle facing the new Iraqi army is not fighting or dying. It's something much more mundane: logistics and supply. The Iraqis now have four supply bases scattered around the country, but getting supplies to the far-flung units is difficult. Both U.S. and Iraqi convoys come under attack regularly. The American transition teams are with the Iraqi units on developing supply lines, maintenance programs and medical clinics. Base consolidation is going to be a problem for the Iraqis, because wounded Iraqi soldiers will have no place to go for treatment. Right now, Iraqis can get treatment at Camp Fallujah, but if the Marines leave there will be no medical aid station. Iraqi hospitals don't want to treat Iraqi soldiers because it could make them targets for the insurgents. "I tell my Iraqi counterparts that they need to start preparing for the day we leave, because it's coming," said Lt. Col. Nick Marano of Philadelphia, a Marine battalion commander out on the Syrian border. The American military advisers in Iraq are called transition teams. There are several types. The biggest group -- Military Transition Teams (MiTTs) -- work with the Iraqi army. There also are Police Transition Teams (PTT), Special Police Transition Teams (SPTT) for the various national police units, such as the commandos and public order brigades, and Border Patrol Transition Teams (BTT). They are called "Mitts, Pitts, Spitts and Bitts." The idea is for all those teams to bring their respective units up to a high level of professionalism and readiness. All but the Mitts are mostly in their infancy. The Pitt, Spitt and Bitt teams are relatively new and, in many cases, are dealing with Iraqi units that have only recently been put together, or reassembled after the previous units left, quit or died. Maj. Michael Motley, 37, of Spring Lake, N.J., leads a Mitt team that works in Fallujah with the 2nd Battalion, considered one of the best in Iraq. It owns battle space in the northwest corner of the city. Motley and his Marines live in a house that's been converted into a small base. They have the upstairs and the Iraqi officers live downstairs. The soldiers live in adjacent homes, all of which are surrounded by blast walls topped with barbed wire. The Mitts and Pitts will be the last Americans out of Iraq, if everything goes the way the U.S. planners hope. "I've drunk the Kool-Aid on the Iraqi army," Motley said, indicating he was on board with the project. "This is the way we're going to finish this up." Motley and his team have learned some Arabic language and Iraqi culture. They've had to. That's part of the work, part of the mission. "It's all about personalities," he said. "It's a people business. In fact, we have relationships with people I thought we'd have to write off. I didn't think we'd be as far along (in training and development) as we are now." Another member of his team agreed. "These guys are more aggressive than some Marine units," said Capt. Michael Butler, 33, of Huntsville, Ala. "They're good. They're very good." As Motley walked along a street in Fallujah, watching the Iraqi soldiers in action, he looked around at the houses and shops. People are starting to trust the Iraqi army more, he said. They might not like the Americans or the Iraqi army, he said, but they've begun to understand that security comes from those sources. As a result, more residents are coming forward to give information about weapons caches and insurgent activity. "The average Joe just doesn't want to be f -- with," Motley said. "He just wants to live in security." Sometimes, the fight isn't against the insurgents. The army and police are often at each other's throats. American officers don't like to talk about it, and try to downplay the problem. It's not conducive to fighting insurgents, and it's difficult to fix. But it's very real. When the Iraqi 2nd Battalion was running a search in Fallujah recently, someone tossed a grenade at some of the soldiers. The grenade did not go off. After the soldiers secured the area, dozens of Iraqi police officers arrived. The police commander conferred with the army commander. It seemed as if they were talking things out. But voices rose. Arguing ensued. And soon, police officers were drawing their weapons, taking aim on the soldiers. It was a tense moment. One accidental shot could have resulted in what American troops call a "death blossom" -- dozens of Iraqis with poor aim firing hundreds of fully automatic rounds indiscriminately. The standoff ended when an American bomb squad inadvertently drove humvees into the middle of the scrum. But the confrontation reignited later that evening and again the next day. Police cars drove by the army compound and fired shots at the soldiers on guard duty. No one was hurt, but the situation was very tenuous. Col. Larry Nicholson, who commands the 5th Marine Regiment in Fallujah, held a meeting with the police, army and mayor. "I told them that this was unacceptable," Nicholson said. "I said they have to get along, and if they don't, I'll fire them and find someone who will. In reality, I probably don't have the power to do that, but I would certainly try." The American military advisers form strong bonds with their Iraqi counterparts. They work together, live together and fight together. You see it when the Americans and Iraqis get together in the early morning as they prepare for missions. They greet, hug, sometimes give each other the traditional Iraqi cheek-kiss. The young soldiers play grab-ass or exchange bawdy jokes. The officers are all business until the end of the day, when they gather around a table for dinner. There they talk in English and translated Arabic about the day's events, chat about family and politics. They smoke cigarettes and sip heavily sweetened Iraqi tea. "How many times have you been hit by an IED?" an American officer asked a young Iraqi captain at an outpost in Fallujah. The captain held up four fingers. Then pointed to each one of them and counted aloud in Arabic. Each finger represented a brush with death. His, anyway. He watched friends die each time, but he was spared. However, there still are many points of contention between the forces. Especially among the U.S. troops who operate independently of the Iraqis and who watch them in action, or lack thereof. "Tell the truth, not just their propaganda," one young Marine told a visiting journalist. Part of the mistrust stems from the Iraqis' lack of professionalism, especially the units that are young and newly formed. A lot of Americans say the Iraqis shirk duties at best and are active in the insurgency at worst. In late March, the commander of a Strategic Infrastructure Battalion was arrested by Iraqi and American troops in the Kirkuk area, along with several members of his staff. The commander, identified only as Brig. Gen. Safin, and his staff were found to have contact with insurgents who had been conducting raids against oil pipelines. The general and some of his men were also implicated in terrorist attacks against American and Iraqi forces. But the Iraqis have plenty of gripes about the Americans, too. Maj. B., a senior official with the Iraqi 4th Division, is a well-educated former pilot. He doesn't want his name used -- no Iraqi does -- because insurgents have access to the Internet, too, and they might identify him and track him down. He could be tortured and killed. His family, too. The major flew missions against Iran during that war, and in the first Gulf War. His English is passable, and he is an animated dinner companion. The major likes Americans and he is well-respected by them. But he can tell you stories of indignities and problems. Like the time he was stopped at a checkpoint by American Marines. "They did not believe I was an officer. They kept saying, 'Are you Ali Baba?' " he said, referring to the general term used for thief or bad guy. "I am NOT Ali Baba and I should not have to listen to this kind of accusation in my own country." And then there is the issue of security. At the dining facility in Camp Fallujah, there is an entrance for U.S. troops and another one for people from other countries, including Iraqis. Maj. B., accompanied by a group of Americans, was forced to use the other entrance. He said he understood the need for such security, but it was an awkward moment. It's hard to imagine anyone more passionate about his job than Nicholson, the Marine regimental commander in charge of Fallujah. His Marines are in the thick of some of the fiercest counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq. Every week, one or more Marines die in action. There are roadside bombs, suicidal car bombers and small-arms ambushes. Nicholson is short and gruff, his head nearly shaved and a scowl perpetually on his face. He has an absolute passion for his job. This is his second turn as a regimental commander. He was given command of the 1st Marine Regiment on Sept. 14, 2004. The 1st Marines were running Fallujah at the time. On the day he took over, after the change-of-command ceremony, he was in his office in the Camp Fallujah Battle Square trying to set up his e-mail account. He called in the regimental communications officer, Maj. Kevin Shea. The major sat at the colonel's desk while Nicholson got up to pour himself a cup of coffee. A 122mm rocket came through the wall and exploded. The major -- sitting at Nicholson's desk -- was killed. Nicholson was severely wounded. He was taken to Germany and then to the United States. He went through nine surgeries and countless sessions of physical therapy. And now he's back. Same job, different regiment. Sitting at the same desk where the major was killed. Nicholson doesn't tell this story, but his men do. He's a legend. He does mention the story to Iraqi sheikhs and Fallujah city leaders whenever the discussion goes to motivation and determination, and whether the Americans will leave Fallujah. "I've spilled blood here," Nicholson tells the Iraqis. "I have a vested interest in making this work. Too many good men have died. Failure is not an option." In an interview in his office, the one where he was nearly killed, Nicholson talked about the changing situation in Fallujah and the development of the local Iraqi security forces. "When I left, we had 4,000 Marines in Fallujah and no police," Nicholson said. "Today we have 300 Marines and 1,200 police. That's a big change. That's a phenomenal change." Nicholson's son is a Marine lieutenant who has worked side-by-side with Iraqi soldiers in Anbar province. "My son told me, 'Dad, they run to the sound of gunfire,' " Nicholson said. "They're never going to be U.S. Marines or soldiers, but they come at this with a lot of heart." Nicholson is not fond of the "put an Iraqi face" mantra. "I don't just want a face, I want a torso, arms and heart," he said. "I don't want this to just be a front."

Things are Pretty Good in America...

US News and World Report-By Michael Barone 5/29/06 Things are better than you think. Yes, I know, most Americans are in a sour mood these days, convinced that the struggle in Iraq is an endless cycle of bloodshed, certain that our economy is in dismal shape, lamenting that the nation and the world are off on the wrong track. That's what polls tell us. But if we look at some other numbers, we'll find that we are living not in the worst of times but in something much closer to the best. What do I mean? First, economic growth. In 2005, as in 2004, the world economy grew by about 5 percent, according to the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF projects similar growth for several years to come. This is faster growth than in all but a few peak years in the 1980s and 1990s, and it's in vivid contrast to the long periods of stagnation or contraction in history. The great engine of this growth is, of course, the United States, which produces more than one fifth of world economic product and whose gross domestic product has been growing at around 4 percent--4.8 percent in the latest quarter. Other engines are China and India, each with about a sixth of the world's people, and with economic growth of 10 and 8 percent, respectively. But other areas are growing, too: eastern Europe (5 percent), Russia (6 percent), East Asia (5 percent), Latin America (4 percent), even the Middle East (6 percent) and sub-Saharan Africa (5.5 percent). Free-market benefits. Lagging behind is the euro area (1 percent) and the rest of western Europe (2 percent). Lesson: Sclerotic welfare states produce mass unemployment and stifle initiative and innovation. In contrast, the Chinese and Indian growth rates show how freeing up an economy produces rapid growth, and the continued contrast between the United States and Europe makes the same point. Free-market economic growth is enabling millions of people to rise out of poverty every year, even more than the experts expect. As the IMF writes, "The momentum and resilience of the global economy in 2005 continued to exceed expectations." It's worth noting, as the IMF does, that this growth is being achieved with minimal inflation. "The present era of globalization and low inflation has an important precedent: 1880-1914, the era of the classical gold standard," it says. That period ended with the outbreak of World War I, and there is no guarantee that the current low-inflation growth will continue. There are always downside risks in the economy. But we seem to be living by far in the best economic times in human history. But aren't we also living in times of record strife? Actually, no. Just the opposite. The Human Security Centre of the University of British Columbia has been keeping track of armed conflicts since World War II. It reports that the number of genocides and violent conflicts dropped rapidly after the end of the Cold War and that in 2005 the number of armed conflicts was down 40 percent from 1992. Wars have also become less deadly: The average number of people killed per conflict per year in 1950 was 38,000; in 2002 it was just 600. The conflict in Iraq has not significantly changed that picture. American casualties are orders of magnitude lower than in the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, and precision weapons have enabled us to vastly reduce the civilian death toll. After our victory in the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama proclaimed that we had reached "the end of history," by which he meant the end of any serious argument over what constitutes the best kind of society. That is disputed by the Islamist fascists who have made it clear that they will do whatever they can to inflict harm on our civilization; as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in his recent letter to President Bush, "Liberalism and western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today those two concepts have failed." That's obviously nonsense, of course. Free markets and democracy are chalking up one ringing achievement after another--as we can see from the surge in world economic growth and the reduction of armed conflict--while the Islamists can achieve their goals only through oppression and slaughter. Yes, they can inflict severe damage on us by asymmetric warfare, as they did on September 11, and we must continue to take determined action to prevent them from doing so again. Yes, a nuclear Iran is a severe threat. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, in most important respects, our civilization is performing splendidly.

US Air Force investigating new types of fuel...

This would be helpful! New York Times WASHINGTON, May 13 — When an F-16 lights up its afterburners, it consumes nearly 28 gallons of fuel per minute. No wonder, then, that of all the fuel the United States government uses each year, the Air Force accounts for more than half. The Air Force may not be in any danger of suffering inconveniences from scarce or expensive fuel, but it has begun looking for a way to power its jets on something besides conventional fuel. In a series of tests — first on engines mounted on blocks and then with B-52's in flight — the Air Force will try to prove that the American military can fly its aircraft by blending traditional crude-oil-based jet fuel with a synthetic liquid made first from natural gas and, eventually, from coal, which is plentiful and cheaper. While the military has been a leader in adopting some technologies — light but strong metals, radar-evading stealth designs and fire-retardant flight suits, for example — any effort to hit a miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency rating has taken a back seat when the mission is to haul bombs farther and faster or push 70-ton tanks across a desert to topple an adversary. (The Abrams tank, for example, gets less than a mile per gallon under certain combat conditions.)"Energy is a national security issue," said Michael A. Aimone, the Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics. The United States is unlikely ever to become fully independent of foreign oil, Mr. Aimone said, but the intent of the Air Force project is "to develop enough independence to have assured domestic supplies for aviation purposes." By late this summer, on the hard lake beds of the Mojave Desert, where the Air Force tests its most secret and high-performance aircraft, a lumbering B-52 is scheduled to take off in an experiment in which two of the giant bomber's engines will burn jet fuel produced not from crude oil but from natural gas. The plane's six other engines will burn traditional jet fuel — just in case. The Air Force consumed 3.2 billion gallons of aviation fuel in fiscal year 2005, which was 52.5 percent of all fossil fuel used by the government, Pentagon statistics show. The total Air Force bill for jet fuel last year topped $4.7 billion. Although the share of national energy consumption by the federal government and the military is just 1.7 percent, every increase of $10 per barrel of oil drives up Air Force fuel costs by $600 million per year. Mr. Aimone said that if the synthetic blend worked, plans called for increasing its use in Air Force planes to 100 million gallons in the next two years. Air Force and industry officials say that oil prices above $40 to $45 per barrel make a blend with synthetic fuels a cost-effective alternative to oil-based jet fuel. Fuel costs have doubled since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and crude oil prices since Hurricane Katrina have remained above $60 a barrel. The Air Force effort falls under a directive from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to explore alternative fuel sources. Under the plan, the Air Force has been authorized to buy 100,000 gallons of synthetic fuel. Ground experiments are scheduled to begin in coming weeks at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, followed by test flights at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Although the Air Force is leading the project, it is working with the Automotive Tank Command of the Army, in Detroit, and the Naval Fuels Laboratory, at Patuxent River, Md. The research and tests on synthetic fuel would ultimately produce a common fuel for the entire military, Air Force officials said. The initial contract for unconventional fuel for the tests will be signed with Syntroleum Corporation of Tulsa, Okla., which has provided synthetic fuel for testing by the Departments of Energy, Transportation and Defense since 1998. John B. Holmes Jr., Syntroleum's president and chief executive officer, said his firm would sell the Air Force its synthetic fuel for testing "at our cost, and we may be losing a little bit." Neither Mr. Holmes nor the Air Force would provide cost estimates for the experimental fuel deal in advance of signing a final contract, expected in coming days. Air Force officials have acknowledged, however, that the cost per gallon of the test fuel will be expensive. Syntroleum can produce 42 gallons of synthetic fuel from 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The raw materials cost about $70. If the military moves ahead with using the synthetic fuels, the Syntroleum technology could be used by factories elsewhere to produce the same 42 gallons of fuel from just $10 worth of coal, Mr. Holmes said. "The United States is essentially the Saudi Arabia of coal," Mr. Holmes said. "It can be mined relatively inexpensively. We really believe that one of the things we can do to help our country's energy needs is to use the abundance of coal reserves." Mr. Aimone said the large plants needed to produce nonconventional fuels did not exist and would have to be designed and built by the industry. But he added: "We believe there are economic incentives as we invest in this, and invest with the industry at large, because there are vast coal reserves in this country. The economic pressures of rising oil prices can be moderated by the price of coal."

Murth: The Military is falling apart!

Or, maybe not! Hmm, wonder why we don't see these stories in the media? Active-Duty Recruiting Tops Goals for 11th Straight Month By Donna Miles American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, May 10, 2006 – All four services exceeded their active-duty recruiting goals in April for the 11th consecutive month and remain ahead of their year-to-date goals, defense officials announced today. And although four of the six reserve components slipped below their April recruiting goals, their year-to-date progress, particularly for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, shows promise, Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman, told American Forces Press Service. During what has historically been a slow recruiting period, the active Army recruited almost 5,700 members, 105 percent of its goal, for April. The Air Force signed on almost 2,400 airmen, 101 percent of its goal, and the Navy and Marine Corps met 100 percent of their April goals, recruiting almost 2,600 and almost 1,500 members, respectively, Krenke reported. Year-to-date recruiting numbers were equally impressive, she said. As of April, the Army had exceeded its goal by 4 percent, with more than 37,000 recruits. The Marine Corps and Air Force exceeded their goals by 1 percent, with almost 15,000 and almost 18,000 recruits, respectively. And the Navy met its goal, recruiting almost 18,000 sailors. Active-duty retention remained sky-high, a good-news story Krenke said has had some unintended negative consequences. It's keeping active duty members from joining the reserve components and filling critical positions there. Former active servicemembers have long been the biggest source of reserve-component recruits and a valuable resource, Krenke said. During April, the Marine Corps Reserve exceeded its recruiting goal by 1 percent, with 411 recruits, and the Air Force Reserve met its goal, with 544 recruits. But with almost 5,900 new recruits - more than the other five reserve components combined - the Army National Guard still fell 10 percent short of its April goal, Krenke said. The Army Reserve recruited more than 2,100 members in April, 83 percent of its goal. The Air National Guard recruited more than 700 airmen, 92 percent of its goal, and the Navy Reserve, almost 650 sailors, 75 percent of its goal, Krenke said. The Army National Guard, Air Force Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve all have recruited above or at their year-to-date goals, 103, 105 and 100 percent, respectively. The Army Reserve stands at 95 percent of its year-to-date goal; the Air National Guard, at 86 percent, and the Navy Reserve, at 84 percent. "Overall, we're still looking at a positive recruiting picture and optimistic about finishing the fiscal year in good shape," Krenke said. "Despite monthly ups and downs in the recruiting numbers, it's still evident that our recruitment and marketing efforts are having an effect and that young people still consider the military a worthwhile endeavor," she said.

Iran's Declaration of War against us..

New York Sun Editorial May 11, 2006 "President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda." What this means is "Peace only unto those who follow the true path." It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels. Much of the rest of Ahmadinejad's letter is devoted to portraying Mr. Bush as an infidel. Given that Mr. Bush is not about to convert to Islam, what the letter presages is, if anything, an Islamic attack. So the thing to think about is what this implies for American policymakers. For one thing, no step short of converting to Islam will avert the planned attack so long as the regime in Tehran remains in power. All the "carrots" that the doves in the American foreign policy establishment want to offer - abandoning Israel, offering Iran "security guarantees" and economic and political relations - fall short of what Iran's president demands. He demands that America "follow the true path," that is, convert to Islam. Short of that, America will not receive peace from the Iranian regime. Mr. Bush has been clear that America wishes the Iranian people well and supports them in their quest for freedom from their clerical regime. He needs to do everything he can to help the Iranian people oust the regime in Tehran before the regime has a chance to launch its offensive against America. Such an offensive by Iran would be dangerous enough with conventional weapons; we certainly don't want to permit a nation that is about to attack us to have nuclear weapons. And our president would do us all a service by telling Americans about this Iranian declaration of war. When Al Qaeda issued its February 1998 fatwa, only a few Americans recognized its significance as a declaration of war. That took until September 11, 2001. This time around, let's not miss the warning."

Iran's Letter to the United States...

"TYRANT'S LETTER LUNACY: IRAN JERK BLAMES U.S. FOR 9/11 IN 'DIPLOMATIC' MEMO" By DEBORAH ORIN New York Post May 10, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - Iran's president implicates U.S. intelligence in the plotting of 9/11 and asks whether Jesus would approve of President Bush in his rambling, ranting letter made public yesterday. "Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems - and even hunts its opponents abroad," wrote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration?" The wild ramblings are little more than a ham-handed attempt to buy time as the United States steps up its effort to shut down Iran's nuclear program, officials said yesterday. They portrayedthe bizarre document - the first diplomatic communication from Tehran since 1979 - as a stalling tactic in the contentious negotiations among the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council over Iran's nuclear program. "The letter appears to be more about trying to change the subject," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling in Florida with Bush. The 18-page letter gives a rare insight into a man who has largely been a mystery to the West, showing him as fixated on a long list of sometimes absurd grievances against the United States - and making references to Jesus and other religious figures. "I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (Peace be upon him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth," Ahmadinejad wrote Bush, who has said that Christ is his favorite philosopher. "If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior?" - referring to U.S. policy in the Middle East. The Iranian leader also blasts Bush for U.S. support of Israel, saying there's no justification for the Jewish state's existence, and blames the nation for challenges to Iran's nuclear ambitions.That's the only vague mention of Iran's aggressive nuclear program in the letter at a time when the United States and its allies are seeking to stop Iran before it gets nuclear weapons. "This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Associated Press. The letter - given front-page coverage in Iran's newspapers - claims to be the "words and opinions of the Iranian nation" toward finding "a way out of the problems" facing humanity. Ahmadinejad's letter sounds as if "it's purely to cover his butt domestically - he made an offer, it was refused, what else can he do?" said Lexington Institute analyst Dan Goure. The Iranian president does say that Saddam Hussein - who fought a bloody war against Iran - "was a murderous dictator" and "the people of the region are happy" that he got overthrown. But he blasts Bush for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and says the war left U.S. soldiers "stained with the blood of others." "Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture and you do not like to be lied to," the Iranian president writes. At a time when Bush is pressing for the spread of democracy across the world and into Iran, Ahmadinejad contends that democracy is a failure and the answer is to yield to "the will of God." Ahmadinejad has threatened to "wipe Israel off the face of the map," fueling worries about what Iran would do if it had nuclear weapons. In the past, he has denied the Holocaust ever took place. In the letter, he claims there is no justification for the creation of Israel, even if 6 million Jews were killed.

Looks like Al Qaeda is having some problems..

More intel product from the 16 April raids in Yusifiya. Turns out that AQIZ can't get enough ammo into Baghdad, their organization is withering and they are unable to conduct anything more than hit and run attacks. Not that you would hear any of this in the mainstream media. This is from Central Command laying out some of the captured documents which have been translated: "A glance at the reality of Baghdad in light of the latest events: It has been proven that the Shiites have a power and influence in Baghdad that cannot be taken lightly, particularly when the power of the Ministries of Interior and Defense is given to them, compared with the power of the mujahidin in Baghdad. During a military confrontation, they will be in a better position because they represent the power of the state along with the power of the popular militias. Most of the mujahidin power lies in surprise attacks (hit and run) or setting up explosive charges and booby traps. This is a different matter than a battle with organized forces that possess machinery and suitable communications networks. Thus, what is fixed in the minds of the Shiite and Sunni population is that the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and closer to controlling it while the mujahidin (who represent the backbone of the Sunni people) are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government. The only power the mujahidin have is what they have already demonstrated in hunting down drifted patrols and taking sniper shots at those patrol members who stray far from their patrols, or planting booby traps among the citizens and hiding among them in the hope that the explosions will injure an American or members of the government. In other words, these activities could be understood as hitting the scared and the hiding ones, which is an image that requires a concerted effort to change, as well as Allah’s wisdom.The strength of the brothers in Baghdad is built mainly on booby trapped cars, and most of the mujahidin groups in Baghdad are generally groups of assassin without any organized military capabilities. There is a clear absence of organization among the groups of the brothers in Baghdad, whether at the leadership level in Baghdad, the brigade leaders, or their groups therein. Coordination among them is very difficult, which appears clearly when the group undertake a join operations. The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad (for example, taking control of a university, a hospital, or a Sunni religious site). At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad. The role that the Islamic party and the Islamic Scholars Committee play in numbing the Sunni people through the media is a dangerous role. It has been proven from the course of the events that the American investment in the Party and the Committee were not in vain. In spite of the gravity of the events, they were able to calm down the Sunni people, justify the enemy deeds, and give the enemy the opportunity to do more work without any recourse and supervision. This situation stemmed from two matters: First, their media power is presented by their special radio and TV stations as the sole Sunni information source, coupled with our weak media which is confined mainly to the Internet, without a flyer or newspaper to present these events. Second, in the course of their control of the majority of the speakers at mosques who convert right into wrong and wrong into right, and present Islam in a sinful manner and sins in a Muslim manner. At the same time we did not have any positive impact or benefits from our operations. The mujahidin do not have any stored weapons and ammunition in their possession in Baghdad, particularly rockets, such as C5K Katyosha or bomber or mortars which we realized their importance and shortage in Baghdad. That was due to lack of check and balance, and proper follow-ups. The National Guard status is frequently raised and whether they belong to the Sunnis or Shiites. Too much talk is around whether we belong to them or not, or should we strike and kill their men or not? It is believed that this matter serves the Americans very well. I believe that the Committee and the Party are pushing this issue because they want to have an influence, similar to the Mujahidin’s. When and if a Sunni units from the National Guard are formed, and begin to compete with the mujahidin and squeeze them, we will have a problem; we either let them go beyond the limits or fight them and risk inciting the Sunnis against us through the Party’s and the Committee’s channels. I believe that we should not allow this situation to exist at all, and we should bury it before it surfaces and reject any suggestion to that effect. (Salah), the military commander of Baghdad (he used to be the commander of the Rassafah County and still is) is a courageous young man with a good determination but he has little and simple experience in the military field and does not have a clear vision about the current stage and how to deal with it Most of his work at al-Rassafah County is to take cars to the Jubur Arab Tribes, convert them into booby traps and take them back inside Baghdad for explosion. And the more booby trap cars he makes, the more success he has. This alone is not a work plan and we do not benefit from it in the medium range let alone the long range.(Salah): The current commander of Northern al-Karkh (Abu-Huda) is very concerned because of his deteriorating security situation caused by being pursued by the Americans, since they have his picture and voice print. Therefore, his movement is very restricted and he is unable to do anything here. We should remove him from Baghdad to a location where he can work easier; otherwise he is closer to become totally ineffective. I know nothing about his past military experience or organizational skills.(Salah): Northern al-Karkh groups are estimated at 40 mujahid, so is the Southern Karkh. They could double that number if necessary. Al-Rassafah groups in general is estimated at 30 mujahidin as I was informed by the commander of al-Rassafah. These are very small numbers compared to the tens of thousands of the enemy troops. How can we increase these numbers?"

