Thursday - December 07, 2006

The Grande Planne

Below is a summary of the Iraq Study Group’s report. You can download or view the full 160-page piece of crap here (1.8MB PDF).

The media and the Democrats in Congress already have their plan in place: if Bush deviates from the plan by even one iota, he will be portrayed as a partisan, fascist bully. Oh yeah, and a stupid chimp too.

If the Democratic Congress changes anything or even throws out the whole plan, they will be praised for their flexibility and bipartisan approach to correcting the Bush administration’s mistakes. That is the Grande Planne of the Donks and the liberal media.

As for the Iraq Study Group’s plan, you can forget it. They lost me at item 1 below - Item 2 just made it worse. This sounds like it all came from the pen of Dhimmi Carter. Imagine if you will, in July of 1944, the allies are bogged down in hedgerow country in Normandy. A special report is commissioned by Congress and their recommendation is to announce a withdrawal of all US troops from Europe by Spring of 1945 but leave enough “advisers” to assist the French and Brits in beating back the Nazis.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Churchill and Roosevelt would have had anyone suggesting such a thing locked up for the duration - and possibly longer.

America used to be the country whose way of war demanded unconditional surrender. Nowadays, we are become a country that only demands unconditional withdrawal. That rumbling sound you hear is all the graves in Arlington complaining in righteous indignation. You don’t even want to hear what they think of this horse-shit.

Will It Work In The White House?
(NY TIMES) - December 7, 2006

Troop Withdrawal

1. Announce a plan for American forces to begin pulling back, whether the Iraqis are ready or not, to signal to the Iraqis that Washington would not prop up the Iraqi government with military forces endlessly.

2. Gradually pull back the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq, starting next year and ending by the first quarter of 2008. Afterward, American combat forces could be deployed “only in units embedded with Iraqi forces.” While numbers are still approximate, phased withdrawal of combat troops over the next year would leave 70,000 to 80,000 American troops in the country, compared with about 150,000 now, for a long time to come.

3. Special operations forces would remain to battle Al Qaeda in Iraq.

4. Link American withdrawal to the performance of the Iraqi military, leaving open the possibility that American troops would stay longer if the Iraqi government takes on the militias, but threatening accelerated withdrawal if the Iraqi government fails to act decisively and control the violence.

5. Significantly increase the number of American military personnel supporting and embedded with Iraqi troops. As this proceeds, United States combat forces can begin leaving Iraq.

6. “The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army Brigades.”

The United States should:

1. Begin a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. The effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors.

2. Try to engage Iran and Syria constructively, using incentives and disincentives.

3. Renew commitment to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace process, including President Bush’s commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

Iran should:

1. Stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq.

2. Respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

3. Use its influence over Iraqi Shiite groups to encourage national reconciliation.

Syria should:

1. Control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

International efforts:

1. The issue of Iran’s nuclear arms should be dealt with by the five members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.

2. A possible regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues.

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/07/2006 at 01:07 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - December 02, 2006

Looney Tunes

_{Gary Varvel - The Indianapolis Star-News}

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/02/2006 at 08:37 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - December 01, 2006

Wild Blue Yonder

Well, they don’t have F-16’s yet (and maybe they should never get them) but Iraq now has an Air Force again. Don’t laugh. It’s progress - even if it’s only a baby step. Then again, if we were smart we’d sell them some F-16’s, a few million tons of JDAM’s and Hellfires and sic them on Iran. If you can’t get the wogs to stop fighting then the best thing to do is get them to fighting each other instead of us.

New Iraqi Air Force Returns To Sky
_{-- By Tech. Sgt. Gene Lappe, 506th Air Expeditionary Group - Friday, 01 December 2006}

KIRKUK REGIONAL AIR BASE — The new Iraqi Air Force has returned to the sky, performing a variety of missions throughout the country, thanks to training and support from Coalition advisers. At Kirkuk Regional Air Base, advisers help Iraqi military members of Squadron 3 train for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

“Our mission is to train, advise and assist the Iraqi Air Force unit at Kirkuk in the development and execution of all aspects of air power,” said Lt. Col. Greg Zehner, senior advisor for the Coalition Air Force Military Transition Team. “This includes flight operations, aircraft maintenance, base operations support activities and basic levels of professional military education.

“We also work to develop and enhance a professional military ethic for all Iraqi air force personnel, from the youngest enlisted airman to the senior officers,” he said. The mission of Squadron 3, one of six squadrons in the Iraqi Air Force, is to perform ISR of the strategic infrastructure in northern Iraq—flying over the oil pipelines, electrical power lines and other important facilities to monitor their condition and watch for insurgent activities.

This is accomplished with the SAMA (Zenair) CH-2000 aircraft, a single-engine, two-passenger plane. The squadron conducts a mix of training and operational missions—training new members, getting them certified in the aircraft, and performing the reconnaissance mission with those pilots who are fully mission-capable.

The responsibility of training and advising the Iraqi military members falls to a seven-person team. Their areas of expertise are spread across several specialties including operations, intelligence, maintenance, communications and supply.

“Our first big obstacle was getting the aircraft,” said Maj. Jean Havens, director of operations. “Since they have arrived, we are moving forward with getting the Iraqis checked out on the aircraft.” Flight training had been on hold due to the grounding of the CompAir 7SL, the unit’s previous aircraft.

Havens, an instructor pilot deployed from Columbus Air Force Base, Miss., is responsible for advising her Iraqi counterparts on all aspects of the flying operations. She said she was excited about her assignment and the opportunity to be a part of helping the Iraqi air force become a self-sufficient organization.

“The dream of any instructor is to see progress of a student,” she said. “Serving as their instructor will probably be the highlight of my career.” Master Sgt. James Redmond, maintenance advisor, has the responsibility of instructing and advising the Iraqi airmen on how to keep their new aircraft flying.

“We show them what has to be done and how to use technical data and proper safety procedures,” he said. “Then they develop plans and techniques that will work for them.” He said his mission is to show the Iraqis how to make their air force better and to help them grow from lessons learned in the past.

“The Iraqis are eager to learn, and they take pride in their work,” Redmond said. “Once the maintenance is done, they will usually hang around and watch the launch of the aircraft they worked on.”

Zehner said the most satisfying part of his mission is two-fold: “Doing our part to help the Iraqis transition to a functioning democratic government at peace within its borders and with its neighbors; and the personal relationships we have gained and expect to further develop in our daily interaction with our Iraqi counterparts.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/01/2006 at 12:27 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - November 30, 2006

Throwing In The Towel Again?

In 1973 they called it “peace with honor” and several other fancy terms. I wonder what they will call it this time. Help me come up with a new term to describe what happens when politicians decide to throw in the towel and run away from a fight because of partisan bickering and a general unwillingness to look at the big picture.

Back in the good old days, folks just called it “defeat”. In today’s culture, we don’t use plain words like that any more so I’m polling readers to come up with a new term for it. Be creative but be sure to hide the true meaning of this abominable action. “Redeployment” has already been taken however “downsizing” is still free for use ....

_{Larry Wright - The Detroit News}

Study Group to Call for Pullback
But Iraq Panel Has No Timetable
_{(WASHGINTON POST) - Thursday, November 30, 2006}

The Iraq Study Group, which wrapped up eight months of deliberations yesterday, has reached a consensus and will call for a major withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, shifting the U.S. role from combat to support and advising, according to a source familiar with the deliberations.

But the recommendation includes a series of conditions and qualifications that would govern any drawdown of forces, the source said. “It describes a process by which combat brigades could be pulled out, but there wasn’t a specific timetable on it,” he said. The source demanded anonymity because members of the bipartisan panel have been pledged to secrecy until the report is officially issued Dec. 6.

The issue of a timeline for drawing down troops—both a specific date to begin a withdrawal and the pace—had been major points of contention within the panel. The Bush administration has firmly rejected specifying a date for withdrawal, but Democrats have favored setting a time frame as a way to put pressure on the Iraqi government.

The recommendations in the still-secret report were agreed to after three days of closed-door discussions. The report, which is about 100 pages, will offer a comprehensive look at regional political and security issues as well as the troubled U.S. deployment in Iraq, according to sources close to the panel.

For weeks, the panel has debated reaching out to both Syria and Iran, an approach that the Bush administration has so far firmly rejected. Commission members have also backed the idea of a regional conference to bring all the neighbors into the process of stabilizing Iraq. Contents of the panel’s report were disclosed yesterday evening by the New York Times.

Under the recommendations of the commission, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), the emphasis of the U.S. military presence in Iraq would shift from fighting the insurgency and containing sectarian violence to backing up Iraqi security forces dealing with those problems.

This approach would place less emphasis on combat operations and more on logistics, intelligence and training and advising Iraqi units. Also, a large residual combat force would be required to protect all the personnel involved in those operations and to provide a security guarantee to the Iraqi government.

Thus, even if the combat forces were withdrawn, the person familiar with the group’s thinking noted, the recommendation envisions keeping in Iraq a “substantial” U.S. military force.

Some people knowledgeable about the group’s deliberations said it might be possible in a year or two to halve the U.S. military presence, to about 70,000 troops. Earlier reports that said that the group simply had decided to call for withdrawing combat forces from Iraq were “garbled,” the source familiar with the panel’s recommendations added. “It wasn’t as specific as that, and it was a lot more conditional,” he said. He declined to discuss those conditions.

“We reached a consensus, which in itself is remarkable,” said another source close to the 10-member panel of prominent Republicans and Democrats. Divisions had been deep in the run-up to this week’s final deliberations.

The findings dovetail with recommendations being considered by the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are conducting their own review of Iraq policy. That group is leaning toward an option that involves a brief surge of troops in Iraq, followed by a partial drawdown and a shift from combat operations to training and advising, according to sources familiar with the process. Troops would remain in Iraq for five to 10 years under this option, which is known within the military as “go long.”

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/30/2006 at 10:37 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Politics •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - November 27, 2006

Tick-Tick-Tick ….

The current issue of TIME magazine looks at the Iraq war and using its staff of highly trained, professional political strategists and military staffers, TIME offers four options for “fixing” the war in Iraq. The only problem is all four options are W-R-O-N-G! TIME is simply repeating all the same old ideas that have been floating around for months. Big hairy deal. It’s time for a fresh idea and I have just the one to solve it all and the obvious solution evolves around two simple words: Britain - India.

The first thing we need to do is quit pussyfooting around with a democratic government in Iraq that is going nowhere fast. Let the Iraqis have their shadow government to play at governing and trying to figure out what they want to do. In the meantime it’s past time for America to impose a modern-day version of the British Raj in Iraq. Yes, you heard that right. here’s the deal ....

(1) Appoint a military governor for the country and give him absolute power, to include public executions if necessary. (2) Send in 100,000 more troops for a six month deployment and wipe out the “insurgency” once and for all. (3) Close and seal the borders with Syria and Iran - station troops on the borders to shoot first and ask questions later. (4) Start pumping oil as fast as possible to pay for all this. (5) Divide the country into three states: Sunnistan, Shiastan and Kurdistan and appoint a regional government over each - US military at first, gradually transitioning to Iraqi civilian control as soon as they act like they really want to govern properly. (6) Send half of the already “trained” Iraqi battalions to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda there and tell them they can come home as soon as they wipe out the Taliban. (7) Disband all Iraqi militias and completely destroy any who object - and that includes Al Sadr’s goons.

There you go. The solution to Iraq. it worked for the Brits in India and it will work for the US in Iraq. Before the Brits left India, they had divided the country into Pakistan, India and Bangladesh to separate the warring factions, created a stable government in each and had made a tidy profit from their venture. We need to understand that, like the Brits, we may need to stay and “govern” Iraq for decades. That would be decades of cheap oil plus a forward-base in the region if Syria and Iran decide to get uppity. What everyone needs to understand is that if you can’t introduce democracy and stability with a ballot then it behooves us to establish those goals at the point of the spear if necessary.

Take a look at TIME’s wussy solutions below and compare it to my solution above. Tell me which one you think stands a better chance of success and be sure to factor out the screaming voices that will come from the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Arab League, OPEC and Lunatic Leftists at home. In this new plan, they will all be quietly ignored. Peace and quiet - and cheap oil ... a winning combination if ever I saw one ....

_{Jack Ohman - The Portland Oregonian (OR)}

---

TIME: Mr. Gates’ Options
Sunday, Nov. 26, 2006

Bob Gates is all things to all people in Washington these days. To the hard-liners who want to preserve what’s left of George W. Bush’s policy in Iraq, Gates is an ardent patriot, a determined anticommunist who thought the Soviet Union was an evil empire, who backed aggressive measures against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the early 1980s--and who during the first Bush Administration sided most often with a Defense Secretary named Dick Cheney.

To the new realists, who want to tear up this Administration’s failing bid to bring democracy to Iraq and replace it with a strategy for an exit, Gates is a secret ally, an agent of change who rocked the CIA he grew up in by shifting it out of covert action and into open-source programs at the cold war’s end--and then became a reformist president of Texas A&M, tossing a beloved football coach and reducing admissions.

The problem facing Gates is that the options being considered may already be obsolete. The conditions on the ground in Iraq are deteriorating so rapidly that even the Baker commission is struggling to keep up, several well-placed national-security sources told TIME. October was the deadliest month yet for Iraqi civilians since the start of the war, and November seems destined to surpass it. A Thanksgiving Day onslaught by Sunni militants killed more than 200 Iraqis, wounded hundreds and spurred a round of Shi’ite reprisals. As the Iraqi capital erupted in another frenzy of sectarian violence, the U.S. lost eight service members in a span of six days, bringing its death toll to nearly 2,900.

The Options:

• Get out fast. This option is the most tantalizing--and least likely--of all those under consideration by the armies of experts trying pick the Iraqi lock. While some Democrats, like Senator Barack Obama, have called on Bush to begin troop withdrawals within four to six months, there is almost no support for the idea within the Administration. The biggest problem is that the Iraqi army isn’t ready to take over. U.S. Central Command boss John Abizaid told Congress two weeks ago that none of the Iraqi combat units are ready to operate independently of U.S. forces, and he says it will be a year to 18 months before the army is fully operational.


• Surge forward. Among some active and retired generals, as well as some officers inside Baghdad’s Green Zone, there is support for the idea of a temporary surge--boosting U.S. troops levels by 20,000 to 30,000 to stabilize the country. Under this plan, the extra U.S. forces would be deployed to try to quell the sectarian slaughter in Baghdad as well as subdue the jihadists of Anbar province. It is a step that, almost everyone agrees, should have been taken years ago.


• Train and retreat. Quietly gaining favor in military circles, this approach is designed to balance the need for more U.S. forces with a desire to decrease the rate of U.S. casualties. Here’s how it would work in theory. First, Washington would boost the number of troops in Iraq and, more specifically, increase the number of G.I.s on military-training teams. The goal is to get the Iraqi army--which is beset by a weak officer corps, weapon shortages and an almost total inability to move around--ready to take over the country as the Americans start to pull out.


• Dig in. Although the military and political establishments are desperate for a new approach in Iraq, it’s also possible that little will change. If the Baker commission falters or political stalemate ensues after the group reports, the U.S. may well keep troop levels the same, continue training Iraqis--and hope for the best. Sticking it out is the preferred course not just of the Commander in Chief but also of many of the top generals who report to him. To them, Iraq remains a fight that can be won--as long as political support for the enterprise doesn’t bottom out completely. “I believe in the mission,” says Lieut. General Peter Chiarelli, commander of the coalition forces, who ends his second tour of duty in Iraq this month. “It is what it is, and it’s not going to lend itself to a timetable.”

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/27/2006 at 09:23 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (12) • Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - November 26, 2006

Weekend Editorial

I‘ve just finished reading Mark Steyn’s new book “America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It” (I’ll have a full book review later this week). One of the things that stood out for me in the book was Steyn’s assertion that, when it comes to warfare, there are only two kinds of “exit strategy”: victory or defeat.

When people are trying to kill you, take away your way of life or destroy your home and family there is no third place and no Miss Congeniality award. You either win or you lose. Period. President Bush understands this. He may be the only one who does at this point.

Another point that needs to be made is that as far as Iraq is concerned, if we pull off a “Vietnam-style cut-and-run” strategy then we are doomed as a country and the sun begins to set on the American hegemony. We will have lost all credibility as well as our national dignity ... and, most importantly, the Pax Americana that has kept the world more or less quiet for the last fifty years will have come to an end - with the barbarians at the gates.

I would rather not see that happen. The last time we tucked our tail between our legs and walked away from a fight, the Communists overran Southeast Asia and millions died. In addition, our military was almost destroyed by the backlash and budget cuts of the Democratic-controlled Congress.

That was in the late 1970’s and the Islamofascists were beginning to take advantage of our perceived weakness by grabbing Iran, holding American citizens hostage, jacking up the price of oil to fund their war against the West and beginning to immigrate heavily into Europe as the first stage of conquest.

Then along came Ronald Reagan and all their plans had to be put on hold as America dusted off it’s pride, rebuilt the military and got back on track. Now, twenty years later, we’re back in the same position we were in 1973. We’re about to lose another war and this time we don’t have a Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings to pull us together again.

George Bush is not Ronald Reagan. He’s a good man and he understands the stakes but he just doesn’t have the charisma and communication skills of Reagan. The main problem though is that the Tip O’Neill Democrats have returned to Washington and are about to do the same thing they did in the mid-1970’s.

The difference this time is that we are facing an enemy that has already killed thousands of American civilians in an attack inside our country and whose final goal is world domination. Plus they have plenty of money and are breeding more and more suicidal fanatics every day like rabbits.

Whether you call Iraq a “quagmire” or a “muddle” as Michael Reagan does below, all Americans need to be aware that we are fast approaching a turning point in history and the next five years will decide what direction the world goes in the rest of the century. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, the American peoples’ will to fight is being tested for what may be the last time.

The millions of Americans who died in the last 250 years to preserve our freedoms and keep America strong are eyeballing us and they are waiting to see whether we have any backbone left. Are you willing to look them in the eye and say, “We’re sorry but we are weak”? If so, then you need to understand that Bush is not the problem ... you are the problem and you deserve to lose everything ...

_{Mike Lester - The Rome News-Tribune (GA)}

---

It’s Not a Quagmire, It’s a Muddle
-- by Michael Reagan

This is a time for giving thanks, and among the many things for which I am thankful is the fact that I am not George W. Bush. Think about it—in the sixth year of his presidency he is besieged on all sides, not only by his foes, but by his friends and supporters as well.

On the one side are those demanding that the president adopt some kind of face-saving solution that will allow him to withdraw from Iraq without admitting the United States has lost yet another war—the solution once recommended by former Vermont Sen. George Aiken, who advised that we declare victory in Vietnam and get out.

Among those advocating this kind of sleight of hand are members of George Herbert Walker Bush’s administration, perhaps even former Secretary of State James Baker. Baker co-chairs the widely touted Iraq Study Group, which has leaked its recommendations for coping with the war by calling for negotiations with Syria and Iran.

On the other side are the hawks who want not only to remain in Iraq, but have advanced the rather peculiar idea that the ultimate aim in any conflict is to win it. They insist that anything less than total victory over the insurgency would result in unthinkable consequences for the United States, the Middle East and the West.

In the middle are the great masses of American people who told exit pollsters they weren’t against the war, only against how it was being conducted. Then there is the Congress of the United States, fated to fall into the hands of the liberal-controlled Democratic Party whose leadership is deeply enamored of the idea of cutting and running – a concept they disguise by calling the pullout of the U.S. from Iraq “redeployment.”

To complicate matters, however, powerful Democrats such as Hillary Clinton more or less support the idea of remaining in Iraq until the Iraqi forces can handle the insurgency on their own.

The president’s dilemma arises from his conviction that a pullout before Iraq has been enabled to fight their war on the insurgency would lead to a conflagration that would engulf the entire Middle East, disrupt the supply of the oil that keeps our economic engine running, create a national base for the Jihad that would enable the radical Islamic movement (probably armed with nukes to bring the Jihad to our shores), and eventually drive the West out of the entire area.

Yet the pressure on the president to find a solution that will allow us to leave Iraq, even if it’s with our tail between our legs, is growing more and more intense. Added to the dilemma is the president’s knowledge that negotiations with Syria and Iraq can have only one result – withdrawal disguised as recognition that Iraq is a regional problem meant to be solved by regional interests – in this case, Iran.

