Thursday, March 01, 2007
Iraqi tip leads to large IED find
The Iraqi people will help.
A large cache of improvised explosive devices was discovered Monday by Iraqi police and Coalition forces near the Baqubah area in the Diyala province.
Iraqi Police from Judidah and Soldiers from the 1-12 Combined Arms Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division teamed up together and found the deadly arsenal.
Thanks to a tip received from a concerned Iraqi citizen, the team found the IED-making material in an open palm grove stashed under tarps and palms, said Capt. Clayton Combs, C company commander, 1-12 Cav. “Crazy Horse.”
Combs, who commands the company that found the cache, said the significance in this particular find was the presence of explosively formed projectiles (EFP).
There is a deadly effectiveness with these types of IED’s, Combs said. “If put together properly, these are a very dangerous form of IED.”
Good for them. One then another than another and the next thing you know the Iraqi people will treat this kind of thing as a matter of course and the right thing to do.
Posted by JimK at 02:08 AM on March 01, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
Categories: News, The Middle East, War, U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq
General Petraeus speaks
Full text after the jump.
Posted by JimK at 01:45 AM on March 01, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
Categories: News, The Middle East, War, U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq
Monday, February 26, 2007
on’tday entionmay uccesssay!
A gloomy haze has settled over the nation’s prosecution of the War on Terror as of late. It seems like we can only watch helplessly as Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha size up new angles of attack for undermining the war effort. The media is chomping at the bit the tell the story of an America, bruised and humbled and exhausted, heading for the exits in Iraq.
But something interesting is happening on the way to the “new direction.” Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn’t been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it’s safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.
In Iraq, there’s a sense that change is in the air—literally. Omar of Iraq the Model spots a B-1 Bomber in the skies of Baghdad for the first time since the end of the major combat. On the ground, Omar writes that the signs that Iraqis are getting serious about security are more palpable. With the help of Compstat-like technology, security forces are cracking down at checkpoints (even ambulances are getting stopped) and getting nimbler about locating them strategically so the terrorists don’t know what to expect.
This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media’s near-deafening silence. If it seems like you’ve heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what’s happening. Time magazine worries that it’s “Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet.” That’s right—a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news.
It’s too early to claim victory just yet; the operation is just two weeks old. But U.S. troops have been able to accomplish all of this with just one more brigade in-country, with four more on the way by May. These encouraging early returns show the potential for success when we apply concentrated military force to the security problem. When the Army and Marine Corps are on offense, carrying out combat operations and clearing out insurgent strongholds, we win. When we lay back, carrying out routine patrols and playing Baghdad beat cop, we lose.
The key to success is staying power.
Not much else to say...it goes on to talk about the Daffyd ab-Hugh post I mentioned the other day.
Hat tip: Wizbang
Posted by JimK at 02:47 AM on February 26, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
Categories: News, Politics, The Middle East, The Blogosphere, War, U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq media
Friday, February 23, 2007
A post about Iraq I wish I had written
Dafydd at Big Lizards discussing the oft-made Iraq as a game of Whack-A-Mole analogy and how that is only half of the story.
We’ve already whacked a number of moles: we killed quite a few, captured others, and drove a lot of very big moles right out of the country (such as Muqtada Sadr, Iranian puppet, and his top lieutenants). Now we’re busily sealing the holes.
Let’s give the new strategy some time, for goodness’ sake.
No, better to flail about hysterically, trying to convince anyone who will listen that everything to date has been in vain, all these soldiers died for a failed mission, Iraq is Vietnam, we shouldn’t try to fix anything because it’s too late, frame everything in the most negative way possible, pass meaningless resolutions that tell the troops how much we really despise them and then, when all that is said and done, we’ll de-fund the frigging military and cause the loss rate to double or triple, all because we don’t like Bush and we have no other way to get under his skin, as he is apparently made of Teflon and could not care less what we think of him as a leader or a decider or a doofus with huge ears. He just doesn’t care, and so people are looking for any way they can to get to him.
I’m pretty sure telling soldiers that everything they do is worthless, then taking their money away is not the right answer.
