us troop losses plunge in iraq

Combat fatalities could be as low as 23 for October, a level not seen since 2006. Iraqi losses also fall. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1031/p01s01-usmi.html By Gordon Lubold Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Washington US troop losses in Iraq have plummeted in the past few months to levels not seen since early 2006 – an encouraging sign, say analysts and defense officials, that the US strategy is working, at least for now. American defense officials cite recent weapons finds, disruption of bombmaking cells, and the 2007 "surge" of US forces as contributing to a dramatic improvement in security in many parts of Iraq, cutting casualties among both Iraqi civilians and US troops. It is too soon to know if the trend will last or whether the reduction of American forces in coming months, as planned, will undermine what remains a fragile security on the ground. Nor does it signal that victory is imminent. Instead, the security gains present a "window of opportunity" that will stay open only if economic opportunity, government coherence, and stronger Iraqi security forces materialize in Iraq, says a senior defense official. "If those things don't occur, then you'll begin to see things backslide on the military side," says the official, who asked not to be named in order to speak more freely. It's far from clear if the pieces that US officials see as needing to come together in Iraq will do so. Much of the Iraqi government is still not functional, and US commanders marvel at its inability to spend its budget – seen as key to establishing permanent security by stimulating economic activity and restoring basic services to Iraqis. 120 deaths in May; 23 in October The Pentagon reported 23 service members killed in combat this month as of Tuesday, noting that insurgent and other attacks have plunged in violence-prone places like Baghdad. As recently as May, as the Pentagon completed its "surge" of about 30,000 additional US forces and began military operations in more dangerous areas of Iraq, US combat deaths were five times as high, with 120 killed. This month, by contrast, the casualty rate is on par with that of March 2006, when 27 service members were killed. Since the beginning of the war, only a few months have seen fewer fatalities than this month, including February 2004, arguably the predawn of the insurgency in Iraq, when 12 US service members were killed. Still, the number of US forces killed so far this year is a few dozen more than the total number killed in action during all of 2006. Yet the recent trend is a positive sign, officials and analysts say. What makes it significant is that US forces in Iraq are still conducting operations, not "hunkering down" in the relative security of the many sprawling US bases. "There is no other way to interpret it but as extremely good news," says Michael O'Hanlon, a senior analyst at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington. Conditions remain dangerous, of course. A suicide bomber on Monday killed nearly 30 people at the morning roll call of a police unit in Baquba, north of Baghdad. The same day, a brigadier general assigned to the US Army Corps of Engineers became the most senior American officer to be seriously injured by a roadside bomb. He is expected to make a full recovery. In the meantime, extremist elements within the Iraqi security forces pose an ongoing concern. But it's hard to argue with fewer US casualties, says Mr. O'Hanlon, who is both hawkish and critical of the war. He took some flak over the summer for co-writing an op-ed that critics said was too rosy about the troop surge in Iraq, though much of the article's analysis has so far been borne out. "There are a million things still wrong in Iraq, but it is extremely good news in what remains a very difficult war," he says. In Iraq, there's never a simple answer to any question, and the explanation for why security is improving is no different. The so-called Anbar Awakening, in which Sunni sheikhs in Anbar Province came together to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, and an apparent retreat of the Shiite militia Jash al-Mahdi have lessened the number of bombings and other violence, US military commanders in Iraq say. In addition, the proliferation of what is known as "concerned citizens" – average Iraqis typically paid by the US to maintain security in their neighborhoods – has changed the security situation on the ground in places like Babil and Diyala Provinces, where both US and Iraqi officials say people have tired of the violence. But the senior military official says recent discoveries of major weapons caches – five in the past week – and the disruption of bombmaking cells by going after their leaders have also had an impact. "We've really focused on attacking the leadership," the senior defense official says. "We're really focusing on trying to take down that enemy line of operation." But the situation there is still very wait-and-see. Pentagon officials say violence in Iraq is down considerably since the last of the surge forces arrived there in early summer, and incidents during the holy month of Ramadan – typically a time of heightened violence – were the lowest in three years, according to Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, director of operational planning at the Pentagon, during a briefing last week. (Iraq's Interior Ministry has reported that the nation's death toll in October is at the lowest level in 18 months.) "While this is indeed encouraging, Al Qaeda in Iraq, other extremist groups, and criminal elements in Iraq continue to be major threats," he said. "The likelihood that those groups will attempt spectacular attacks, especially in places like northern Iraq and in and around different areas of Baghdad, remains significant." Lawrence Korb, a former top Pentagon official who is now at the liberal Center for American Progress, another think tank in Washington, says he is hopeful but not altogether confident that a drop-off in troop losses represents a turning point in Iraq. "We've seen these lulls before," says Mr. Korb, a critic of US policy in Iraq. He's hoping this one will be permanent.

Good news from iraq

How persistence pays for a Baghdad baker With improved security in the Iraqi capital, customers are buying more tarts and cakes. By Sam Dagher Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor Baghdad-Over the summer, rarely a day passed without a car bomb going off near the neighborhood where Hussein Faleh has persevered through the worst days in Baghdad. Since 2004, he's kept The Vanilla Pastry Shop open – and filled with some of the best raspberry-kiwi tarts and hazelnut-chocolate cakes in Iraq. Although Jadriyah has always been safer than most areas in the city (it sits across the river from the fortified Green Zone and is home to both Iraqi and US officials), Mr. Faleh says that in recent weeks he has seen the fruits of improved security throughout Baghdad. His story is one of dogged persistence in the face of adversity, and it's now paying off. More of his customers – the ones who haven't joined the millions who've fled to neighboring Jordan or Syria – are venturing back for his famous pastries and slices of cake that sell for up to 1,750 dinars ($1.50), about three times the price charged by a typical bakery in the capital. This month, according to Iraq's Interior Ministry, Iraq is set to post the lowest death toll in 18 months. The ministry said Monday that violence throughout the country has dropped 70 percent since June, when the US completed its surge of troops. So far this month, according to state numbers, 285 Iraqis have been killed. In January, that number topped 1,992. That's not to say that the violence has ended. On Monday, a suicide bomber on a bicycle blew up in a crowd of police recruits, killing at least 27, in Baquba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. But the drop in overall attacks has given Faleh some hope. "Maybe the improving security situation will allow us one day to have some tables on the sidewalk and serve coffee and drinks with our pastries and cakes," he says. It hasn't always been his ambition to be a baker. Three years ago, Faleh's friend, Hussein al-Shabibi, decided to open a business. At the time, Faleh says he was disillusioned and discouraged. He couldn't find a job as a teacher with his education degree. "Being a teacher is not the big deal it used to be due to the situation in our country," he says. So he decided to turn his hobby of making cakes and sweets for his family and neighbors into his career. The idea was that the discerning middle-class and upper-middle-class families of Jadriyah and nearby Karrada would clamor for quality cakes and pastries. "My talents exploded, and business was good," he says. At first, the shop was doing a brisk business catering parties, weddings, and other occasions. But a worsening insurgency in 2005 spiraled into a vicious sectarian war and campaign of sectarian cleansing in 2006, which redrew neighborhood boundaries and forced many to flee to the Kurdish-controlled north or to Amman, Jordan, or Damascus, Syria. Many of the gated villas near the shop have either been abandoned by their owners or are being guarded by caretakers. Even the owner of the bakery, Mr. Shabibi, has joined his family in Amman, where he has since opened a branch of his sweet shop. But his Baghdad outpost has remained resilient in the face of a multitude of challenges largely due to Faleh's dedication. Dangers still lurk By 10 a.m. on most days, as Iraqis maneuver through the choking traffic brought on by extra security and checkpoints, Faleh has already been hard at work for hours, immersed in a world of exquisite chocolate mousse cakes and delicate éclairs. "I love my work. It's perfect for me. It has saved me from our reality," he says as he slices peaches for his custard-filled mini fruit tarts. The cleanshaven and mustachioed Faleh wears an apron around his waist. His well-stocked modern kitchen is kept spotless by his two busy assistants. He works every day including Fridays, the traditional Muslim day of rest. The number of attacks has dropped in the city, but he's always aware of the dangers. He lives within walking distance from the shop. He barely ventures out of his neighborhood except for a stroll or a quick meal with his fiancée on some afternoons around the nearby main campus of Baghdad University. "There are no movie theaters. There's just no fun," he says. Baking to escape While the customers are beginning to return, problems of running a business during a war remain. First, the most basic of ingredients, such as flour and chocolate powder and tablets, found on the local market are of such poor quality that they do not meet the shop's standards, says Faleh. Jars of fruit filling – such as raspberry and kiwi, and cocktail-cherries used as toppings – are sometimes hard to find. "Iraqi-made chocolate does not taste right," he says. "The secret of my chocolate mousse cake is the hazelnut chocolate that I use." So every three months Shabibi sends him supplies from Jordan with one of the transport companies that ply the mostly desert highway connecting both countries. Most of the supplies make it through the roughly 12-hour journey, the grueling summer heat, and the probing hands of the Iraqi customs police at the border crossing, says Faleh as he shows off his well-stocked freezer and supply room. Then there is electricity. Although state power supply has improved recently over the summer months when he was fortunate to get three hours a day, the situation is still precarious, forcing the shop to rely on a high-cost and high-maintenance generator to keep strawberry and vanilla-mocha and chocolate layered cheesecakes stored at the right temperature. The latest challenge is the water.He was just told by a municipal inspector that tap water in Jadriyah now has severe chlorine deficiency.So he only uses bottled water for all his preparations of custard and whipped cream. But, it's all worth the effort, he says. "Making sweets makes me forget our bitter reality in a way."

iraqi army raises funds for san diego fires

Iraqi Army at Besmaya Installation Support San Diego Fire Victims By U.S. Army Sgt 1st Class Charlene SipperlyMulti-National Security Transition Command – Iraq Public Affairs BAGHDAD, Iraq — Members of the Iraqi Army in Besmaya collected a donation for the San Diego, Calif., fire victims Thursday night at the Besmaya Range Complex in a moving ceremony to support Besmaya's San Diego residents. Iraqi Army Col. Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1,000 to U.S. Army Col. Darel Maxfield, Besmaya Range Complex officer in charge, Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, to send to the fire victims in California. The money was collected from Iraqi officers and enlisted soldiers in Besmaya. In a speech given during the presentation, Col. Abbass stated that he and the Iraqi soldiers were connected with the American people in many ways, and they will not forget the help that the American government has given the Iraqi people. Abbass was honored to participate by sending a simple fund of $1,000 to the American people in San Diego, to lower the suffering felt by the tragedy.

Electronic vulnerability during the next war

A MAGINOT LINE IN THE SKY BEAT OUR SATELLITES, BEAT AMERICA October 26, 2007 -- AFTER the carnage of the First World War, France responded to the horrors of trench warfare by building the ultimate trenches - the infamous Maginot Line, a system of almost 5,000 individual fortifications arrayed along hundreds of miles of front to a depth of 20 miles. Only the Great Wall of China was longer - and the Maginot Line was vastly more complex. A marvel of military engineering, the problem was that it required an enemy who played by French rules. What happened? Paris poured so much money and effort into its network of fortresses that the generals couldn't believe it wouldn't work - the Germans would simply have to behave as required. The Germans didn't. France fell. Now the United States sits in imagined security behind its own array of crucial strategic assets - our network of satellites. Beat our satellites, beat us. The Chinese know it. The Russians know it. And religious fanatics are bound to figure it out. The Chinese are developing the capability to attack our satellite network; the Russians already have it - and terrorists would love to get it. Over the years, a number of analysts, such as Lt.-Col. John A. Gentry (ret.) and Prof. William A. Wulf, have tried to raise the alarm about aspects of our "high-tech" Maginot Line - but the warnings never really stuck. The ultimate vulnerability would come from a globe-spanning war with a power like China. Beijing has no intention of speeding out of its harbors to provide pop-up targets for the U.S. Navy. The Chinese are developing asymmetrical means to fight us on the broadest possible front - not least, striking our homeland in innovative ways. Beijing has already tested an anti-satellite weapon, and it's honing its cyber-attack skills to interfere with satellite transmissions and data processing. What happens if we lose key links in our satellite system? We lose our strategic early-warning capability. We lose our ability to track enemy movements. We lose our ability to communicate, from the dirty-boots level to the National Command Authority. The Global Positioning System goes away. Most of our hyperexpensive weapons systems can't hit their targets - we lose the precision-guided bombs and cruise missiles without which the Air Force and Navy can no longer fight. And that's just the military side of things. Try daily life without satellite communications. The Pentagon's aware of this threat - but, like the interwar French military establishment, refuses to treat it with adequate seriousness: We've spent so much money on weapons and support systems that rely on satellites that we "just say no" when it comes to contemplating a war in which the crucial link in our arsenal goes away. And satellites are the crucial link. Digitized information is to sophisticated 21st-century militaries what petroleum was to the armies of the last century. Turn off the tap, and the war machine grinds to a halt. Despite some classified programs underway, we're basically counting on our enemies to play nice and leave our satellites unmolested. Well, good luck. Nor do those $100,000-a-page ads that defense contractors run in the print media (ultimately billed to you, the taxpayer) ever explain that the "Network-centric Warfare" they tout fades to black if the satellites go down. And they're going to go down - unless we get serious, fast. There are three basic ways to attack our satellite network: physical destruction or impairment of the satellites themselves, jamming the communications links and cyber attacks on the support and user networks (the latter would range from simply taking down sites to entering them and corrupting data - perhaps to the point of retargeting our weapons). The Chinese and the Russians are working on all three approaches - counting on the synergies achieved to devastate our warfighting capabilities. What are we doing about it? Buying more systems that rely on satellites to function. We're so determined to lock this threat in the closet that we haven't even worked out the legal ramifications of an attack, physical or cyber, on our satellite networks. It might seem obvious to you and me that if a foreign power shot down or crippled one of our satellites, it would be an act of war. But plenty of lawyers today would argue that space isn't U.S. territory and that such an attack falls into a gray area. Nonsense. The obvious legal precedent is the venerable rule that an attack on a U.S.-flagged ship on the high seas constitutes an act of war. But the primary purpose of lawyers today - including some in uniform - seems to be to argue the enemy's case. What do we need to do? Three things: * The president and Congress must publish a far-more-explicit "Satellite Security Doctrine" that makes it clear that a surprise attack on the U.S. defense satellite network will be treated not only as an act of war but also as a war crime - and that our response will be swift, asymmetrical and disproportionate. * We need to concentrate far more defense dollars on protecting our satellites, rather than on fighter aircraft with no one to fight or the Rube Goldberg missile-defense system that we're determined to foist on the Poles and Czechs (and which relies on satellite communications). * We need to declare a moratorium on the purchase of new military systems that depend on satellite links - until we can guarantee that those links will be preserved in wartime. This issue is second in importance only to the nuclear threat at the height of the Cold War. Just as the French built their entire national defense around a single system, we're constructing the most complex and expensive military in history in a manner that relies on one vulnerable asset - the satellite. If you were America's enemy, would you charge out to take on our tanks, warships and aircraft? Or would you rather paralyze them all?