The president knows full well that the only negotiating point is surrender to Iran, whose 1979 constitution declares the aim of the Jihad is world conquest by the Islamic revolution which it leads. To Iran, Iraq is the high ground they seek to take in their war against the West.

Should the president continue to stress his role as Commander in Chief, he will find himself facing an obstructive Congress that will use every device available to them, perhaps even to the extent of withdrawing funding for the military.

Given the facts of the matter, should the president cave in to the peace-at-any-price crowd the deaths of almost 3,000 American fighting men and women—and the billions of dollars it has cost—will have been shamefully wasted.

On the other hand, should he stick to his guns, he will find himself the most embattled President since Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln couldn’t find generals who could go out and win the War between the States, had to deal with an obstructive Congress and its Committee on the Conduct of the War, and even fought dissent by members of his own cabinet, one of whom referred to Lincoln as “the original ape.”

That’s why I’m thankful that I’m not George W. Bush.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book, “Twice Adopted.” Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. E-mail comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/26/2006 at 01:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Iraq •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - November 22, 2006

Choices

_{Chuck Asay - The Colorado Springs Gazette}

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/22/2006 at 03:31 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - November 19, 2006

Making A Difference

Chief Master Sgt. John Gebhardt

This moving photograph shows Chief Master Sgt. John Gebhardt, superintendent of the 22nd Wing Medical Group at McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas, holding an injured Iraqi girl.

The picture was taken in October 2006, while Sgt. Gebhardt was deployed to Balad Air Base in Iraq. According to the Air Force Print News, the infant girl Sgt. Gebhardt held in his arms “received extensive gunshot injuries to her head when insurgents attacked her family killing both of her parents and many of her siblings.”

She was cared for by John’s hospital and healing up, but has been crying and moaning. The nurses said John is the only one she seems to calm down with, so John has spent the last four nights holding her while they both sleep in that chair.

The girl is coming along with her healing. Sgt. Gebhardt is now back home in Wichita, Kansas, with his wife and two children.

“I pray for the best for the Iraqi children,” he said. “I can’t tell the difference between their kids and our kids. The Iraqi parents have the same care and compassion for their children as any American.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/19/2006 at 12:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Military •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - November 17, 2006

Will Britain Bail Out?

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, pressure is mounting on Tony Blair to bail out of Iraq, leaving the US to pretty much go it alone. I would really like to hear from our British readers here what they think the general opinion is over there. I have a sad feeling that the stories are true and when Tony Blair steps down in May of next year things are going to take a sudden turn for the worst as far as support from our major ally in the war on terror.

That ought to fit in nicely with the Democrats’ stated policy here in the US to begin withdrawal of US troops from Iraq about the same time. If this all falls out like it seems to be heading, next summer will be a really bad time to be in Iraq. The undeniable truth is that if the Democrats in the US and the Liberals in Britain have their way we can expect full-blown civil war and (you heard it here first) invasion of Iraq by Iran. At which point things will start to go down the toilet real fast in the Muddled East ....

_{Bob Englehart - The Hartford Courant}

Britain Must Not Retreat From Iraq
- by Nile Gardiner
_{(HUMAN EVENTS) - Nov 16, 2006}

British Prime Minister Tony Blair gives evidence this week to the Iraq Study Group amid mounting calls for a withdrawal of British forces and sagging public support for the war. An early withdrawal of British forces would boost al-Qaeda, risk civil war in Iraq, and severely strain the Anglo-U.S. relationship, to the detriment of the war on terrorism and global security. While the Prime Minister is right to reject calls for a British withdrawal from Iraq, his decision to increase ties with Iran and Syria is a serious strategic error that would do no more than embolden these rogue regimes.

British support for a withdrawal from Iraq is mounting. In the latest Guardian/ICM poll, 61 percent of British voters supported the exit of British troops from Iraq by the end of the year, with 45 percent backing an immediate withdrawal. Just 30 percent of those surveyed favored maintaining a British military presence in Iraq beyond 2006. In a YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph, a staggering 77 percent of Britons surveyed expressed “not much confidence” or “no confidence at all” in the British government’s handling of the war in Iraq.

_{British Prime Minister Tony Blair visits coalition forces at Zubayr, Iraq}

In addition to public disillusionment, Downing Street faces rising political opposition to the Prime Minister’s Iraq policy and increasingly vocal dissent from within Britain’s overstretched armed forces. The government narrowly prevailed in a recent vote in the House of Commons calling for an inquiry into Britain’s handling of the Iraq war that was proposed by the anti-war Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties and backed by the Conservative Party. And Sir Richard Dannatt, the new Chief of the General Staff of the British Army, sent shockwaves through the British political establishment in October, with a controversial and remarkably frank interview in which he stated that the presence of British troops was “exacerbating the security problems” in Iraq. Dannatt linked the Iraq war to “Islamist violence” in Britain, criticized pre-war planning, and expressed his hope that British troops would leave Iraq “soon.”

The Prime Minister is right to reject pressure for an immediate withdrawal. In a major speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in the City of London on November 13, he presented a powerful defense of the British commitment to the Iraqi people. Blair also challenged the fashionable and increasingly pervasive anti-Americanism in Britain, describing it as “the surest route to the destruction of our national interest” and reminding his audience of the need “to keep our partnership with America strong.”

An early withdrawal of the 7,200 British forces from Iraq would be a huge mistake. A British pullout would shatter the international coalition, greatly weaken America’s position in the center and north of the country, strengthen the insurgency, embolden al-Qaeda, and allow Iran-backed militia groups to increase their influence in the Shia-dominated south. In addition to threatening Iraq’s future, a pullout would also damage the Anglo-U.S. alliance that has led the war on terrorism.

A British pullout from Iraq would lead to specific consequences:

• A Propaganda Victory for Al-Qaeda and its Allies: Al-Qaeda would portray a pullout as a victory. A pullout would embolden al-Qaeda’s terrorist network in Iraq and provide a massive boost to the insurgency. Al-Qaeda would certainly link any withdrawal to the July 7, 2005, London bombings, for which it has claimed responsibility, and claim that the attacks forced a change in British policy. This would set a dangerous precedent and greatly increase the likelihood of future terrorist atrocities on European soil.


• Civil War, Ethnic Cleansing, and a Humanitarian Crisis: The withdrawal of British and other Western forces would pave the way for a civil war between Sunni and Shia groups, with bloodshed on a far greater scale than witnessed so far. Hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people could be displaced by acts of ethnic cleansing, leading to a huge humanitarian crisis.


• The Boosting of Iranian Influence. Iran would be a geostrategic beneficiary of any British pullout from Shiite-dominated southern Iraq, where it already wields great political influence. A British withdrawal from Basra and its southern bases would create a power vacuum that dozens of Iranian-backed militia groups are ready to exploit—among them, Moqtada Sadr’s Mahdi Army, the Badr Brigades, and the Mujahidin for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.


• A Strained Special Relationship. A unilateral withdrawal by Britain would have damaging implications for the future of the Anglo-U.S. special relationship, the most powerful military and political alliance in modern history. It would weaken the ties that bind the two nations and create a gulf in trust, greatly reducing the impetus for future joint U.S.-British operations. Anglo-American leadership has been the engine of the global war on terror, and a division between the two allies would undermine the West’s ability to combat al-Qaeda and state sponsors of terror.


• The Undermining of British Power. Retreat is not a word that figures prominently in British military vocabulary, and Britain has an unrivalled record of military success over the past 300 years. An early British withdrawal, even for political and strategic, rather than military, reasons, would prove damaging to Britain’s prestige and standing and force a negative revaluation of Britain’s role in the world. It would echo the Suez crisis of 1956, which split America from Britain and undermined British confidence for a generation. A withdrawal would dramatically weaken Britain’s resurgence as a world power and reduce its assertiveness on the international stage.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/17/2006 at 10:18 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - November 16, 2006

Has Anyone Seen Elvis Lately?

For those of you who don’t know Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), he’s the little dwarf who looks like a cult leader or some kind of mutant cross between a retarded human and a stalk of celery. As evidence, here is the text of HR. 2977 “Space Preservation Act Of 2001” which Congressman Kucinich introduced to ban weapons systems that, among other things could be used ...

It’s sort of a Congressional tinfoil hat for those who cannot afford tinfoil. Congressman Kucinich is definitely looking out for the conspiracy retards on the Left. These are the same people who believe Elvis is alive and well in Minnesota living in disguise. In a shared condo with Big Foot. And Jimmy Hoffa.

Now, Congressman Kook has decided to pull the plug on Iraq by simply cutting off all funding for the war, possibly leaving our troops to hitchhike their way home on their own. It’s really nothing new. The Democratically controlled Congress pulled the same stunt back in 1973 when they cut off all funds to support South Vietnam and threw the people there to the Commies. Some things never change, do they ...

Kucinich Calls for Cutting Off Iraq War Funds
“That’s the only way we’re going to end this war.”
_{(KUCINICH.US) - Nov 15, 2006}

Congressman Kucinich called Wednesday for cutting off funding of the Iraq war, as the surest way out of Iraq. His statements were made in an interview by Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman.

“I want to say that there’s one solution here, and it’s not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it’s for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don’t need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.

“We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That’s the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That’s how we’ll end this war, and that’s the only way we’re going to end this war. We need to shift our direction.”

“We have to take a whole new approach. We’re spending over $400 billion a year, money that’s also needed for healthcare, for education, for job creation, for seniors. We have to take a new look at this. We need to be a strong country, but strength isn’t only military. Strength is also the economic strength of the people, their chance to have good neighborhoods. We spend more money than all the countries of the world put together for the military.

“It’s time for us to start to shift our vision about who we are as a nation, because if we don’t do that—we’re borrowing money right now to wage the war in Iraq. We’re borrowing money from China. We’re not looking at our trade deficit. We’re not looking at conditions, where people are going bankrupt trying to pay their hospital bills. We need to shift our direction, and the direction has to be away from the continued militarization of the United States society.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/16/2006 at 11:48 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

Exit Strategy

It is my considered opinion that John Murtha should be declared mentally incompetent and forced to step down from Congress and institutionalized somewhere quiet and restful. Otherwise, he stands to break a lot of things in the near future. In addition, for some odd reason, Nancy Pelosi has decided to not only defend Murtha but to employ a full-court press to get him appointed majority leader of the House.

While watching all of this unfold, I have the feeling that I am staring down into the abyss ... and the abyss is staring back ... and chuckling. I hate it when that happens. The abyss is not supposed to derive this much satisfaction from mere mortals shaking in our boots. Bad things are going to happen and real soon, I’m afraid. This bodes ill and I hate that even worse because I have no idea what it means to “bode”. Does the abyss know how to bode? Maybe I’ll ask it while I’m here.

In the meantime, Iraqis better go ahead and grab a seat on the next chopper out of town. With Pelosi and Murtha running things in Washington, now is not a good time to bode in Iraq ... or anywhere in the Muddled East ...

_{Aislin - The Montreal Gazette}

Abandoning Iraq
- by Robert Kagan & William Kristol
_{(WEEKLY STANDARD) - 11/28/2005, Volume 011, Issue 11}

Rep. Jack Murtha has had a distinguished congressional career. But his outburst last Thursday was breathtakingly irresponsible. Nowhere in his angry and emotional call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq did the Pennsylvania Democrat bother to ask, much less answer, the most serious questions his proposal raises. What would be the likely outcome in Iraq if the United States pulled out? Does Murtha actually believe the Iraqi people could fight the al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein loyalists by themselves once American forces left? He does not say. In fact, he knows perfectly well that the Iraqi people are not yet capable of defending themselves against the monsters in their midst and that, therefore, a U.S. withdrawal would likely lead to carnage on a scale that would dwarf what is now occurring in Iraq.

But that would be just the beginning. If U.S. troops were withdrawn and the Iraqi people were not able to defeat the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, what would happen? What if Zarqawi and his al Qaeda allies were able to make common cause with the Baathists to turn Iraq into a terrorist state or to provide a haven for terrorists, complete with an oil supply to finance their global activities? And what of Iraq’s neighbors, which include Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia? They would likely decide that they could not afford to let a vacuum develop in Iraq or allow their adversaries to establish a base there. All these nations would contemplate military intervention in Iraq, directly or indirectly through the arming of allies. The possibility of a regional conflict erupting among any or all of these powers could not be excluded. Is this is a tolerable outcome for the United States?

In fact, Murtha does seem to be aware of the disasters that are almost certain to follow the immediate withdrawal he demands. He calls for the creation of “a quick reaction force in the region.” He calls for “an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.” And he calls for the United States “to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.” We have too much respect for Murtha to believe that he seriously imagines we would be able through diplomacy alone to bring “security and stability” to Iraq. But the question is, when the inevitable disaster unfolded as a result of his proposed withdrawal, what would be his plan for the “quick reaction force” and “over-the-horizon presence” of the Marines? It seems he would have us withdraw our forces, hand a monumental moral, political, and military victory to the terrorists in Iraq and all over the world--only to take us back into war when the inevitable disaster began to unfold.

Murtha, of course, claims that the U.S. occupation is the primary problem in Iraq and that “our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence.” This is nonsense. For many months now, the insurgents have been shifting their attacks away from U.S. and coalition forces and directing them at Iraqis instead. Iraqis now make up the overwhelming majority of casualties resulting from insurgent attacks. This shift is evidence not only of the effectiveness of our protective measures, but also of the growing vitality of the Iraqi political process, which the insurgents, according to their own statements, fear and hate more than the U.S. military presence. As for the rise in the number of “incidents” against U.S. forces to which Murtha points, those numbers do not distinguish between incidents initiated by insurgents and those initiated by Americans. Recent U.S. operations have generated a large number of incidents, indeed--almost all of them supporting the coalition’s goals and harming the insurgents.

We do not pretend that all is well in Iraq, although things are starting to look a bit better. We agree with Murtha, and have written repeatedly, that the military is stretched thin and needs to be increased. The congressman, however, is in a position to do something about that. We, for one, would support any legislation he offered to increase the size of the Army and the military budget in this time of war.

In 1946, George Orwell remarked that “the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."Victory is in fact possible, though it will require a longer war than anyone would like, but not so long a war as to be intolerable. What would be intolerable would be to lose to the terrorists in Iraq. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a prescription for catastrophe. Far from extricating ourselves from a crisis, we would have driven ourselves into an even deeper crisis. It is no favor to the members of the armed forces who have served or are serving in Iraq to declare now that all their efforts and sacrifices are in vain. The way to honor their sacrifices is by winning.

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/16/2006 at 05:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - November 15, 2006

Not So Fast, Donks!

Now, the generals who were screaming bloody murder and calling for Donald Rumsfeld’s head have suddenly decided we don’t need to hurry up and get out of Iraq. In fact, they think we need to increase troop levels. This has the new Democrat majority somewhat confused as to what to do now. Pardon me while I clap my hands, stomp my feet and cackle gleefully to myself. Lemme hear you all say “QUAGMIRE” one more time! Bwah-hah-ha-ha-ha-ha ....

_{Matt Davies - The Journal News}

Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say
_{WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - November 15, 2006}

One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

Reid Pledges To Press Bush On Iraq Policy
_{(WASHINGTON POST) - Wednesday, November 15, 2006}

Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who was elected Senate majority leader yesterday, said last night that President Bush still has not grasped the urgent need to change course in Iraq. Reid vowed to press quickly for phased troop withdrawals, a more international approach to Iraq’s problems and a rebuilding of the depleted U.S. military.

In his first extensive interview since the Senate Democrats’ leadership election, Reid also said members of his party will have to think big on the nation’s domestic issues. That includes tackling the budget deficit with strict new rules on spending, exploring an eventual expansion of Medicare to address the uninsured, and examining an increase in tax rates on upper-income Americans.

But it was on the issue of Iraq that he was most passionate. Voter anger over the war swept his party to power with the unlikely defeat of six Republican senators, he said. Democrats must respond to that anger, he added, with hearings to keep the heat on the Bush administration, and with calls for a regional Middle Eastern conference and a revitalized Iraqi reconstruction effort.

To that end, he said, one of the first acts of the new Democratic Congress will be a $75 billion boost to the military budget to try to get the Army’s diminished units back into combat shape.

Democrats will not try, Reid pledged, to play the strongest hand they have—using Congress’s power of the purse to starve the war effort of money and force the president to move. Such an effort would only elicit a veto from Bush. But he said Democrats will marshal their newly acquired power—in hearing rooms and on the Senate floor—to stoke public opinion and drive the debate.

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/15/2006 at 10:17 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - November 14, 2006

Handwriting On The Wall

_{Tab - The Calgary Sun}

Leading Democrats Announce Their Plan For Iraq
_{WASHINGTON (ABC NEWS) - Nov. 13, 2006}

Democrats who turned voter frustration with President Bush and the war in Iraq into majorities in both houses of Congress welcomed their new colleagues to Capitol Hill orientation today and said they would respond to the voter discontent. Leading Senate Democrats revived a plan for the “phased redeployment” of American troops out of Iraq, even though the plan did not get unanimous support among Democrats when it was first introduced in June.

What phased withdrawal would mean, according to Sen. Carl Levin, who after January will be the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is that the president would tell the Iraqi government that U.S. troops would start slowly redeploying out of Iraq, into an advisory role while they are in-country, and with a lot fewer of them there.

“Most Democrats share the view that we should pressure the White House to commence the phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq in four to six months — to begin that phased redeployment, and thereby to make it clear to the Iraqis that our presence is not open-ended and that they must take and make the necessary political compromises to preserve Iraq as a nation,” Levin said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves.

“They, and they alone, are going to decide whether they’re going to have a nation or whether they’re going to have an all-out civil war,” he said. “We have given them the opportunity, at huge cost of blood and treasure, to have a nation, should they choose it. But it is up to them, not us, not our brave and valiant troops — it’s up to the Iraqi leadership: Do they want a civil war or do they want a nation?”

Asked what would happen if phased redeployment is enacted, American troops leave Iraq and the country descends into civil war, Levin said there would be no real difference from what is happening with current U.S. policy, since civil war is the current trajectory. Levin said Democrats would wait to hear the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group as well as what he called “scrubbing” of options in Iraq currently underway by ranking military officials.

For his part, Bush implied that Democratic majorities in the House and Senate mean that Democrats have won themselves ownership of a piece of the credit and blame in Iraq. “What’s interesting is they’re beginning to understand that with victory comes responsibility, and I’m looking forward to working with the Democrats to achieve common objectives,” Bush said after his own photo op — this one with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the Oval Office.

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/14/2006 at 02:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq •  
• Comments (11) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - November 07, 2006

Euro-Peon Pussies

See the picture below? Those are Palestinian boys carrying signs protesting the death sentence of their hero ... Saddam Hussein. He is their hero because Saddam was paying out $25,000 to the families of all Palestinian suicide bombers. Their dirtbag parents and religious leaders took the money and sent their sons and daughters into Israel with explosives strapped on tight ... in much the same manner that you send your kids off to school every day - except your kids don’t blow themselves up. For money. From a mass murderer.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, speaking to reporters on Monday, said he opposed the death penalty for Mr. Hussein, joining several other European leaders and European Union officials who announced their opposition to the sentence. When pressed by reporters, Mr. Blair spoke of his longstanding opposition to capital punishment. He said he did not intend to protest the sentence, and condemned Mr. Hussein’s brutality.

European leaders insisted that the viciousness of the actions of which Mr. Hussein was found guilty had not changed their view that state-sponsored killing was wrong. Some warned that executing Mr. Hussein would only worsen the sectarian bloodshed in Iraq.

The Associated Press quoted Terry Davis, secretary general of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, as saying: “A country ravaged by violence and death does not need more violence, and especially not a state-orchestrated execution. Saddam Hussein is a criminal and should not be allowed to become a martyr.” Amnesty International said Sunday that it “deplored” Mr. Hussein’s sentence, describing the proceedings as “deeply flawed and unfair.”

-- NY TIMES, November 6 - “Many Oppose Death Penalty for Hussein”

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/07/2006 at 03:02 AM   
Filed Under: • EUro-peons • Iraq • Middle-East •  
• Comments (12) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner