More good news from Iraq

On Monday of next week, the U.S. will hand over security for Anbar province in Iraq to Iraqi forces.

Anbar used to be one of the most violent, strife-torn regions in Iraq.
It no longer is; activity by the terrorists there is way down.
We continue to win in Iraq.

The central front in the war on terror

Tony Blankley makes a very good point today concerning the war on terror--note that in doing so, he's dissing Senator Obama, who (today, anyway) thinks the focal point is Afghanistan:

"...his idea that the central front of the war on terror is in some geographic location is simplistic. The central front is in the minds of Muslims around the world. If we lose Iraq and Islamist radicals are seen to win, we lose a strategic battle in the war -- just as in the Cold War the strategic front was not in Greece in 1947 or Berlin in 1948 or China in 1949 or Korea in 1950 or Cuba in 1962 or Vietnam in 1965 or in Eurocommunist countries in the 1970s. The central front was always the minds of men. When the idea of Soviet-style communism was defeated by Reagan, the war ended. When virtually all Muslims see terror to be a dead end to their aspirations, the war on terror will be over."

Note the parallel to the Cold War--that conflict has much to teach us.
And make no mistake, America's defeat in Vietnam gave momentum to the communist side for a time after 1975. Soon Cuban meddling in Africa grew, as did Soviet influence in world affairs in general; and U.S. alliances in Southeast Asia wobbled. The same kind of shudder would go through U.S. foreign policy should we give up in Iraq.

Good news from the war on terror

Which I hasten to post here, given that too often such is ignored by the mainstream news media.
And the good news is not simply coming from the U.S. government, either:

"The sense of shifting tides in the terrorism fight is shared by a number of terrorism experts, though some caution that it is too early to tell whether the gains are permanent. Some credit Hayden and other U.S. intelligence leaders for going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where the tempo of Predator strikes has dramatically increased from previous years. But analysts say the United States has caught some breaks in the past year, benefiting from improved conditions in Iraq, as well as strategic blunders by al-Qaeda that have cut into its support base. "One of the lessons we can draw from the past two years is that al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy," said Robert Grenier, a former top CIA counterterrorism official who is now managing director of Kroll, a risk consulting firm. "Where they have succeeded initially, they very quickly discredit themselves."

The war is not endless, progress is being made, it's not being lost. Conservatives need to work harder at getting that message out.

Good news from Iraq

Though you may never have heard it. Remember the recent Iraqi offensive in Basra?
Many in the mainstream media were quick to declare it a failure.
Not so, reports The Weekly Standard:

"The Iraqi military was able to clear one Mahdi Army-controlled neighborhood in Basra and was in the process of clearing another when Sadr issued his ceasefire. The ceasefire came on March 30, after six days of fighting, and was seemingly unilateral in the sense that the Iraqi government made no apparent concessions in return. By that time, 571 Mahdi Army fighters had been killed, 881 wounded, 490 captured, and 30 had surrendered countrywide, according to numbers tabulated by The Long War Journal. Thus, an estimated 95 Mahdi Army fighters were killed per day during the six days of fighting. In contrast, al Qaeda in Iraq did not incur such intense casualties even during the height of the surge."

Read the whole thing.

Remember Goose Creek

“He explained that he made the tape to assist those persons in Arabic countries to defend themselves against the infidels invading their countries...”

Haven't talked about this case in this space yet, but it's significant. A couple of guys with ties to terrorism, planning terrorist acts, with (unsurprisingly) Muslim/Middle Eastern backgrounds (and it's sad that this is no longer surprising) were caught right here in the U.S. of A, in South Carolina.

And some in the news media at first tried to laugh them off as just transporting "fireworks."
Some in this country decry measures such as the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security threat level warnings, suggesting that any threat is overblown. They're wrong.

What do they hate?

Some of us have tried to make the point that Islamic fascist terrorists, such as Al Qaeda, have attacked America and the West because they do, indeed, hate our freedom.
Many on the other side of the aisle poo-poo this, and suggest that the attacks come out of political differences, and could be alleviated through U.S. concessions.
Even Osama Bin Laden himself tried to make this argument. On one of his early videos, he sneered that if it was about freedom, "why did we not attack Sweden?"
Well. The other day, his followers indeed we were not planning to attack Sweden.
They were planning to attack Denmark.
But I'm sure it was all America's fault.

Why they banned liquids

There was a real danger, and there still is. An excerpt (but read the whole thing):

Terrorists who had planned to detonate gel-based explosives on U.S.-bound flights from London last August would have achieved mass devastation, according to new information from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in an exclusive interview with ABC News.

...The components of that explosives mixture can be bought at any drugstore or supermarket; however, there is some question whether the potential terrorists would have had the skill to properly mix and detonate their explosive cocktails in-flight.
But they can work — scientists at Sandia National Laboratory conducted a test using the formula, and when a small amount of liquid in a container was hit with a tiny burst of electrical current, a large explosion followed.

Protecting John Doe, terrorist tipster

Hmmm. I'm surprised Democrats have been so resistant to this: "After nearly a week of intense, behind-the-scenes wrangling, congressional negotiators late Tuesday agreed to include in the pending Sept. 11 security bill sweeping liability protections for citizens who report to authorities suspicious activity they fear might be linked to terrorism. The "John Doe Protections" provision is meant to address the so-called "Flying Imams" case wherein six Muslim clerics in March sued passengers aboard a U.S. Airways flight because the passengers reported them to authorities, leading to their detention. The clerics were later cleared but their lawsuit, many lawmakers feared, would discourage future vigilance among the flying public.
The Sept. 11 security bill is a top Democratic priority and Republicans fought hard to include the passenger immunity protection, creating common cause with Connecticut Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the conference committee that is knitting together the House and Senate bills." I found this info here. i see Rudy Giuliani meanwhile had no hesitation in endorsing this provision.

The day's good news from Iraq

A leading member of Al Qaeda in Iraq is apprehended.
The commander of the U.S. Third Infantry Division in Iraq says the surge is having a significant impact upon Baghdad and points near.

More reasons to wait (continued from yesterday)

The new National Intelligence Estimate is coming out. It says Al Qaeda continues to plan to attack us here in this country, and their allies in Iraq will help them. Further, U.S. military war-gamers, though not necessarily agreeing with the Bush administration on every point, do acknowledge today that bloodshed will greatly increase in the event of an American withdrawal. Even the head of the UN agrees that "great caution" must be taken in any thinking about a pullout.



Democrats such as Senate majority leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, have failed to deal with the above issues. Here's an excellent example---read how Senator Reid completely fails to address the question of will the Iraqi people be safer if the U.S. leaves.



Meanwhile, there's good news from Iraq. In Diyala, tribal leaders vow to begin battling Al Qaeda. The Fighting 6th Marines in Iraq's Anbar province say they're getting the job done.



And if you too believe we should wait until September, you're not alone---51% of Americans agree. And overall, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate suggests that Bush administration policies concerning the war on terror are working---details and analysis here.

Why we can wait

One of the commenters the other day asked a good question concerning the war in Iraq: why should we wait until September to make a decision about it (whether to pull out, or at least begin to draw down American troops, etc)? How long do we have to wait? Haven't we waited long enough?

I guess I would answer that question this way: why NOT wait?

Look: I think we're fighting terrorists in Iraq, to a great degree; we're fighting those who have at least some kind of sympathy with Al Qaeda, with those who would like to defeat the United States, who wish harm to the ideas and principles we believe in (and there are members of Al Qaeda in Iraq). That's how this battle is connected to the overall war on terror.

And I believe the war on terror is the most important, twilight struggle of this generation, the most important conflict since the Cold War. And that battle was the most important since World War II. We cannot lose.

I believe that there is evidence that the "surge" is having a positive effect. I've linked to items explaining such at various times over the past couple of weeks. Given all that, of course we should wait until September, at least. Wars cannot be won on timetables. They won't operate according to timetables. In World War II, we didn't say, well, if the war's not over by 1944, then it's just too costly and we'd better think about getting out. Conflicts don't work that way. For one thing, if your enemy perceives you as operating according to a timetable, he'll simply wait you out. Wait long enough, and you'll leave. It's a sure way to lose.

I think one of the biggest problems with this war is the question of information. Americans on both sides of this question simply don't agree with each other concerning exactly what is happening both in Iraq and with the war on terror in general. And further, I don't think we any longer agree on just how important the war on terror is (you recall, John Edwards for example now says it was all just a political slogan to gain votes).

Even some of those who doubt the utility of the war in Iraq, though, agree that if the U.S. leaves, it could trigger an Iraqi plunge into a bloodbath, into civil war at best, into allowing that country to become a full-fledged Al Qaeda beachhead at worst. And I think a withdrawal would embolden every terrorist enemy of the United States, everywhere. America can be beaten, they'll say. Americans don't have the will for the struggle. Keep up terrorist attacks against them and against the West in general; nay, step them up.

How can we risk this? It's very dangerous to risk encouraging the enemy in that way (9/11 taught us that). Thus, I believe it's merely the responsible thing to do to at least wait until September, to give this surge every chance. At least. Putting it bluntly, terrorism is yet another example--we've seen it throughout history--of barbarians at the gates, enemies of civilization...I'd even go so far as to call it a manifestation of evil (and evil isn't some antiquarian notion--wasn't Hitler evil? weren't the mass murderers in Rwanda evil?. It's a very principled, yes, fundamental struggle. It has little to do with merely engaging in a partisan defense of a political party or presidential administration.

Where's Osama?

(Via Instapundit and The Corner) Michael Ledeen suggests that, given that the recent video clip released of Osama Bin Laden appears to be from 2001 or 2002, Osama may be dead. After all, why not make a new video of him?

Don't know much about history...

Many have already commented on the outrageous comments that appeared recently from Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota). To refresh your memory, here they are:

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

Of course, it's an outrage to draw comparisons between the Bush administration and Nazi Germany in and of itself. But another reason to be outraged is Congressman Ellison's ignorance of history. Let's examine how ignorant it is: 1] The Reichstag fire occurred in February 1933, around a month after Hitler and the Nazis had come to power in Germany. The fire was almost surely set by a single Dutch communist, Marin van der Lubbe; Hitler however immediately assumed that the entire Communist Party was behind it (though he had little evidence for that). 2] In 2001, however, no one denies that President Bush was correct to blame 9/11 on Al Qaeda and Islamofascism in general. Hitler created a threat for which he had little evidence. Bush didn't. 3] Hitler did indeed use the threat of communist terror to gain broad new powers. He was able to get the German legislature (the Reichstag) to pass a bill called the Enabling Act, which basically suspended the constitution and civil liberties. But 4] say what you will about the Patriot Act or other anti-terrorism legislation sought by the Bush administration, the fact remains that the Constitution has not been suspended and neither have civil liberties. And the raging antiwar blogosphere, which probably helped give Congressman Ellison ideas for such a remark as he made, is proof of it. More details here.

Al-Jazeera/English wants your input...

...and they say so themselves, right here. They want input from Americans on how they can make their channel better, and they invite YouTubers to make 30-second-or-less videos as a response.

Well, don't let them down. Tell 'em what you think--and don't forget to include some constructive criticism. For example, note that even many in the Middle East find something to criticize when it comes to Al Jazeera...

Domenici dumps Bush, Iraq war

Leading Republican Senator Pete Domenici has become the latest GOP congressional leader to come out against the war; see the details here. I note that Senator Domenici on the one hand said: "I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops."

But then he turned around and said: "But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

That sure sounds like someone heading down the road towards urging withdrawal from Iraq and a reduction in funding. And it doesn't sound like a real principled position. Why are some Republicans, who've supported the war this long already, suddenly in such a rush to declare the surge a failure? Why not wait until September?

I fear the main thing driving a few of these Republicans is a fear of losing the 2008 election. Is an election more important than winning the war on terror? I hope not. That would be even less principled.

Deconstructing John Edwards

Speaking of John Edwards, maybe you remember the major foreign policy address he gave to the Council on Foreign Relations back in May. It got a good deal of play, mainly because Edwards slammed President Bush's "war on terror" as only a political "slogan" used to beat down his opponents and to justify anything Bush wanted to do. But there were many other interesting nuggets to be found in it. In a way, if you look at the actual text of the speech, I don't know that Edwards disagrees with the president as much as he claims. I don't know that this will help him much, though.

So, to work. Let's see. Edwards says we need a "post-Bush", "post 9/11" foreign policy which will protect Americans "from 21st century threats." Hmmm---wouldn't that include global terrorism, as Bush argues?

Candidate Edwards does indeed call for an immediate withdrawal of between 40,000 and 50,000 American troops from Iraq. But note he also says that we'll have to retain "sufficient" forces in the region to prevent a bloodbath; he acknowledges that failing to do so could make Iraq into an Al Qaeda "safe haven." He claims we'll need "Quick Reaction Forces" in Kuwait and the Persian Gulf, and that we'll continue to need American troops in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone. Even the antiwar Mr. Edwards isn't for a total pullout.

But then he says we'll need to engage in a major "diplomatic offensive" to involve the rest of the world in Iraq's future. Yes, well, after a major withdrawal of troops and the signal being sent that a total pullout might just be inevitable, who's going to listen to us?

Former Senator Edwards said: "We need to get out of Iraq on our own timetable, not when we are forced to do so by events." Er, excuse me, Senator---aren't you urging us to get out of Iraq very soon, and aren't you suggesting we do so because "events" (the continuing "insurgency", American casualties, etc) are forcing our hand?

Mr. Edwards addresses the principles by which he, as commander in chief, would employ American force. One of these would be "to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors..." and "to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons..." Er, would Mr. Bush disagree with that? Didn't he say that a reason to act against Iraq was because Saddam Hussein had shown himself to be an aggressor and a supporter of terrorists?

Mr. Edwards says "...the U.S. does not need permission to protect its interests..." Mr. Bush is right with you there. And Bush consulted with the UN concerning Iraq, and sought authorization for his actions from the Security Council, time and time again.

Edwards suggests we can reduce terrorism by leading a global fight against poverty. But Senator, we've been a leader among nations for decades now in our contributions to charitable causes, in our granting of humanitarian aid in case of disaster (remember the tsunami in Asia?). Has any of that made one iota of difference to Al Qaeda extremists?

Never mind Mr. Edwards' slams against President Bush. The real key here are the principles behind his foreign policy, principles which many Democrats share.

London terror attack update

Now it appears that almost all of the major players in the attempted London bombings were doctors. By the way, I note that some commentators are pooh-poohing the surprise felt by many at the fact that physicians were so involved in this plot. pointing out for example that historically (see for example Lenin's leadership of the Bolsheviks) it's common for educated persons to have led extremist groups. All true.

But from my vantage point, it's didn't surprise me that guys with advanced degrees plant bombs. (Yasser Arafat was hardly uneducated, for example). I guess it still does surprise me when persons who take Hippocratic oaths, and who apparently have devoted themselves to healing the sick, try to blow up women and children. Unfortunately radical Islamic terrorism still has the capacity to surprise. Maybe it no longer should.

London/Glasgow bombings: UPDATE

Now we're hearing that perhaps up to five of the eight persons so far identified as being part of this terrorist plot were...doctors. Some good information here. Unbelievable. It will be fascinating to hear, assuming these "physicians" are in fact guilty and ever talk, just how they justified something like this to themselves. (never mind trying to justify it to us--something like this is unjustifiable.) UPDATE: here's a photo of one of the accused doctor terrorists. Doesn't look too impoverished...

UPDATE 2: Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters reports 1] that British intelligence now believes that the genesis for the attacks came from Zarqawi's faction of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and 2] why physicians, as I asked above? For one thing, because Britain has a fast-track program to bring in physicians from abroad into their country. Guess who infiltrated it...

More on the London/Glasgow bombings

Note that one of those arrested today in connection with the London/Glasgow bombings, Mohammed Asha, is as usual of Middle Eastern origin; I would assume he is a Muslim. But did you see his occupation? He's a doctor, working in England since 2005. Medical doctors, who take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, possibly engaging in terrorism. Wow...

My view of the war on terror: it is global. It will follow us wherever we go. There is no "exit strategy" from it (that includes Iraq). It will be a fight to the finish. Our goal must be to win it. The war is more than Iraq. But it can't be divorced from Iraq, either. The events occurring over the weekend in London and elsewhere only confirm the extent of the war. Remember: England has a new prime minister now, Gordon Brown. He's been critical of the war. His foreign minister is a war critic, too. What does Al Qaeda do? They attack. The fundamental: there is no negotiating with terrorists like this. There is no concession that will appease them (and appeasement is wrong in any case).