Bin laden admits al qaeda made mistakes in iraq

It is true: Bin Laden is angry that “Al Qaeda Iraq” is underperforming to the point of failure. As FSM Contributing Editor Dr. Walid Phares reveals, this debacle – as well as how the Western press failed to interpret and report correctly – are both now made clear. Bin Laden’s Frustration with His Lieutenants By Walid Phares Yes, Bin Laden’s latest audiotape aired on al Jazeera is unique. Not in its ideological party line or in the Salafi doctrinal roots; they haven’t changed nor are they expected to. Surely, in a previous speech he inserted some neo-Marxist and Trotskyite rhetoric but that was part of his “American” discourse, and possibly at the request of his Gringo advisers. Today’s audio didn’t concern itself with Berkeley’s approval but instead was focused on chastising the chaotic commanders of Jihad in Iraq. Osama’s message was more the expression of a frustrated (self-appointed) “Caliph” trying to reign in his emirs gone wild in the deserts of the Middle East. The “Lord” is upset with how al Qaeda Iraq has administered the struggle, the people and the image. Incredibly, the leader of al Qaeda said the “Mujahidins” in Iraq committed “mistakes.” This was the first time the man used these words in this context: self criticism. In fact he criticized the emirs for the recklessness of their Jihad in the land of the two rivers. If one reviews the public statements of Bin Laden, at least since 1996, this is the first time he has mentioned the Jihadists’ mistakes, not the errors by Muslim rulers in general. Now, these are his own fighters who are at fault. The last time any al Qaeda leader came close to this posture was the shy warning by Ayman Zawahiri to Zarqawi demanding that the killing of Shiia stop in Iraq. But, at the time, the top leader wasn’t addressing the mistakes of the emirs. He dealt with “higher geopolitical matters”, according to the comments of Abdel Bari Atwan on al Jazeera tonight. “Sheikh Bin Laden said Atwan deals with high level issues, such as the confrontation with the United States, India etc., but this time the Sheikh is dealing with issues on the ground.” Maybe this is not as comparable in context, but I see this event as a summoning by the “Fuhrer” to his Generals after losing Libya, Stalingrad or Normandy. A possible analogy would be that the plan of the high commander was excellent, but the commanding officers messed it up. Indeed, since that speech delivered on February 11, 2003 - in which Osama asked his worldwide Jihadists to prepare for Iraq and form the expeditionary corps to fight the Kuffar (infidels) for Baghdad - the terrorist activities were scoring points there: instability, bloodshed, sectarian violence, further recruitment, and political chaos behind enemy lines, that is within the West, particularly in America. But things began to change as the “generals” started to act as owners of the land. Again on al Jazeera (swiftly after the tape was released), another commentator, Abdelwahhab al Qassab, said the reason for the setback was the interference of al Qaeda (foreign fighters) in Iraqis’ daily lives. Qassab is right, I’d argue, the emirs went wild in Iraq with the Sunni population, particularly with the tribes. They went a la Khmer Rouge with traditional communities and even with local Islamists. On al Jazeera, other commentators said al Qaeda and its competitors committed the errors “of Algeria.” Interestingly this statement means a lot to the analysts who observed the civil war in Algeria in the 1990s. There, the mainstream Front Islamique du Salut (Salvation Islamic Front), then its first offshoot, the “Armed Islamic Groupings”, and last, the second generation offshoot “Salafi Group of Call and Combat” all went from extreme to more extremism, and thus got themselves involved in mass bloodshed with the Algerian population. Ironically, the academic elite in the West, lost in the labyrinth of interpretation, portrayed the Algerian Jihadists as an interim force for change (!). Stunningly, it is al Qaeda today - in the words of Bin Laden – that claims the Algerian type of reckless Jihadism is irresponsible! This is so revealing in terms of the Western failure to identify the barbarism of the Salafists in the 1990s and, doubling this failure of analysis, to assert that since 2003 al Qaeda Iraq is an expression of the Iraqis opposing the “foreign occupation.” Well, here we have the chief of the organization telling the world that excesses were committed in Iraq, which led to divisions and to alienating tribes and urban communities. Indeed, in his letter to the “Iraqi people” Bin Laden is asking – ironically - for a change of direction by his own followers. Actually, to be more precise, the audio message’s title doesn’t use the term Shaab al Iraq , accurately translated into “the people of Iraq”, but rather, the term “ahl al Iraq” which would translate into: “population”, “communities” or even “the inhabitants”…all an ideological indication that Iraqis aren’t a people of their own but a segment of the Umma (Islamic Nation). His linguistic game aims at telling his audience that local and transnational Jihadis are in fact one in their struggle. In short here are his points: 1. All Jihadists - read also, Islamists - in Iraq must unify; meaning all power struggles should cease. 2. “Mistakes” indeed were made and they need to be corrected. 3. The “tribes” cannot be marginalized and made into enemies. They should be recuperated. 4. Clerics with strong fatwas should be the mentors of the reunified Jihadi movement. 5. The main new direction is that the Jamaa (read the collectivity) presides over the selfish leadership of one or multiple emirs. That’s the bottom line. 6. Last but not least, all Jihadists must come to a center of gravity where everyone must make a concession. Always on al Jazeera, yet another commentator, Dhaya' Rashwan, said that Bin laden is telling his supporters in Iraq to make concessions on a few things and unite with all other insurgents to defeat the US. And magically, Abdelrahman al Jabburi - the spokesperson of the “Iraqi resistance”, a competitive group - called in (al Jazeera) and declared that “indeed local Jihadists must seize the opportunity and reorganize, unite.” Almost as in a captivating movie, in about three hours, the master of al Qaeda had his message aired, the commentators were ready to make a very focused analysis of what it means and leaders from inside Iraq were calling in and approving. The audio message was a few minutes long, while the whole back and forth debate was a few hours long. At the end of the day, this taped show - as I have argued since last summer – proves that al Qaeda central feels their strategic initiative in Iraq is lagging behind. Two things went wrong for al Qaeda: one was the misbehavior of its own barons on the ground, and two - one can see it clearer now - the (US-led) surge has worked so far. The Jihadi combat machine is flying low and is going through turbulence. Any major decision in Washington can accentuate this direction down or release it up. Bin Ladin has taken the risk of exposing this reality to his foes. It should be read thoroughly and responsibly inside the Beltway.

More information about Israel's strike on syrian nukes

By Robin Wright and Joby Warrick- Washington Post Staff Writers Independent experts have pinpointed what they believe to be the Euphrates River site in Syria that was bombed by Israel last month, and satellite imagery of the area shows buildings under construction roughly similar in design to a North Korean reactor capable of producing nuclear material for one bomb a year, the experts say. Photographs of the site taken before the secret Sept. 6 airstrike depict an isolated compound that includes a tall, boxy structure similar to the type of building used to house a gas-graphite reactor. They also show what could have been a pumping station used to supply cooling water for a reactor, say experts David Albright and Paul Brannan of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). U.S. and international experts and officials familiar with the site, who were shown the photographs yesterday, said there was a strong and credible possibility that they depict the remote compound that was attacked. Israeli officials and the White House declined to comment. If the facility is confirmed as the site of the attack, the photos provide a potential explanation for Israel's middle-of-the-night bombing raid. The facility is located seven miles north of the desert village of At Tibnah, in the Dayr az Zawr region, and about 90 miles from the Iraqi border, according to the ISIS report to be released today. Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, said the size of the structures suggested that Syria might have been building a gas-graphite reactor of about 20 to 25 megawatts of heat, similar to the reactor North Korea built at Yongbyon. "I'm pretty convinced that Syria was trying to build a nuclear reactor," Albright said in an interview. He said the project would represent a significant departure from past policies. ISIS, a nonprofit research group, tracks nuclear weapons and stockpiles around the world. Israel, which has nuclear weapons of its own, has not said publicly what its warplanes hit or provided justification for the raid. Syria has denied having a nuclear program. But beginning construction of a nuclear reactor in secret would violate Syria's obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires all signatories to declare their intent when such a decision is made, according to sources at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. The new report leaves many questions unanswered, such as what Syria intended to use the unfinished structures for and the exact role, if any, of North Korea in their construction. Also unclear is why Israel chose to use military force rather than diplomatic pressure against a facility that could not have produced significant nuclear material for years. The new details could fuel debate over whether Israel's attack was warranted. Albright acknowledged the difficulties of proving what the site is, in part because the roof was put on at an early stage, blocking views of the foundation and obscuring any potential reactor components. In construction of other types of nuclear reactors, the roof is left off until the end so cranes can move heavy equipment inside. Some nuclear experts urged caution in interpreting the photos, noting that the type of reactor favored by North Korea has few distinguishing characteristics visible from the air. Unlike commercial nuclear power reactors, for example, a North Korea-style reactor lacks the distinctive, dome-shaped containment vessel that prevents the release of radiation in the event of a nuclear accident. "You can look at North Korea's [reactor] buildings, and they look like nothing," said John E. Pike, a nuclear expert and director of GlobalSecurity.org. "They're just metal-skinned industrial buildings." The proximity of the building to a water source also is not significant by itself, Pike said. But Brannan, of ISIS, combed through a huge amount of satellite imagery to find a site along the Euphrates that matches a reactor's specifications as well as descriptions of the attack site. The compound's distance from populated areas was a key detail, since reactors are usually isolated from major urban populations. The site is also close to an irrigated area, which would explain statements by some officials privy to details of the attack that the facility was located near orchards. A small airstrip about two miles away could have been used to transport personnel to the site. U.S. and foreign officials tracking the incident said that Syria is presently trying to remove remaining structures at the site. The International Atomic Energy Agency has acquired its own aerial photographs but has not finished analyzing them, according to an IAEA source. In an interview published yesterday, IAEA director and Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei expressed anger at the Syrians, Israelis and foreign intelligence agencies for not providing information about a suspected nuclear program. "We have said, 'If any of you has the slightest information showing that there was anything linked to nuclear, we would of course be happy to investigate it,' " he told the French newspaper Le Monde. "Frankly, I venture to hope that before people decide to bombard and use force, they will come and see us to convey their concerns."ElBaradei also said an airstrike could endanger efforts to contain nuclear proliferation."When the Israelis destroyed Saddam Hussein's research nuclear reactor in 1981, the consequence was that Saddam Hussein pursued his program secretly. He began to establish a huge military nuclear program underground," he said. "The use of force can set things back, but it does not deal with the roots of the problem."

Why the surge is working in iraq

By PETE HEGSETH New York Post http://www.nypost.com/seven/10232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/no_nightmare.htm The critics had a point: American soldiers were simply caught in the middle - not permitted to take action to stop the violence, and yet still very much in harm's way. But what the critics failed to see was that it didn't have to be that way - that what the troops lacked was an adaptive strategy that recognized and addressed underlying causes of the violence. Enter Gen. David Petraeus and a strategy that did just that. (The term "surge" is far too simplistic, as it implies simply throwing more forces at the problem, when Petraeus' changes in tactics are even more important). The new counterinsurgency approach - namely, to take territory from al Qaeda, hold it, secure it and empower tribal sheiks to work together and rebuild their communities - finally provides an effective "counteroffensive" to the chief tactics of al Qaeda militants and Shiite death squads. America's enemies in Iraq, radical insurgents living and fighting among the general public, understand that they can't continue their fight without capitulation from ordinary Iraqis. Finally, after almost four years, the U.S. military understands this as well. Whereas we used to emphasize overwhelming firepower (even when I was there in 2006), we now emphasize firepower as a last resort. Whereas we used to rush to the scene after the violence occurs, we're now there to repel it or deter it altogether. This commitment - up and down the chain of command - has made a major impact on the tit-for-tat death toll that was threatening to tear the country apart. Sectarian violence has been severely curtailed. Since last December, sectarian deaths throughout Iraq have dropped over 50 percent; overall attacks against civilians are down 50 percent. In Baghdad - the focal point of Petraeus' strategy - sectarian deaths are down almost 80 percent in 10 months and large al Qaeda-style truck and suicide bombings have dropped over 50 percent. Moreover, ordinary Iraqis are providing far more tips and other information. We now get some 23,000 tips a month, four to five times the level of a year before. This measure - which directly correlates to the trust and support of the population - is promising. These are significant and consequential numbers and indicate real successes in stomping out the civil war. But it's not just numbers that make the case that the civil war is ending. Look, too, at what the new strategy lets commanders do in their now-daily discussions with ordinary Iraqis. Petraeus reports that foreign (non-Iraqi) recruits conduct over 80 percent of al Qaeda's attacks; and therefore, by refocusing local tribal leaders on this fact, American commanders are making a convincing argument to the sheiks: Why launch an indiscriminate reprisal against another sect, ratcheting up the level of violence, when you can simply tell us and Iraqi security forces where the foreign insurgents are and we'll go get them? The numbers say that's exactly what's happening. A people drowning in sectarian violence and warped by perpetual vengeance aren't going to immediately engage in political reconciliation. Security improvements must first dampen the violence, lower tensions and restore humanity. This is exactly what Petraeus has done, and we have finally begun providing the tangible security improvements necessary for lasting political solutions at the local and national levels. Although many hope to convince America otherwise, the Iraq war has fundamentally changed in '07. It's not a civil war anymore. It's the people of Iraq vs. al Qaeda and Iranian proxies, with the U.S.-led Coalition helping the Iraqi people swing their sword of sovereignty. That's the kind of good news that people on both sides of the aisle should appreciate. Pete Hegseth, a first lieutenant in the Army National Guard, is executive director of Vets for Freedom. He served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from September '05 to July '06.

LT Michael Murphy receives Medal of Honor Today

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL MURPHY 'MISSION accomplished." That's the reaction of Marcus Luttrell to the news that Lt. Michael Murphy would be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. The presentation will be made to Murphy's parents by President Bush today at the White House. Murphy's life and death are the stuff of storybooks. If only we could change the ending. The recognition of Murphy's gallantry is the final chapter for Operation Redwing and Seal Team 10. The story, which Luttrell immortalized in his best-selling book "Lone Survivor," is a remarkable account of military heroism in the post-9/11 era. Indeed, Murphy is the first recipient of the Medal of Honor for actions in Afghanistan and the first SEAL since Vietnam to be honored. Murphy was the ranking member of a four-man team inserted into the Hindu Kush region of Afghanistan in June 2005. The mission: locate a high-level Taliban operative with ties to Osama bin Laden who was believed to be in a neighboring village. Soon after the SEALs arrived, three goatherds happened upon them. The herders were unarmed, but Murphy and his comrades got a bad vibe and were faced with an unenviable choice: Let the herders go and risk blowing the team's cover, or kill the herders? As team leader, it was Murphy's decision. He let the herders live. An hour later, the SEALs were surrounded by at least 100 Taliban. A vicious gunfight ensued, which Luttrell described for me: "I guess it was about an hour and change into the gun battle. Our communication ties had been severed because of the number of men we were up against . . . there was pretty much no way we were going to get out of there. They had us in a 360-degree pen, and they were wearing us down. We were running low on ammo." Murphy made a last-ditch effort to save his comrades when he stepped into a canyon to make a satellite call for help. He was shot and died in the firefight, with Petty Officers Danny Dietz and Matt Axelson. Sixteen other men sent as reinforcements were killed when their chopper was shot down. It was the deadliest day in Navy special warfare history. Marcus Luttrell watched his friend Michael Murphy die. "In the situation we were in . . . he never lost his cool, and he got help for us," Luttrell said. Lead Petty Officer Luttrell was the only survivor, hence the title of his book. He had to drag his wounded body several miles, until he found refuge with an Afghan villager. Luttrell was awarded the Navy Cross by President Bush. Dietz and Axelson received that award posthumously. Luttrell saw tremendous valor in Murphy, the stuff of Medals of Honor. "He gave up his own life to try to sustain the lives of his men," he told me. "He took it upon himself to muscle out into the middle of this canyon we were in and call for reinforcements. And when he did that, he didn't lose his life immediately because of it. He took a couple of rounds to his back . . . and continued fighting. But after that they had got a fix on his position and moved in on him . . . It ultimately cost him his life." NO ONE COULD be more proud that Murphy's father, Daniel, himself a Vietnam veteran. "I think the family kind of takes it that there is now this public recognition of what we knew about Michael all along," Murphy told me. "It was the manner in which he lived his life and the manner in which he served his country . . . Now the nation knows." "Michael had a knack and an ability to get out of the middle of scrapes. And Maureen" - Michael's mother - "and I never worried about Michael protecting himself. What Maureen and I always worried about was the fact that Michael would put himself in a position, in helping someone else, to get hurt. And that's basically what happened." ". . . Michael believed that a life in service to others and helping others was the only life worth living. And he lived that type of life every day. And so it doesn't surprise us that he would put himself on the line for his friends. He had an intense loyalty and devotion not only to his family and his country, but to his SEAL community and his SEAL teammates. And since his death, that's been reflected in how the SEAL community and his SEAL buddies have embraced the family." Today, Daniel Murphy will receive the Medal of Honor from President Bush in the name of his son. "We're overwhelmed by this. You know, it's very easy to talk about our son as a hero. It is very easy. He has so many good qualities . . . just a wonderful man. The world is a lesser place without him in it." Marcus Luttrell told me one more incredible detail of an already stunning story. "Whoever he had on the phone . . . I remember it like it was yesterday . . . he said, 'Thank you.' " In other words, Michael Murphy, shot twice and probably knowing he was at death's door, maintained his manners when ending the call he hoped would save his fellow SEALs. So, Lt. Murphy, thank you.

every day more american success in baghdad

Local Foes Commit to Peace in Baghdad U.S. Helped Negotiate Agreement Between Shiite, Sunni Leaders http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101802185_pf.html By Joshua Partlow Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, October 19, 2007 BAGHDAD, -- Local Sunni and Shiite leaders from southwestern Baghdad signed an agreement Thursday intended to halt sectarian violence and attacks on American and Iraqi troops, with the condition that security forces limit their raids and offensive operations. The 12-point "reconciliation document between Muslims" was the result of two months of negotiations between U.S. soldiers and power brokers in an area of the capital that has become an important base for Shiite militiamen but has also experienced attacks by Sunni insurgents. The agreement, signed in a conference room in the U.S.-protected Baghdad International Airport compound, is an example of the U.S. military's wide-ranging effort to encourage local leaders to make such peaceful commitments in the absence of momentum toward national reconciliation by Iraqi politicians. "The people in this room are leading the process for all of Baghdad," said Lt. Col. Patrick Frank, commander of the 1st Infantry Division's 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, which operates in southwestern Baghdad. "You are the hope for the entire city." U.S. military officials said that while they did not expect a cessation of violence in such neighborhoods as al-Jihad and al-Furat, the agreement represented a statement of good faith by rival factions and could contribute to improved security in coming months. Frank described the tribal leaders and neighborhood officials as highly influential in the area, a swath of southern Baghdad that is home to 125,000 people. Those involved in the reconciliation agreement are Sunni tribal leaders; members of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading Sunni political party; and local government officials, many of whom have ties to the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. It remains unclear exactly how much power the participants have to rein in either sectarian violence or the lucrative criminal enterprises run by militiamen. Some neighborhoods near those covered by the pact, particularly al-Amil and Bayaa, have witnessed increases in roadside bombings this month and remain strongholds for the Mahdi Army. Thousands of Sunni families have been driven from their homes there.Those districts are "more complicated," said Sabeeh Radi al-Kaabi, president of the district advisory council in the area, noting recent clashes between Sunni tribesmen and the Mahdi Army. "But I have seen the desire of Sunnis and Shiites to end the fighting," he added. The reconciliation meeting was attended by two senior Iraqi government officials -- Safa Hussein, deputy national security adviser, and Bassima al-Jaidri, an adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- who are members of a government committee to implement national reconciliation. Some participants were particularly encouraged by Jaidri's approval of the agreement, given her reputation among some U.S. and Iraqi officials as an ardent Shiite partisan. "I believe that reconciliation is the only solution to save Iraq from violence and terrorism," Jaidri said in an interview after the meeting. "Where it has happened in other areas, we see the curve of violence going down. Reconciliation is the only solution, not military operations." The most contentious issue at Thursday's meeting was a stipulation that the U.S. military and Iraqi security forces would retain the ability to conduct "limited raids on specific targets" in the area. Some Iraqi local leaders wanted all raids and offensive military operations halted, but the American soldiers refused. The compromise language said that the security forces could move against "specific targets that break the law and threaten peace" and that murderers would still be subject to prosecution in Iraqi courts. Frank, the U.S. commander in the area, said his soldiers had already limited themselves to targeted raids, so the agreement would not significantly change their day-to-day behavior. Hours after the agreement was signed, mortar shells or rockets landed near two U.S. military bases in southwestern Baghdad. The reconciliation agreement also calls for the "cessation of firing on main streets, markets, and parks," demands that both Sunnis and Shiites refrain from stealing property from displaced families, and says that authorities will release all innocent people held in American and Iraqi prisons. "These are members of Sunni and Shiite tribes who were involved in fighting each other, but they agreed to look to the future and forget the past," said Hussein, the deputy national security adviser. "I think it is the beginning of a success story."

Portents of a nuclear al qaeda

By David Ignatius Thursday, October 18, 2007; Page A25 Washington Post Rolf Mowatt-Larssen is paid to think about the unthinkable. As the Energy Department's director of intelligence, he's responsible for gathering information about the threat that a terrorist group will attack America with a nuclear weapon. With his shock of white hair and piercing eyes, Mowatt-Larssen looks like a man who has seen a ghost. And when you listen to a version of the briefing he has been giving recently to President Bush and other top officials, you begin to understand why. He is convinced that al-Qaeda is trying to acquire a nuclear bomb that will leave the ultimate terrorist signature -- a mushroom cloud. We've all had enough fear-mongering to last a lifetime. Indeed, we have become so frightened of terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, that we have begun doing the terrorists' job for them by undermining the legal framework of our democracy. And truly, I wish I could dismiss Mowatt-Larssen's analysis as the work of an overwrought former CIA officer with too many years in the trenches. But it's worth listening to his warnings -- not because they induce more numbing paralysis but because they might stir sensible people to take actions that could detect and stop an attack. That's why his boss, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, is encouraging him to speak out. Mowatt-Larssen doesn't want to anguish later that he didn't sound the alarm in time. Mowatt-Larssen has been gathering this evidence since a few weeks after Sept. 11, when then-CIA Director George Tenet asked him to create a new branch on weapons of mass destruction in the agency's counterterrorism center. He helped Tenet prepare the chapter on al-Qaeda's nuclear efforts that appears in Tenet's memoir, " At the Center of the Storm." Now that the uproar over Tenet's mistaken "slam dunk" assessment of the Iraqi threat has died down, it's worth rereading this account. It provides a chilling, public record of al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions. Mowatt-Larssen argues that for nearly a decade before Sept. 11, al-Qaeda was seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As early as 1993, Osama bin Laden offered $1.5 million to buy uranium for a nuclear device, according to testimony presented in federal court in February 2001. When the al-Qaeda leader was asked in 1998 if he had nuclear or chemical weapons, he responded: "Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so." Even as al-Qaeda was preparing to fly its airplane bombs into buildings, the group was also trying to acquire nuclear and biological capabilities. In August 2001, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met around a campfire with Pakistani scientists from a group called Umma Tameer-E-Nau to discuss how al-Qaeda could build a nuclear device. Al-Qaeda also had an aggressive anthrax program that was discovered in December 2001 after bin Laden was driven from his haven in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda proclaimed a religious rationale to justify the WMD attacks it was planning. In June 2002, a Kuwaiti-born cleric named Suleiman Abu Ghaith posted a statement on the Internet saying that "al-Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans" in retaliation for U.S. attacks against Muslims. And in May 2003, at the same time Saudi operatives of al-Qaeda were trying to buy three Russian nuclear bombs, a cleric named Nasir al-Fahd issued a fatwa titled "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels." Interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives confirmed that the planning was serious. Al-Qaeda didn't yet have the materials for a WMD attack, but it wanted them. Most chilling of all was Zawahiri's decision in March 2003 to cancel a cyanide attack in the New York subway system. He told the plotters to stand down because "we have something better in mind." What did that mean? More than four years later, we still don't know. After 2004, the WMD trail went cold, according to Mowatt-Larssen. Many intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaeda doesn't have nuclear capability today. Mowatt-Larssen argues that a more honest answer is: We don't know. So what to do about this spectral danger? The first requirement, says Mowatt-Larssen, is to try to visualize it. What would it take for al-Qaeda to build a bomb? How would it assemble the pieces? How would the United States and its allies deploy their intelligence assets so that they could detect a plot before it was carried out? How would we reinvent intelligence itself to avert this ultimate catastrophe? A terrorist nuclear attack, as Tenet wrote in his book, would change history. If we can see how this story might end, perhaps we can deflect the arrow before it hits its target.

Diyala Province to begin drawdown of us brigades

By ROBERT BURNS Associated Press • Militants arrested: The U.S. military announced the arrest of several militants on both sides of the sectarian divide, including one of five extremists believed to be behind last week's rocket attack that killed two American soldiers at Camp Victory, headquarters for American forces in Iraq. WASHINGTON — Commanders in Iraq have decided to begin the drawdown of U.S. forces in volatile Diyala province, marking a turning point in the U.S. military mission, The Associated Press has learned. Instead of replacing the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division, which is returning to its home base at Fort Hood in December, soldiers from another brigade in Salahuddin province next door will expand into Diyala, thereby broadening its area of responsibility, several officials said Tuesday.In this way, the number of Army ground combat brigades in Iraq will fall from 20 to 19. This reflects President Bush's bid to begin reducing the U.S. military force and shifting its role away from fighting the insurgency toward more support functions like training and advising Iraqi security forces.The December move, which has not yet been announced by the Pentagon, was described by Col. Stephen Twitty, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry, in a telephone interview Tuesday. It was confirmed by three other officials in Iraq, including Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly, chief spokesman for the commanding general of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon. The idea is to avoid vacating a contested area, like Diyala, northeast of Baghdad, while beginning Bush's announced reduction of at least 21,500 troops, of which 17,000 were sent to Baghdad last spring. The shift in Diyala in December could be a model for follow-on reductions next year, with a redrawing of the U.S. lines of responsibility so that a departing brigade has its battle space consumed by a remaining brigade. The unit leaving in December, the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry, has been in Iraq since October 2006. When it leaves, the 4th Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, now in Salahuddin province, will add Diyala to its area of responsibility.

our buried victory in iraq

A war's end has its necessary rituals. The defeated must bow their heads and acknowledge failure. The victors must have their triumph, plus the privilege of dictating the terms of peace as they see fit. If this process does not occur, then there is no closing, no climacteric. The war remains unended on the symbolic and psychological level, which means, for all practical purposes, that it hasn't ended at all. Victory goes a long way toward shaping a war. A mishandled victory often leads to a failed peace. Consider WW I: the brutal provisions of the 1919 Versailles Treaty, which humiliated Germany, made it impossible for the Germans to recover in good order and set the stage for the rise of Hitler. It also did nothing to redeem the anguish and misery of the four years of the trenches, much less the 16 million-plus dead. Then turn to our own Civil War. During the last months, there was talk among Rebel forces of refusing to surrender, of taking to the hills to really make the Yankees bleed. That ended at Appomattox, in large part due to two distinct gestures. The first by Grant who, distracted by the gleam of Lee's sword, added a line to the surrender document directing that "officers will retain their sidearms". The other was by the legendary Joshua Chamberlain, at that time holding the rank of brigadier general. As Confederate troops approached to lay down their arms, Chamberlain ordered his men to salute as they passed. The Rebels gazed back stunned for a moment, then returned the salute. That was all it took. From that point on that war was over. Despite regional tensions between the South and the rest of the country that continued for a century, the thought of secession never seriously recurred. Without a just ending, war is merely a parade of atrocities and massacres, killer apes doing what killer apes have done for three million years or more. It is the victor who gives shape to the ending, who decides whether it will be yet another episode in the long Halloween or something that partakes of the higher aspects of human nature: mercy, honor, and reconciliation. Which is why victory is hated by antiwar types, no matter what their ideology and motivation. (This is not even to mention the agendas of the hard left and the Democrats, which we don't have space to get into.) They don't want war redeemed. Anything that lessens its loathsome aspects makes it easier to view war as a possibility. Victory is one of the failings of war that must be gotten rid of. But of course, in any conflict (excepting wars of exhaustion, which we don't often see) there will be winner and a loser. Victory can't be denied to that extent. But the rituals, the salutes, the expressions of respect and magnanimity, can be undermined. And so we get buried victories. A buried victory is one that has been downgraded and ignored, one that has been hedged with so many qualifications and second thoughts that it is scarcely a victory at all any longer. A buried victory is one from which all the human aspects have been drained, and replaced -- if that's the word -- with bureaucratic procedure. We've seen this for fifty years or more. U.S. forces had effectively secured most of South Vietnam by 1972. The Viet Cong had been a nullity since being effectively wiped out during the Tet Offensive, and the People's Army of North Vietnam had to a large extent been chased across the borders into Cambodia and Laos. South Vietnam was a stable political entity, and with adequate support could have remained that way. But the American left, for purely political reasons, portrayed the situation as a defeat, and in a series of Congressional actions through 1973 and 1974, cut off support for the Saigon government until it was hanging by a string. It fell at last on April 30, 1975, after a heroic final defense at the gates of the city. In the years that followed, close to 3 million were murdered in Southeast Asia. In 1991, having wiped out the bulk of the Iraqi Army in a matter of days, the U.S. contented itself with an incomplete victory. It unilaterally brought the war to a close without demanding recognition of defeat from the Iraqi military, and above all, from Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party. Instead of a clear victory, we were treated to the spectacle of U.S. forces standing by while thousands of innocent Shi'ites and Kurds were slaughtered. Twelve years later, we had to do it all over again, under -- as we are all now well aware -- far more difficult circumstances. (Being self-inflicted, this is another case of Bush Senior adapting the ideas and behavior of his opposition -- "read my lips" in military form.) (Compare those two incidents to the Grenada and Panama conflicts. In both cases, the U.S. fought to the finish, destroyed enemy capabilities, brought down the tyrannies, and remained to oversee the reestablishment of civil government. Today both are free and prosperous nations.) But the most egregious example is the Cold War. Only those who lived through the period have any clear idea of the miracle embodied in that conflict's end. For decades, it was widely believed that the Cold War could climax only with a universal catastrophe, or at least a paroxysm that would leave tens of millions dead. But thanks to Reagan's boldness and acumen, (and not to forget Gorbachev's humanity) it closed without a single ICBM so much as quivering in its silo. It was one of the great victories of the modern epoch, one of a trio of defeats handed out to the enemies of human freedom during the 20th century: absolutism, fascism, and at last, communism. A victory at the highest levels of human endeavor, with nothing of the primitive or brutish about it. "One of the great unsordid acts," as Churchill once put it. At the same time, it was a victory of the common and workaday, in which the average and unheralded individual shared as much in the triumph as any general or diplomat or premier. A glance at the footage of the destruction of the Berlin Wall will reveal as much. And it was buried. "Let's not engage in triumphalism," we were told by the media, by the left, by the academics. "Let's not humiliate the Russians... Both sides were at fault here." We were even told that "Now capitalism must be defeated." As if capitalism ever built walls, or Gulags, or massacred millions for the sake of demonstrating a theory. In not taking its place as the rightful victor, the U.S. was unable to mold the post-Cold War world as it molded Europe after WW II. Bush Senior could talk all he liked about a "New World Order", but nothing of the sort came into being. An individual transported to the present from the mid-1980s would have no difficulty recognizing the world he saw about him -- a belligerent Russia, a conniving and expansionist China, a Latin America flirting for the hundredth time with Marxism, an Africa on the skids. Even Burma in a state of political chaos. The sole new aspect is the internationalization of religious terror by the Jihadis. In 1989, the U.S. was given a once-in-a-century opportunity to remake the global community in the manner of the Treaty of Westphalia or the Congress of Vienna. We decided to be a New Age, politically-correct country instead. Does anyone like the result? Today we see a similar process occurring in Iraq and in the Afghanistan/Pakistan arena. None of the achievements of the Coalition or the Iraqis has gained more than momentary recognition. The purple revolution, the elections, the reconstruction -- all have been dismissed or ignored. What has replaced them is an endless chronicle of suffering and destruction - of war without victory. (In what other conflict would Arthur Chrenkoff's sorely-missed "good news from Iraq" column have been necessary?) The "Mission Accomplished" incident set the tone. George W. Bush's appearance in a military flight suit beneath the banner bearing those words was greeted with a storm of insults and mockery that grew more frantic as the violence in Iraq failed to abate. Today, many believe -- because they were led to believe -- that the banner was placed there by the administration itself, in the kind of cowboy gesture often ascribed to Bush, though seldom actually seen. In truth, it was the work of the ship's crew, who had completed a difficult job with no serious losses and were proud of the fact. This truth failed to get across, and now it will never get across. There will be history books a century from now explaining how Karl Rove put that banner up personally. Once burned, the administration -- along with other branches and agencies of the government -- has been unwilling to claim any accomplishments whatsoever. Saddam Hussein's capture passed without much in the way of acknowledgment. (Quick -- what troops captured him and how were they rewarded?) The same with the killing of Zarqawi and numerous other incidents. Even when making a claim, government spokesmen end with the same sorry whimper, "Of course -- we still have a long way to go.... " providing the media with the precise peg they need to hang their stories on. And the media has obliged. News reports of Coalition or Iraqi achievements became conventional, their form and content as invariable as a Noh play. First would come the announcement of a Coalition triumph -- the capture of an Al-Queda emir, the breakup of a bombing ring -- written in what amounted to a dull monotone. Then the counterpoint: how many bombs went off that day, how many civilians had been killed, how many troops (always ending with the number added to the war's overall total). This part was usually longer than the first, and often enlivened by quotes, eyewitness reportage, and local color, in contrast to the dull prose of the "official news". So each announcement of a triumph was accompanied by its own negation. A narrative has been created in which the impression of victories simply could not occur Now we're achieving the real thing, on the most massive scale. The major element of the "insurrection" (an unsatisfactory term, but does anyone have one better?), the Al-Queda, is being chewed to pieces. The new "surge" strategy -- actually a classic counterinsurgency strategy similar to that utilized in the final years in Vietnam -- has proven itself as clearly as any on record. The enemy has been unable to respond, and is on the run wherever engaged. The Sunnis have been coming over in ever-increasing numbers, fulfilling one of the basic requirements of a successful counterinsurgency effort: the full cooperation of the civilian population. A serious reconciliation has been blooming between the newly-dominant Shi'ites and Sunni minority. Barring unforeseen setbacks, the Coalition appears to be set to prevail. (A number of critics newly cognizant of counterinsurgency are pointing out that it takes years for such an effort to succeed, overlooking the unique aspects of the Iraq situation: the "insurrection" is actually a form of invasion by outside forces, namely Al-Queda. Destroy them, end the invasion, and the "insurrection" becomes a matter of bandits and diehards, easily handled by domestic Iraqi troops.) And how is all this being depicted? It isn't. Early coverage of the surge emphasized how it could go wrong. A "September surprise", a sudden rise in casualties prior to General Petreaus's report to Congress, was predicted. Discord between Iraq factions was emphasized. Several Jihadi "offensives" were announced. None of it came to anything. No "surprise" occurred. The factions are, for the moment, reconciled. Al-Queda offensives, if they ever existed, fizzled out. And in recent weeks... almost nothing. Suddenly, Iraq is not a topic. Achievements in the field have gone unmentioned in a media that couldn't get enough of car bombs, IEDs, massacres, and assassinations. The focus has shifted to the domestic: the endless campaign, bogus "health-care" bills, Al Gore's latest prize. If Iraq is mentioned at all, it's in the context of scandal, as in the Blackwater shooting incident, quite serious in and of itself, but nothing to overshadow the events of the past three months. It's as if news of Pvt. Eddie Slovik's execution overwhelmed any mention of the Allied advance into Germany. We will see more of this. Last Friday, the New York Times, which has granted no meaningful coverage to the surge, featured no less than three stories dealing with civilian casualties. Reportage of a speech by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez ignored his criticism of the media's role in Iraq (or the fact that he calls for redoubling our efforts there), in favor of his attacks on the administration's war efforts. Last week the UN demanded not greater support for the newly-invigorated Iraqi government, but an investigation into the Blackwater incident. There are muted lanterns in the graveyard, the clink of shovels on gravel. Victory in Iraq, one of the hardest-fought in recent American history, is being buried before our eyes. This is unacceptable. American victories are not those of a Tamerlane piling up skulls, of SS units reveling in genocide. As Victor Davis Hanson revealed in his classic study, The Soul of Battle, American wars are fought to free the enslaved, to punish the tyrant, to set right what has been overturned. American victories are nothing to be ashamed of. Pacifist opposition to victory in war is a case of misapplied idealism creating more of the very horrors it decries. A war not properly ended simply engenders more conflicts and creates more misery. If war is useful for anything, it is for solving intractable problems completely and finally. Victory is a key element of this. Victories that are not victories, but simply cessations of combat, will always end up being only temporary. They used to ring bells, the bells of churches, in both thanksgiving and celebration when a war ended victoriously. We don't do that anymore. But we do need to discover the equivalent for the new millennium. The rituals that will enable us to reclaim victory, and with it a lost portion of our humanity.

al qaeada in iraq is crippled

Anyone who has read this blog for more than a month could see this headline coming.. Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401245_pf.html By Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung Washington Post Monday, October 15, 2007; A01 The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.But as the White House and its military commanders plan the next phase of the war, other officials have cautioned against taking what they see as a premature step that could create strategic and political difficulties for the United States. Such a declaration could fuel criticism that the Iraq conflict has become a civil war in which U.S. combat forces should not be involved. At the same time, the intelligence community, and some in the military itself, worry about underestimating an enemy that has shown great resilience in the past."I think it would be premature at this point," a senior intelligence official said of a victory declaration over AQI, as the group is known. Despite recent U.S. gains, he said, AQI retains "the ability for surprise and for catastrophic attacks." Earlier periods of optimism, such as immediately following the June 2006 death of AQI founder Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. air raid, not only proved unfounded but were followed by expanded operations by the militant organization. There is widespread agreement that AQI has suffered major blows over the past three months. Among the indicators cited is a sharp drop in suicide bombings, the group's signature attack, from more than 60 in January to around 30 a month since July. Captures and interrogations of AQI leaders over the summer had what a senior military intelligence official called a "cascade effect," leading to other killings and captures. The flow of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq has also diminished, although officials are unsure of the reason and are concerned that the broader al-Qaeda network may be diverting new recruits to Afghanistan and elsewhere. The deployment of more U.S. and Iraqi forces into AQI strongholds in Anbar province and the Baghdad area, as well as the recruitment of Sunni tribal fighters to combat AQI operatives in those locations, has helped to deprive the militants of a secure base of operations, U.S. military officials said. "They are less and less coordinated, more and more fragmented," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, said recently. Describing frayed support structures and supply lines, Odierno estimated that the group's capabilities have been "degraded" by 60 to 70 percent since the beginning of the year. Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of the Joint Special Operations Command's operations in Iraq, is the chief promoter of a victory declaration and believes that AQI has been all but eliminated, the military intelligence official said. But Adm. William J. Fallon, the chief of U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, is urging restraint, the official said. The military intelligence official, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity about Iraq assessments and strategy.Senior U.S. commanders on the ground, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, have long complained that Central Command, along with the CIA, is too negative in its analyses. On this issue, however, Petraeus agrees with Fallon, the military intelligence official said.For each assessment of progress against AQI, there is a cautionary note that comes from long and often painful experience. Despite the increased killings and captures of AQI members, Odierno said, "it only takes three people" to construct and detonate a suicide car bomb that can "kill thousands." The goal, he said, is to make each attack less effective and lengthen the periods between them.Right now, said another U.S. official, who declined even to be identified by the agency he works for, the data are "insufficient and difficult to measure." "AQI is definitely taking some hits," the official said. "There is definite progress, and that is undeniable good news. But what we don't know is how long it will last . . . and whether it's sustainable. . . . They have withstood withering pressure for a long period of time." Three months, he said, is not long enough to consider a trend sustainable.Views of the extent to which AQI has been vanquished also reflect differences over the extent to which it operates independently from Osama bin Laden's central al-Qaeda organization, based in Pakistan. "Everyone has an opinion about how franchisement of al-Qaeda works," a senior White House official said. "Is it through central control, or is it decentralized?" The answer to that question, the official said, affects "your ability to determine how successfully [AQI] has been defeated or neutralized. Is it 'game over'?"In Baghdad, the White House official said, the group's "area of operations has been reduced quite a bit for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad." Three years of sectarian fighting have eliminated many mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Those areas had been the most fertile and accessible places for AQI, which is composed of extremist Sunnis, to attack Shiite civilians, security forces and government officials. But the death of mixed neighborhoods also has made another Bush administration priority -- promoting political reconciliation -- more difficult.The expanded presence of U.S. troops in combat outposts in many parts of Baghdad has also put pressure on AQI, but a major test of gains against the organization will come when the U.S. military begins to turn security in those areas over to Iraqi forces next year. While a victory declaration might have the "psychological aspect" of discouraging recruitment to a perceived lost cause, the White House official said, advantages overall would be minimal. "I recognize that there are pros to saying, 'Hey, listen, the bad guys are on the run.' " But if AQI were later able to demonstrate residual capabilities with a series of bombings, "even though it was temporary," he said, "the question becomes: How does this play out in terms of public opinion?"

LT Mike Murphy recieves medal of honor

Fallen SEAL to receive Medal of Honor By Gidget Fuentes - Staff writerPosted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 17:20:59 EDTSAN DIEGO — Two years after his death in a harrowing firefight on an Afghanistan mountaintop, Lt. Michael Murphy, a Navy SEAL officer from Long Island, N.Y., will be bestowed with the nation’s highest combat honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor, Navy officials said.Lt. Ligia Cohen, a Navy spokeswoman at the Pentagon, confirmed the award.The announcement of the Medal of Honor — the first awarded to a Navy officer or sailor for combat actions in Iraq or Afghanistan — came Thursday during a White House briefing.The medal will be presented to Murphy’s family during a 2:30 p.m. ceremony Oct. 22 at the White House, Cohen said. In addition, the late officer will be honored at two other events: the inclusion of his name on a wall at the Pentagon Hall of Heroes at 11 a.m. Oct. 23, and the presentation of the Medal of Honor flag at the Navy Memorial at 6 p.m. Oct. 23.Murphy, 29, was leading a four-man observation team in Afghanistan’s Hindu Kush mountains when they were spotted by Taliban fighters on June 28, 2005. During the intense battle, Murphy and two of his men — Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class (SEAL) Danny Dietz and Sonar Technician 2nd Class (SEAL) Matthew Axelson — were killed, and a fourth man, former Special Warfare Operator 1st Class (SEAL) Marcus Luttrell, was seriously wounded but managed to escape. Luttrell was rescued days later.Murphy, known as “Mikey” to his friends and family, shot and wounded, managed to crawl onto a ridgeline and radio headquarters at the nearby air base for them to send in reinforcements. Taliban fighters were closing in on the team’s position, shooting their weapons and firing rocket-propelled grenades.“Mikey was ignoring his wound and fighting like a SEAL officer should, uncompromising, steady, hard-eyed, and professional,” Luttrell wrote in his recently published book, Lone Survivor, about his military experiences, his team and the events of that day and the deaths of his teammates, his friends.The fighting grew more intense, but the team pressed on in the close-quarters battle. At one point, Luttrell wrote, Murphy took his mobile phone, “walked to open ground. He walked until he was more or less in the center, gunfire all around him, and he sat on a small rock and began punching in the numbers to HQ.”“I could hear him talking,” Luttrell wrote. “ ‘My men are taking heavy fire ... we’re getting picked apart. My guys are dying out here ... we need help.’“And right then Mikey took a bullet straight in the back. I saw the blood spurt from his chest. He slumped forward, dropping his phone and his rifle. But then he braced himself, grabbed them both, sat upright again, and once more put the phone to his ear.“ ‘Roger that, sir. Thank you,’ ” Luttrell heard Murphy say, before the lieutenant continued to train fire on the enemy fighters.“Only I knew what Mikey had done. He’d understood we had only one realistic chance, and that was to call in help,” Luttrell wrote. “Knowing the risk, understanding the danger, in the full knowledge the phone call could cost him his life, Lieutenant Michael Patrick Murphy, son of Maureen, fiancé of the beautiful Heather, walked out into the firestorm.“His objective was clear: to make one last valiant attempt to save his two teammates,” he wrote.Not long after the call, Murphy was shot again, screaming for Luttrell to help him, but Luttrell, also hit and wounded, couldn’t reach him. “There was nothing I could do except die with him,” he wrote.That day turned more tragic when enemy forces shot down a helicopter carrying members of a quick-reaction force sent to rescue Murphy and his team.Murphy is survived by his parents, Daniel Murphy and Maureen Murphy, and his brother, John, along with his fiancé, Heather .The Murphy family on Thursday issued a statement, provided by the Naval Special Warfare Command in Coronado, Calif.“We are thrilled by the president’s announcement today, especially because there is now a public recognition of what we knew all along about Michael’s loyalty, devotion and sacrifice to his friends, family, country and especially his SEAL teammates,” they said. “The honor is not just about Michael, it is about his teammates and those who lost their lives that same day.”This will be the third Medal of Honor awarded for Iraq and Afghanistan actions.

israeli doctors helping sick iraqi children

By Jamal Halaby, Associated Press October 10, 2007 http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/10/10/israeli_doctors_screen_iraqi_patients_defying_tensions?mode=PF AMMAN, Jordan - Israeli doctors screened 40 Iraqi children suffering from heart disease yesterday - a rare case of direct cooperation between the Jewish state and the Arab country.The doctors said they hope their work will help improve relations between the two Mideast nations and ease tensions between Israel and the rest of the Arab world.Dr. Sion Houri, director of the pediatric intensive care unit at Wolfson Medical Center in Holon, Israel, said he thinks "ties and friendship" are being built through his work in Jordan with the Iraqi children"Our only previous exchanges with the Iraqis are the Scud missiles," he said, referring to the missiles Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, fired on Israel during the 1991 Gulf War."But the Iraqis we met here have been very receptive and cooperative, which makes me believe that the animosity and war aren't between the people," Houri said as he and two colleagues screened the Iraqi children, who range in age from a few months to 14 years. Following the US-led war that ousted Hussein in 2003, diplomats discussed the possibility of improved relations between Israel and Iraq, which fought two wars with the Jewish state since its foundation in 1948.But in 2004, Iraq's then-prime minister, Iyad Allawi, vowed that Iraq would not break Arab ranks and sign a separate peace deal with Israel. Jordan and Egypt are the only two Arab countries to have signed peace treaties with Israel.Yesterday, the Iraqi children and their parents gathered at an outpatient clinic in the Red Crescent Hospital in the Jordanian capital, Amman. Most of the families are Sunni Muslims of Kurdish origin who live in northern Iraq.Also among them were three Sunni families who live in Baghdad.Inside the clinic, some children were lying in beds, hooked to heart monitoring machines as doctors examined them. Children played with toys in a reception area and cut paper hearts.One child screened yesterday was 4-year-old Mustafa, who Houri said was diagnosed with crossed arteries and needs two surgeries in Israel soon, to unfold the blood vessels before they harden.Mustafa's mother, a Kurdish woman who identified herself only as Suzanne because she fears reprisals from militants in Iraq, said traveling to Israel made her "anxious. Not because I'm going to a country considered an enemy of Iraq, but because I'm afraid of retribution by Iraqi militants, by the terrorists back home.""I'm afraid and it's not easy for me at all, but I'm willing to take the risk to save my beloved son's life," she said as she caressed Mustafa.The heart program is sponsored by Save a Child's Heart, a humanitarian organization founded in Israel in 1996. Logistical support is provided by the Jerusalem-based Christian group, Shevet Achim. Surgery is carried out at Israel's Wolfson Medical Center, and funding comes from private sources, including Christian charity groups and individuals.In four years, 35 Iraqis have received surgery through the program, including 18 children who traveled from Iraq to Jordan for screening in January. It was not immediately clear how many of the children screened yesterday will be taken to Israel for treatment.

The iraq insurgency: people rise against al qaeda

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/08/wanbar308.xml&page=2 By Damien McElroy in Husaybah 09/10/2007 Damien McElroy spent a week in the heart of the insurgency in Anbar province in Iraq. In the second of seven exclusive reports he describes how peace and prosperity have returned to a town formerly riven by sectarian killings. In a town tucked tight against the Syrian border, US Marines pass softly along a darkened street as the crack of contact rings out. Instead of a panicked rush for cover, the leader of the patrol turns to cheer. The familiar sound was not from the barrel of gun but the baize of an upstairs pool hall. A transformation has swept western Iraq that allows Marines to walk through areas that a year ago were judged lost to radical Islam control and hear nothing more aggressive than a late-night game of pool.Behind the shutters the Sunni Muslim residents of the province are enjoying the dividends of driving out al-Qa'eda fighters who had imposed an oppressive Taliban-style regime. The popular uprising against al-Qa'eda by residents of Anbar Province turned former enemies into American allies earlier this year. The result was a dramatic restoration of stability across Iraq's Sunni heartland. Husaybah bears the scars of the "terrorist" years - 2004 and 2005 - when al-Qa'eda and its local allies controlled the town.Buildings stand half destroyed, roads remain torn up and almost half its population has fled. Much of the physical damage was inflicted in Operation Iron Curtain last year when Marine companies fought building by building to retake the town. Amid the ruins, relationships have been built by a softly-softly approach by American troops. Footpatrols are hailed with cries of Salaam (Peace) and Habibi (Friend) in streets that were in no-go zones for the coalition a year ago. A ten-man unit of US Marines passes nightly along Husaybah's market street and zig-zags down alleys into residential areas. As they walk out, the sounds of a town reviving fill the air. Sweet shops are filled with customers, workshop churn out furniture. "It's been a while since we hit any trouble," said patrol leader, Corporal Kristian Bandy. "We get a lot of feedback from the locals now, they tell us where arms caches are and if anyone's acting suspicious they turn him in."In the advanced field combat hospitals run by the Navy in Anbar province, there is suddenly nothing to do. Equipped to handle sudden rushes of dozens of gravely injured troops, the hospitals are empty.Commander William Klorig, the chief US medic in Anbar, said the numbers treated at the facility in al-Taqqadum has plummeted to less than 80 personnel in a week."Our expectation on deploying here was we would be caring for a great many combat wounded," he said. "That is not the way it has turned out. Many days we have no work." Confident that progress is irreversible America is pushing to reopen Husaybah's border crossing with Syria. A large checkpoint under construction is due to start operating in mid-November. Security guards at the border will be equipped with a plethora of high technology to ensure bombs and weapons can't be smuggled from Syria."I'm not putting a number of how many vehicles will go through here, probably very many," said Lieutenant-Colonel Mark Giorno, the official in charge of the project. "My standard is safety. If just one gets through and nobody is killed, that's good for me." Mr Kareem and other Husaybah residents claim that the peace that followed the expulsion of al-Qa'eda has triggered an economic revival and restoration of favourite pastimes. Ghanim Mirdie Waleed, coach of the local football team, who celebrated a recent victory with cigarettes, paid tribute to the American role in Husaybah. "The conflict here was all caused by al-Qa'eda," he said. "We work and play as we like under the coalition security. There are jobs for people, shops are opened and we are very happy." With al-Qa'eda pushed out, Anbaris are even rallying to a new shared cause with America - a fight to secure the country against Iranian infiltration. Husaybah residents condemned Iran at nightly meetings where locals sit on stoops to enjoy the cool midnight breeze. Sectarian fighting is taking place hundreds of miles to east of the Syrian border but Iran's interference in Iraq ranked as a primary reason to back the American presence. "The Shia are my brothers in Iraq," said Raad Majid Kareem. "But the militias in Baghdad are an Iranian front that taking over the country. They are bringing hellfire to Iraq. The Coalition Forces are trying to destroy them. The Sunnis and the tribes embrace American so that they can to do it." One of the leaders of the tribal revolt, Shiekh Kurdi Rafi Al-Shurayji said there was nothing to distinguish al-Qa'eda and the regime in Teheran. "They are no different," he said. "Al-Qa'eda relies on Iran's support, just the same as every evil force in Iraq." Police Col Obaida Sueidi Khalif said Anbar's gains will remain dependent on the Americans until the government in Baghdad is capable of representing the entire nation."A lot of people from outside Iraq are trying to destroy our country," he said. "The people have to let the Coalition Forces not just here but in the capital help us because Baghdad can't run Iraq until it reconciles with the competent officials who served under Saddam Hussein." A reduction in extremist intimidation has brought a flood of officers and men from the army disbanded after the 2003 war, back into Iraq's security forces. Anbar's main training academy this month held the first class devoted exclusively to Saddam era colonels and majors who have joined the new army's 7th Division. Symbolically the class was the first to receive instruction in the workings of the US M16 assault rifle, which is to be the new weapon of the country's armed forces."I decided to rejoin two years ago but I live in Ramadi and the insurgents would have killed me and my family if I signed up until now," said Lt-Col Hamid Adwas. "As soon as the city was safe, I came back."

Taking on the persians in iraq

http://www.nysun.com/article/64090 BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun October 8, 2007 WASHINGTON — General David Petraeus's decision to out the Iranian ambassador to Iraq as a member of the Quds Force coincides with a new tribal outreach campaign aimed at prying Iraqi Shiites in the south from the grip of Iran's powerful security services. American and Iraqi forces and intelligence agencies in August began to send emissaries to southern Iraqi tribal sheiks in an effort to recruit a Shiite version of the Anbar Salvation Front, the Sunni tribal chieftains who aligned themselves against Al Qaeda. In this case, however, the plan is aimed largely at turning the local population in five key cities — Basra, Karbala, Kut, Najaf, and Nasiriyah — against Iran's Revolutionary Guard and the militias that the guard largely controls. In the last two months in particular, General Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, has blamed a good deal of the violence in Iraq on Iranian meddling. He went much further yesterday, telling CNN that the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, was a member of the country's Quds Force, the elite terrorist training arm of the Revolutionary Guard. With the new information now confirmed by General Petraeus, any future talks with the Iranians over their role in fueling the insurgency in Iraq are unlikely. The Quds Force not only is implicated in planning attacks on American soldiers, it also is "implicated in the assassination of some governors in the southern provinces," the general said. He added that there was no chance he would return the Iranians captured in operations since January, a key demand of Mr. Qomi. The New York Sun reported in April that those Iranians are being held in jails run both by Iraq's Sunni intelligence service and the American military. In yesterday's interview, the general said there was no debate that the men captured were members of the Quds Force. Of the negotiations with Iran, General Petraeus said America was in "show-me mode." A number of Iraqi leaders have traveled to Tehran and asked that the Iranians "stop the lethal assistance," he said. "There have been sub-ambassadorial meetings, as well. And there have been assurances in return, actually from Iran to Iraqi leaders, and we are waiting to see if those assurances bear fruit." While General Petraeus said Al Qaeda remains the most immediate threat to the Iraqi government, he added that the Iranians have provided advanced weapons to Iraq's insurgents that have not been previously disclosed. The list of munitions includes rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-launched missiles, and 244-millimeter rockets. To date, the military has focused largely on Iran's role in providing terrorists in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan with the roadside copper disc mines known as explosively formed penetrators.Less publicly, the multinational forces in Iraq are reaching out to Shiite tribes in the south, an area mostly vacated by British troops, to try the Salvation Front model there. In an interview with the Associated Press on September 16 near the city of Kut, in the Wasit province, Sheik Majid Tahir al-Magsous said last month's murder of the head of the Anbar front, Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, would not thwart his efforts to emulate the model. Defense Secretary Gates has also said he has seen some signs in the south of a new awakening among Shiites. The outreach effort began in August, a military officer said yesterday, and the CIA, the Army, and the Iraqi security agencies are coordinating meetings with local tribal leaders. "In a lot of cases, we are gauging interest," the officer, who requested anonymity, said. Any effort like this is not likely to show signs of success until early next year, he added.Another component of the southern tribal outreach is to draw elements of Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, into the government, separating those elements of the militia believed to be controlled by members of the Revolutionary Guard. Mr. Sadr, who gained a measure of independence after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, fled to Iran in February, soon after General Petraeus arrived in Baghdad. A militia affiliated with the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, known as the Badr Brigade, was trained by the Revolutionary Guard when Iran harbored the organization before the war. However, the leader of the SIIC, Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, announced in June that his organization no longer accepted the Shiite doctrine associated with Iran's Islamic revolution called the rule of jurisprudence, or the notion that Shiite clerics should also wield political power in Shiite states. After his declaration, Ayatollah Hakim flew to Iran for surgery, leading some American analysts to doubt the sincerity of the group's conversion.The tribal outreach campaign with the Shiites is meant in part to marginalize the Shiite theology of the leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the military officer said. "We are trying to make the case that he was an infidel," he said.