Our newest military recruits...

We still have patriots in this country.. "America's Newest Recruits" By Jane Sutton Sun May 7, 2:05 PM ET MIAMI (Reuters) - The Iraq war has made it tougher to sign up young men and women for the all-volunteer U.S. military, but a group of new recruits said they were drawn by a sense of duty, a chance for adventure, career training and college tuition benefits. Coast Guard recruit Joshua Gonzalez, a Miami native nearing his 18th birthday, said he joined the military in part because his career options seemed limited. "Jobs are hard to find in Miami, I can't pay for college." Gonzalez was one of 144 recruits sworn into the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Coast Guard during a ceremony in a sweltering hangar at the Opa-locka Airport near Miami last week. Gonzalez said he chose the Coast Guard in part because he wanted to defend his homeland, from its own shores. His mother, Linda Murray, watched the ceremony proudly from a row of folding chairs and tried not to dwell on the chance her son could be assigned to a ship on Iraq war duty in the Middle East. "I think it's a good thing, an honorable thing. It's his duty," Murray said. "It's a big contribution. Then if they don't come back, it's a sacrifice. You kind of tuck that deep down. ... You've got to have some faith." The swearing-in ceremony was part of the annual McDonald's Air & Sea Show that continued through Sunday in south Florida, where the military's elite parachutists and precision flying teams showed their skills and high-tech hardware, partly to attract recruits. While the other branches of the military exceeded their recruiting goals last year, the Army, which provides the bulk of U.S. ground forces in the Iraq war, missed its target by about 9 percent and lagged slightly behind last year's numbers during the first half of fiscal 2006. One recruiter said the newest members of the military were aware of the possible dangers."They know what they're getting into. They watch the news all the time," said Navy recruiter Mack Pierce. Rene Carbonell said he joined the Army and asked for an infantry assignment because he wants to be on the front lines. "I wanted to be right there where everything is. I'm ready to go," said Carbonell, 18. "I want to serve my country. I think that's what most people want to do when they join the military." Amos Aristil, 19, a Haitian-born U.S. citizen, said he joined the Navy to help protect his new country and to train in the medical corps to become a dental assistant. "It is a great opportunity for me," Aristil said. Shakita Cook, 18, said she joined the Army in part because the college tuition benefits will help her study for a career in criminal justice. But also because, "I want to go overseas, I want to see different stuff." Quasan Browne, an 18-year-old Air Force recruit, said he joined because, "Someone has to do it." "We've got to protect our families. War is not a problem, as long as we can keep everyone at home safe." Browne wants to work in the Air Force Intelligence Service and likes the idea of launching into a career now rather than spending years in college and then starting a job hunt. "They're going to give me college credits while I get the experience. ... I'm going to get my life started sooner," he said. "I know there's a risk. You've got to take a chance," Browne said. Joshua Vakili, a 20-year-old Marine recruit with his hair shaved into a mohawk, said it might be "a bad time to join," but that he wanted to do something that would push him hard. "I always wanted to do something very tough," said Vakili, who hopes to join a Special Forces reconnaissance unit, serve 20 years in the military and then join the CIA or FBI. "It doesn't bother me that much that a war's going on. It scares me sometimes but I'm not too worried," Vakili said.

Sons of Al-Anbar now graduating from BMT...

The Sons of Al Anbar Graduate Blackanthem Military News, HABBANIYAH, Iraq, May 02, 2006 AL Anbar Governor Ma'moun presents an honor grad with certificate and congraulates him for his efforts.The 1st cycle of Sunni Iraqi Army (IA) recruits graduate Combat Basic Training at East Camp Habbaniyah. Nearly one thousand local men graduated IA Combat Basic Training Camp Sunday morning at forward operating base (FOB) Habbaniyah, 20 kilometers east of Ar Ramadi in the Al Anbar province. They are the 1st cycle of the "Sunni 5000" that volunteered during local IA recruiting drives held monthly in Ar Ramadi, Al Fallujah and Al Qaim. It is expected that by mid-fall November time frame, the "Sunni 5000" will be hard at work in the Anbar province. The Iraqi Ministry of Defense (MOD) has been awaiting a surge in Sunni IA recruits for quite some time. Many feel that Sunni men have been reluctant to join the national army and this serves as a significant step towards building a cohesive and diverse security force, representative of the Iraqi people. The Ministry’s plan is to first, successfully integrate the increasing number of Sunnis into the Iraqi Army and moreover, implement measures to assign these Soldiers to units with areas of operations (AO) within their representative residences. The goal of the Iraqi MOD is to bolster the public’s confidence and support for local Iraqi Army. Iraqi Army salute during the pass and review. Over the course of five weeks, the new recruits learned the basic Soldiering skills necessary to ensure the safety and protection of the citizens of Al Anbar. Iraqi Army Instructors, similar to Coalition Force Drill Sergeants, train the new recruits in military customs and courtesies, basic rifle marksmanship, first aid procedures and various squad tactics, each essential for patrolling and conducting security operations. Furthermore, the MOD hopes to incorporate a follow-on school for select recruits specializing in emergency medical care, vital to the sustainment of IA combat power. The Chief Iraqi Combat Basic Training Instructor commented on the 1st rotation of Sunni recruits. Three weeks into the training cycle he stated, "Unlike prior rotations I have led, many [of the new recruits] are former Republican Guard Junud (Soldiers). They have military experience and are progressing fast." Chief Fadel views the influx of Sunnis into the Army as a positive step towards building a more diverse and capable military. With over eight rotations as Senior Instructor under his belt, Chief Fadel is proud to be a part of the new Habbaniyah training facility, the 1st of its kind in the Anbar region. Sunni grads put on a show, forming a pyramid and announcing "Asha Al Iraq" Demonstrating their national pride to all the guests in attendance." Lt. Col. Steven Greaf, Coalition Forces IA Combat Basic Training Senior Advisor, expressed his satisfaction with the way things are moving ahead. "It is honorable that these brave Sunni men are coming forward and I am pleased to witness their dedication to serving the people of Al Anbar province." Among the guest speakers at the graduation was Al Anbar Governor Ma’moun Al Awani. Governor Ma’moun spoke to the 978 new graduates lining the parade field, extending his gratitude for their dedication to the security of Al Anbar. He reassured the men that they represent the future of Anbar and have set the stage for Sunni prosperity in Iraq. Following Governor Ma’moun, 1st Division IA Executive Commander, General Baha shared his thoughts with the audience. Fellow Junud, Iraqi Police, Anbar key leaders and Coalition Forces alike cheered for the new graduates as they marched by the VIP stage conducting the traditional pass and review. Honor graduates from each Company were awarded certificates. General Sha’aban Muhammed Samier, the Al Anbar Provincial Police Chief, focused on the importance of providing support to all three prominent cities in Al Anbar (Al Qaim, Ar Ramadi, and Al Fallujah). He motivated the new graduates to take on their new positions.