Before anyone asks, the answer is yes.
Posted by JimK at 03:38 PM on February 23, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
Categories: News, Politics, The Middle East, War, U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Re: the British troop reduction in Iraq
I am so sick of everyone’s hyperbole whenever any detail about Iraq is discussed. This latest move by Blair is nothing more than a long-planned reduction that is being carried out as planned. Any chance of people discussing this without turning into raving asses?
Here, check this news report out. Literally nothing but the facts, no bias, no opining, just the bare data:
Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday that Britain would reduce its troop levels in Iraq by 1,600 over coming months, but its soldiers would stay in the country into 2008 as long as they were wanted.
“The actual reduction in forces will be from the present 7,100—itself down from over 9,000 two years ago and 40,000 at the time of the conflict—to roughly 5,500,” Blair told parliament. “The UK military presence will continue into 2008, for as long as we are wanted and have a job to do,” he said.
Why did I have to go to a Croatian news site to see the Reuters wire report stripped to just the facts? Anyway...when you remove the emotion and the hyperbole, you can see this is just another step in a long-term British plan for their continued presence in Iraq. It doesn’t mean success is at hand and it doesn’t signal imminent failure.
It’s just another in a long series of reductions in UK troop levels. In fact, it’s a total non-story that has been blown completely out of proportion by a media desperate to pile on the White House and bloggers who can’t control themselves from being extremists. I’m not saying Cheney is helping when he says stupid things like this:
“Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well,” Cheney told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl.
“In fact, I talked to a friend just the other day who had driven to Baghdad down to Basra, seven hours, found the situation dramatically improved from a year or so ago, sort of validated the British view they had made progress in southern Iraq and that they can therefore reduce their force levels,” Cheney said.
But then Cheney is the source of the “We’ll be greeted as liberators” stuff. Cheney is always spinning. The man speaks in spin. It may be cute and fun to claim he’s the real President but he’s not, and he definitely isn’t running the UK. So let’s just slow our roll shall we? I’d love to see some discussion of Iraq that did not involve insults or emotion. I’d love to see some facts.
One place I suggest to see some hyperbole-free blogging on Iraq is Mudville Gazette. I always feel more informed after I read that site. Perhaps more importantly lately, I don’t feel insulted by the writing either. Give them a shot, see what you think.
Posted by JimK at 07:38 PM on February 21, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
Categories: News, The Middle East, The Blogosphere, War, U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Success and failure in Iraq
I’ve always had a weird ride as a reader of Daily Pundit. I often find myself agreeing with Bill Quick - in fact almost all the time - but the few times I’ve opened my mouth in disagreement, we end up calling each other names and acting like kids. It’s weird and frustrating because I almost always like what he writes, like 99.95% of the time. But then I get all jerkstore at times I guess and he is not one to take kindly to things you can buy at the jerkstore. :) Anyway, I read him (and his co-authors) every day, and once again, I find myself in lock-step with something he wrote. Bill quotes Instapundit saying the following in regards to this New York Times article:
This sounds promising. Unfortunately, too many members of the U.S. political classes have now put themselves in a situation where success is politically more dangerous than failure.
Bill’s response, chopped. Obviously you should hit the link for the whole thing…
You know, I’d take this sort of thing considerably more seriously if those burbling on about both “success” and “failure” in Baghdad and/or Iraq would define precisely what they mean by the words.
...
Sure, I’ll go first. Success in Iraq means an Iraq able to exercise self-determinism without fear of terrorist or other types of violence sponsored either by Iran or Saudi Arabia, and possessing a government that poses no terrorist threat to anybody else.
...
Failure is anything appreciably less than the definitions of success. Defeat is cutting and running without ever really trying to achieve success in the first place.
I agree with this definition, but would add one thing; We need a permanent (yes, I said permanent) military presence in the Middle East, in a friendly country that isn’t Israel. We need another Rammstein or Okinawa, only a little more hot and dry ifyougetmydrift. I think success in Iraq depends not only on a stable government that is out of the terror business, but is also dependent on that stable government being not only friendly toward us, but acting in partnership with us. I think Iran is all too well aware of what a stong-ish Iraq backed by a permanent US military base or two would mean. I think that is why Iran is running this puppet insurgency. Syria wouldn’t be too happy with that kind of success either.
Anyway, I don’t expect too many to agree with me, and I certainly don’t expect a single politician to say the words “permanent military base” out loud until it’s already built and staffed and has had its first bake sale courtesy of the Fort Green Zone Military Wives Auxiliary or whatever it will be called.
This is my definition of success; A stable-enough-to-run-itself Iraq, no funding or training or support of terrorism, and a military base that is nicely situated between Rammstein and Kadena (or maybe Pine Gap in Australia when they eventually relocate the Okinawa facilities). If we can walk away with those goals achieved, no one, not even John Murtha or John Kerry could say that we lost.
Posted by JimK at 03:17 AM on February 18, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
Categories: News, Politics, The Federal Government, The Middle East, War, U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq
Friday, February 16, 2007
Non-binding, but it still makes my ass ache
The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush’s decision to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.
The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182.
“The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.
Let me translate that for you.
Dear Joe Q. Soldier,
We, the duly elected Democratic Congress that represents 50% of your home country, think you’re all idiots and each and every one of you that feels a sense of pride and accomplishment over your mission is a dupe, a rube, and a misguided child. You’re too stupid to make your own decisions about what you should be doing, and you are led by people even dumber than you. We are far more qualified, since you know, we’ve never been there or if we have, we never left the Green Zone. Just because the WWE and Kid Rock have seen more hotspots and danger zones than any ten of us doesn’t mean anything - we have the AP and Reuters and the New York Times to tell us what is happening. You’ve accomplished nothing and every single person in Iraq hates you. Furthermore, there are no foreign interests besides us operating in Iraq.
That having been said, not one of us has the courage to actually do anything to upset the applecart. Well, except Murtha, but he’s senile, bitter, corrupt and crazy. Even we don’t listen to him much. The thing is, we won our positions based on empty rhetoric and empty threats. We’re barely holding on here, and we have to be very careful so we don’t get destroyed in the 2008 elections. Surely you can understand, right? I mean, is it really so awful that we think you’re stupid, want to pull you off your mission well before you feel it’s complete and on top of all that, we don’t want to do it yet because it might jeopardize our shot at the White House? Sure, we think thousands of you may die in the next two years. Of course we believe that. We also believe that your blood will float us to victory in 2008!
I believe that is what you signed up for...to ensure democracy, right? Well we’re Democrats, and you don’t get more democracy than with a party that had mostly the same letters in the name!
Barely tolerant of your existence,
Queen Nancy of The Franciso
Yep. That seems about right.
Supporters of the nonbinding resolution included 229 Democrats and 17 Republicans
I have searched high and low for one frigging news source to tell me the exact name of the bill, the res. number, or just point me to where I can see a roll of the vote so I can list the 17 weasels that wear the (R). Unfortunately I can’t find that information, not even in a search through the House.gov site. If anyone comes across it, please leave a link in the comments.
Anyone notice that in the 3,000+ news stories about this in Google, almost every single one is the AP wire story? Does no one do any reporting anymore?
*UPDATE*
Thanks to Bartley in the comments…
The 17 Republicans without spines are:
Castle (DE)
Coble (NC)
Davis (VA)
Duncan (TN)
English (PA)
Gilchrest (MD)
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller (FL)
Kirk (IL)
LaTourette (OH)
Paul (TX)
Petri (WI)
Ramstad (MN)
Upton (MI)
Walsh (NY)
Posted by JimK at 06:15 PM on February 16, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
Categories: News, Politics, The Middle East, War, U.S. Military
Tags: Nancy Pelosi Congress democrats military war iraq
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Joe gets it right
Joe Lieberman on the “non binding resolution” the Democrats want to pass about Iraq:
If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm’s way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.
I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider this history carefully. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a resolution like this one.
Past Congresses certainly debated wars. They argued heatedly about them. And they clashed directly with the Executive Branch over their execution. But in doing so they accepted the consequences of their convictions.
This resolution does no such thing. It is simply an expression of opinion. It does not pretend to have any substantive effect on policy on the ground in Iraq.
But again, I ask you: what will this resolution say to our soldiers? What will it say to our allies? And what will it say to our enemies?
We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe that they are winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That is the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and at the core of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution—by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake—confirms our enemies’ belief in American weakness.
This resolution also sends a terrible message to our allies. I agree that we must hold the Iraqi government to account. That is exactly what the resolution Senator McCain and I have offered would do. But I ask you: Imagine for a moment that you are a Sunni or Shia politician in Baghdad who wants the violence to end—and ask yourself how the Warner-Levin resolution will affect your thinking, your calculations of risk, your willingness to stand against the forces of extremism. Every day, you are threatened by enemies who want nothing but to inflict the most brutal imaginable horrors on you and your loved ones. Will this resolution empower you, or will it undermine you? Will it make you feel safer, or will it make you feel you should hedge your bets, or go over to the extremists, or leave the country?
And finally, what is the message this resolution sends to our soldiers? I know that everyone here supports our troops—but actions have consequences, often unintended. When we send a message of irresolution, it does not support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops.
Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Posted by JimK at 09:58 PM on February 08, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
Categories: News, Politics, The Middle East, War, U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq politics
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Text of Bush’s jan. 10 2007 speech on Iraq
Bush’s speech, in it’s entirety. I ganked it from Drudge because his links never stay good for long. I’m going to read it a few times before I say anything about it.
Posted by JimK at 12:48 AM on January 11, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
Categories: News, Politics, The Middle East, War, U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Bill would permanently bar drilling in Alaskan refuge - CNN.com
Opponents of oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge are going on the offense after playing defense for a quarter of a century. They want the new Democratic Congress to make an oft-challenged drilling ban permanent.
Legislation introduced in the House on Friday would make the oil-rich 1.2 million-acre coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a permanently protected wilderness and end repeated efforts to open the area east of the Prudhoe oil field to energy companies.
“The consensus is that there should not be drilling in the refuge, so the logical next step is to pass legislation which turns it into a wilderness,” Rep. Edward Markey, chief sponsor of the legislation, said in an interview.
The Massachusetts Democrat has introduced similar legislation in each of the last three congressional sessions. However, the House has approved drilling in the refuge a half dozen times, only to see the effort die in the Senate were supporters couldn’t muster the 60 votes to overcome a likely filibuster.
This time, with Democrats in the majority and a number of moderate Republicans on record as opposed to drilling, Markey believe he has a good chance in the House to go one step farther and declare the refuge permanently off-limits to oil development.
Dear Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, other oil-rich Middle Eastern countries and any and all terrorist organizations world-wide,
We enjoy being your bitches. Please continue to anally rape us at your leisure. God knows we never want to end our dependence on foreign oil! Let’s make sure we do useless crap for appearances sake, like send National Guard troops to the Mexican border with orders not to defend themselves or the border, or maybe we could push to enact another useless and impossible-to-meet set of protocols like Kyoto, just so it looks like we’re doing something...but we better not drill in Alaska, where it’s an actual guarantee that we could get at least some oil, because that would be an actual move forward, something called progress, and we simply cannot have progress in today’s political climate. It wouldn’t be fair to someone, somewhere, and that’s all that is truly important. Not the safety of the nation or the altering of our oil-based foreign policy - it’s making sure that fourteen caribou and three salmon can live and die in peace on hundreds of thousands of acres of nothingness.
Signed,
America’s brilliant leaders, Executive and Legislative branches
I really wish that, among all the idiotic things King George did while he had 100% control of the Federal machine, he had rammed a bill through to open ANWR to drilling. This should have happened approximately two and a half minutes after he was sworn in after being re-elected. Oh well.
Posted by JimK at 08:55 PM on January 06, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend
Categories: News, Politics, The Federal Government, The Middle East
Tags: ANWR oil
Page 3 of 21 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »


