New source of news in Iraq

Thanks to AubreyJ for these links...

I know some of you are going to say that you wouldn't trust the Pentagon's media with a ten foot pole. But the fact is the U.S. military is forbidden from intentionally lying to Americans. I've seen a lot of Armed Forces Network news reports over the years, and I have to say they aren't glossed over propaganda, but good honest news reports, from the viewpoint of soldiers.

What about the news reports planted by the U.S. government in Iraq? What about them, I ask? They were truthful stories. Iraqi papers were doing the same thing as the MSM; printing lots of bad news, some untrue, while refusing to print any good news. The U.S. simply balanced news coverage by paying papers to print both sides of the story. Heck, I think that the Pentagon should be allowed the do the same thing in America.

Anyhoot, on to the goodies:

Freedom Journal Iraq is a daily program produced by American Forces Network Iraq. This program focuses on military missions, operations and U.S. military forces in Iraq.

Click here for daily reports. Also try this recent interesting report (or here for low-bandwidth version).

Labels: iraq, media

Permalink

Iraq news ... from Iraq!

Lately, it seems that all discussions of Iraq are really discussions of Bush, and how the Democrats want to change our strategy. What is the best course for America? Bush's plan to increase troop strength, or the Democrat's plan to concede defeat? I've already posted my opinions on how we need to change the way we're fighting the war, and I think that Bush's plan incorporates some, but not all, of my opinions. But that's not what this post is about.


This post is a reminder that not all Iraqi news is made in Washington, DC. This post is a reminder that things are really happening in Baghdad, and if you want to know what they are, you should talk to those in Baghdad. Not a reporter from DC who flew over for a week to write a few articles, but someone who has lived there their entire life.

Specifically, I recommend Omar and Mohammed, whose blog Iraq the Model has been linked as the first link on my "Good Blogs" sidebar for a very long time. The last three posts have covered an ongoing security operation, which while widely publicized in Iraq, has escaped Western media coverage. It'd be a shame if our media put out any GOOD news for a change.

The first post discussed what Mohammad thought was the beginning of the operation:

The battles left more than 50 militants killed and more than a dozen captured, seven of whom are Syrians and this supports what we reported in our last post that eyewitnesses said. Meanwhile there have been more clashes in Al-Aamil district in western Baghdad yesterday and we learned that all roads and bridges leading to that area are now closed, with helicopters hovering above.

The second post discusses the raids in more detail, and includes some imagery on what life is like in the most insurgent-ridden parts of Baghdad. It also includes some interesting reactions to Bush's plan, including discussion in the Iraqi Parliament:

A few hours later a flood of comments from Iraqi politicians filled the media here and maybe the earliest and most interesting argument was the one that took place between Abdul Kareem Al-Inizi of the UIA (from a branch of the Dawa party that split from the original Dawa of Jafari and Maliki) and Mithal al-Alusi during yesterday's session of the parliament.

Al-Inizi said "Iraq is not an American state and Bush must consult with us before making such decisions about sending troops…" to which al-Alusi responded by saying "We have an elected prime minister and he was consulted…you and others like yourself wouldn't be sitting here had America not helped us. They are trying to protect this democracy and they possess what they can offer to help us with the security situation, but what do you have?? Cut the nonsense, ok? Do you think the parliament wants to vote about this? Fine, let's ask everybody if they want such voting…"

There was only silence in the hall after this and no one said another word about voting.

The final post covers an Al-Sabaah story that neighboring provinces are already finding insurgents flooding in from Baghdad in fear of combined U.S./Iraqi forces. What the article doesn't mention is that the operation is still in the very early phases. Still, the effect of the latest campaign is starting to show. Check out today's top three stories on Al-Sabaah, none of which were covered by CNN:

[Iraqi] MPs Optimist[sic] of Achieving Stability Soon
Numbers of police volunteers in Ramadi increased
16 Wanted Arrested

CNN's top story?

A journalist who saw videotape of the hangings of Saddam Hussein's half-brother and the dictator's former chief judge has described how one of the men was decapitated. John F. Burns, from the New York Times, told CNN that Barzan Hassan al-Tikriti's head "just snapped off." He said both men looked "deeply frightened" in the execution chamber.

Which brings me full-circle. If you want to know what's important to the Iraqi people, ask the Iraqi people. Read Iraqi newspapers. Read Iraqi blogs. Don't ask the opinion of some Atlanta-based tourist with a media visa and a video camera.

Labels: iraq, media

Permalink

Israel Fingers the Big Red Button

Israel today talked about its plans for a nuclear strike against Iran. Lots of folks are freaking out, but I think we should be clear that the fact that Israel is talking about it means Israeli isn't doing it -- yet. If the intention were to launch a strike this week, the last thing Israel would do is talk about it. Instead, this press conference was intended as a warning to Iran that Israel will not stand idly by while Iran develops nukes.

There's no doubt that Israel can do it. They've got the weaponry, they've got the training and the long-strike capability. The question is whether Israel, the most hated nation in the Middle East, would be willing to provoke retaliatory strikes from virtually all its neighbors by becoming the first country since the Second World War to split atoms in anger.

In the Nervous Rodent's opinion, yes, they would.

But that doesn't mean they will. This saber-rattling isn't intended to influence Iran. Ahmadinejad won't back down to threats from Israel, and neither will the Supreme Leader. But America will probably go out of its way, to include changing foreign policy, to keep Israel from starting a nuclear war in the Middle East. Perhaps they're scared the US is going soft on Iran?

On one hand, we've been saber-rattling ourselves. Russia complained today about the U.S. imposing sanctions on Russian firms selling goods to Iran. The appointment of Admiral Fallon, a Navy admiral, to lead USCENTCOM, embroiled in two ground wars, is interesting. It's a direct warning to Iran, since a war with Iran would place America in a naval war. Add to this the fact that USCENTCOM changed policy last month and ceased considering Iranians "off-limits," upsetting both Iran and Iraq.

On the other hand, we're bogged down in two ground wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are keeping a significant portion of our troops occupied, and more importantly, silenced hawks in our society. Who wants to stand up and say we need a third war? Do we have an exit strategy for that war?

An attack against Iran isn't necessarily a good idea at this stage. But we can't take it completely off the table until we find a way to influence Iran to cease supporting terrorist operations. Put simply, Iran is funding and supplying weapons to Hezbollah, Taliban, and Iraqi terrorists. Excluding the war in Somalia, Iran is supporting terrorism in every conflict in the Middle East. Can we win in Iraq as long as a protected nation sharing a large border is supporting the terrorists? Or does this sound too much like another war in recent history, Vietnam?

I've written before about the differences between Iraq and Vietnam. The scale of the conflict is the difference least recognized by the media -- U.S. causality rates are orders of magnitude smaller in Iraq than in Vietnam. But there are similarities, and we can use those to learn lessons from history and lead us to a better outcome. Both involved a nation in civil war, with each side supported by powerful external countries that were not directly at war with each other. In both, we attempted to extract ourselves by passing responsibility for the fighting to the local forces. In both, we'll have lost if we leave the other external power to finish the civil war unopposed.

What does all this mean, then? It means we must find a way to convince Iran to cease supporting terrorists around the world. Until we do, we'll remain in a stalemate, with the best possible outcome continued low-level violence as we see in Afghanistan. So if you're wondering why America insists on toeing a hard line with Iran, now you know. Thousands of U.S. lives hang in the balance.

EDIT: AubreyJ put this link in the comments, I think it deserves to be in the body. Check out some additional info about Iran.

Labels: afghanistan, iran, iraq, israel, nukes

Permalink

I'm back....

Okay, so I've been missing for a few months. Nine, I think. I'm working full-time, and until recently, attending college as well, and it's been sucking up my free time. But I'm back now, hopefully for a good while.

The first thing I want to tell you about is a story I saw today on Reuters. This Tuesday, Wesley Autrey, 50, was waiting for a subway in NYC, just trying to get to work. He watched Cameron Hollopeter suffer from a seizure and fall onto the subway tracks, while a train was coming. Knowing that the convulsing man would be killed, Wesley jumped onto the tracks and held Cameron down so the train would pass safely overhead.

Safely overhead may be an exaggeration. Wesley was brushed by the train, getting grease and dirt on his clothes, yet he was unharmed. Cameron's life was saved by the extraordinary act of bravery Wesley committed. It's a great feel-good story, true. I was surprised to hear this happened in Harlem, of all places. I was amused to learn that Wesley's boss didn't believe his excuse for being late to work. But there is something else that Wesley did that caught my attention.

Mayor Michael Bloomburg gave Wesley the Bronze Medallion for exceptional citizenship and outstanding achievement, the first time it was been awarded since 2005. Bloomburg called Wesley a "real hero." Wesley Audrey responded by saying the real heroes were U.S. troops in Iraq.

Wesley, you're absolutely right. But that doesn't mean Mayor Bloomburg was wrong. Wesley Audrey is a hero, because he selflessly and knowingly risked his life to save another's. He's got a lot more in common with the U.S. troops than he realizes.

Labels: heroes, iraq, nyc

Permalink

Church Says It Won't Break Laws, But Condemns Those Who Follow Them

Westboro Baptist Church likes to protest at funerals. Pretty disgusting, huh? And what are they protesting? They're protesting against homosexuality. So you'd think they're protesting at the funerals of gay men who've died from AIDS, right? Pretty insensitive, right? No, Westboro Baptist, a small church in Kansas, travels around the country to protest at the funerals of American servicemembers killed in combat.

At least they're going to the funerals of gay servicemembers, right? No! This church is hijacking the funerals of proud servicemembers in order to promote their anti-gay agenda. Specifically, they're praising God for killing servicemembers for defending a country that allows homosexuality. Because you can legally have sex with another man, these people think God is killing our soldiers with IEDs as punishment.

I could talk about how it's not actually illegal to be gay in most countries, and how tenuous the relationship between a bomb placed in Iraq is to God's feelings on two men in San Francisco, but I won't insult anyone's intelligence by pointing out the obvious. Nor will I point out that the United Stated Armed Forces have got to be one of the most homosexual-intolerant institutions in the country.

Instead, I'll just point out a simple piece of advice. If the fact that people are free to live how they want bothers you, move out of our country. Many fine countries have far fewer freedoms and more governmental controls on personal behavior. May I recommend Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Labels: church, homosexuality, iraq

Permalink

Truth and Lies in E-mail

I got one of those e-mails today that tried to justify staying in Iraq. While I agree that we should stay, I don't support the use of fuzzy math to pull the wool over peoples' eyes. Here's the e-mail I received:

Subject: STATISTICS

Interesting thought for the day: - Gotta love the logic.

If you consider that there have been average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C

In God We Trust

(All typos from the original)

It doesn't take a genius to see this was rapidly thrown together by someone who didn't care to check statistics. The given numbers show not the firearm death rate for Iraq, but the overall death rate including accidents. Even then, if you do the division you'll find the stated numbers come out to 1320 per 100,000 over the 22 month period, or 720 per 100,000 over a one-year period.

Of course, it's not fair to add in the non-combat deaths, nor is it really fair to include deaths from the "major combat" phase of operations. After all, we're trying to compare the cost of supporting peace and democracy in Iraq, not the cost of the overall war. We can't change the past, but we can consider the future. So how many Soldiers are dying in Iraq from combat?

According to casualties.org, a mildly anti-war site, there have been 1,604 hostile deaths since the end of major combat, a period of 141 weeks (April 9th 2003 through Dec 17th 2005). And although the number of troops was higher during major combat, and there has been talk of increasing troops strengths back up, the baseline for US troops in Iraq has been 138,000. So, when I do the math I get a hostile death rate of 428.65 per 100,000 troops, per year.

You may have seen statistics that the DC area saw a record 466 homicides last year. Of course, that's the DC area -- Washington DC itself saw a slight decline last year, with only 194 homicides. With a population of 572,000, Washington has a homicide rate of 33.92 per 100,000 residents, per year.

Net result: Your odds of being shot during a one-year tour of duty in Iraq are approximately ten times your odds of being shot in Washington DC during the same time period. A man who lives in Washington DC his entire life, therefore, is far more likely to be killed than a Soldier who deploys to Iraq for a year.

Of course, we can fudge the numbers further if we get into squishy math. Most of the Soldiers deployed to Iraq are men, aged 18-25. The vast majority of homicides in DC are men in the same age group, but our death rate has factored in little children and old ladies. But I'm not trying to split hairs or reach a magic number. I just want to illustrate, without making up numbers, that Iraq is not the den of death that Zarqawi wants Americans to think it is. It's not Vietnam, where in 1968, the death rate was roughly 2894.74 per 100,000 Soldiers, per year.

Oh, and in case you think it's time to leave Washington, Marion Barry was robbed today, at gunpoint. What do you think he did? According to the Washington Post, this was his statement:

"To this young man who did this to me, I have no animosity," Barry said. "I don't even want you prosecuted. I love you. Give yourself up. Call the police. Let them know that you engage in these activities. I will do all to advocate non-prosecution."

Labels: dc, iraq

Permalink

A Year-End Look at the War

I confess, I've been really bad this holiday season about posting regularly. And once again I'm about to cop out by just telling people to read someone else's work. Sorry, guys.

Logic Times has run some good analysis in the past, and the new post is no exception. It takes on many various arguments as to why the US is "losing" the war in Iraq, and demonstrates that compared to other wars, we are doing extraordinarily well. Case in point: It not only took many years to squash insurgent movements in Germany post-WW II, but Germany could not ratify a Constitution until 1949 -- twice the time it took Iraq to form a new government.

What really made me smile, however, was the choice of links to the analysis. A "Conservatives Start Here" link took one directly to the numbers, but a "Liberals Start Here" link took liberals to this preface which contained a few gems of its own. How about this one:

• Americans historically have not been concerned when Iraqi civilians die. You may be the exception, but it is unlikely. Between 700,000 and 1,000,000 civilians died between 1979 and 2003 and, if you are a typical American, you were unaware of this or lightly concerned. Keep this reality in mind when reading.

It's a great point that bears repeating: More Iraqis died at the hands of Saddam's government than in fighting post-liberation.

In any case, on to the analysis. Read and enjoy!

Labels: iraq

Permalink

For Once, Let's Listen To The Liberals

The entire world has been riveted to the tragic story of four peace activists who have been captured in Iraq. No, I tell I lie. Jesse Jackson and Gerhard Schroeder have completely failed to drum up sympathy for these members of Christian Peacemaker Teams who have been captured in Iraq.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the US government, British government, and the Canadian government all stand fast in agreement that negotiating with terrorists is out of the question. If you reward terrorists, you give them both the incentive and means to conduct further attacks. One must only look to the coast of Somalia to see this feedback loop in action today.

So the terrorists (and their captives) were undoubtedly heartbroken to learn that the US would not be released hundreds of known terrorists, criminals, and hostage-takers in exchange for these four activists. In retaliation, they did the worst possible thing they could do to us: Extend the deadline.

Can you believe the gall of a terrorist, to kidnap protestors who agree with them, and threaten to kill them if we don't do what the victims demand? On a "hostage video," on of the hostages declared "I ask Mr. Blair to take British troops out of Iraq and leave the Iraqi people to come to their own decisions." Another stated in the video "As a representative of Christian Peacemaker Teams, we feel that continued American and British occupation is not in the best interest of the Iraqi people."

We're not occupying a country, as I pointed out in a previous post. It's not called occupation when a democractically elected government requests your presence. And if you want to let the Iraqi people make their own decisions, you support democracy, not terrorism.

Maybe I'm just a cold hearted asshole, but I'm willing to make an exception for these four morons. Let's show them exactly what life will be like if they get what want. Let's make no attempts to rescue them, or to attack their captors.

Be careful what you wish for, for you walk amongst snakes while cursing the boot salesman.

Labels: iraq

Permalink

The Truth Behind the Numbers

It's not often that I blatently steal another blog's thunder, but every now and then a blog posts something so important that I need to ensure every reader of my blog has seen it too. This is one of those cases.

You've undoubtedly heard numbers touting the high level of civilian casualities the US "occupation" force has inflicted on Iraq? I use parens, because as my last blog entry pointed out, the sovereign elected government has requested that US Forces remain in country.

Those numbers are fake. There's just no way around it. The Iraq Body Count Project proclaimed recently that 24,865 civilians have been killed in Iraq. The project very carefully documented each death, rather than pulling numbers out of a hat. However, the characterization of these deaths as "civilian" is misleading. Eighty-one percent of the "victims" of US occupation are male, and over ninety percent are adults. Stray bullets and stray bombs hit men and women, adults and children alike. In a country with nearly fifty percent women and nearly forty-five percent children, these statistics reveal a telling truth -- not all "civilians" are random people.

In a war where only one side wears uniforms, but "victims" are primarily young adult males, one is forced to venture forth some theories. I'll leave the explanation of these numbers as an exercise for the reader, but you can hear some good ones here, which happens to be the site (Logic Times) I'm hoping everyone visits and reads.

Want something more to think about? Even if these civilian casualties are the fault of US Forces, it doesn't matter. Why not? Because fewer Iraqis are dying today than died under Saddam's rule. The numbers don't lie, do they?

Labels: iraq

Permalink

Guess The Headline

Each of these facts was presented by Iraq Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer, an elected representative of the Iraqi people, at a press conference. Can you guess which was used to title the AP article that described the conference?

• Iraqi Vice President insists that the Iraqi people need US forces to protect them from terrorists.
• Iraqi Vice President dismisses calls for a withdrawal timeline, saying "I wish it were that simple."
• Iraqi Vice President asks US military to monitor polling sites to ensure fair voting.
• Iraqi Vice President says UN ineffective, asks US to take over UN duties

The correct answer? None of the above. AP chose to the this story with the headline "Training of Iraq Forces Suffers Setback."

I know what you're thinking. Of course Yawer wants the US to stay. He's a Shia Muslim that's finally been able to take control of the government with the help of the US. If we leave, Sunnis will overthrow the government and he'll be back on the street. Nope, Yawer is a Sunni Muslim, who advocates peace and secular politics. Despite being a Sunni Muslim, he's no fan of Saddam Hussein. The "setback" he referred to? Some of the newly trained Iraqi forces are using Saddam-era tactics, indicating it will take longer than expected to develop an army that fights fair, with minimal damage to civilians.

Come on, AP. How hard is it to write a headline that isn't full of negative spin? If you wanted to say Yawer disagreed with Bush's assertations that the Iraqi forces are growing strong, what was wrong with "Iraqi Vice President Asks US Not to Withdraw Troops"? A headline like that might convince people that staying the course is the right thing to do. A "setback," on the other hand, sounds like something bad is happening -- and maybe we should pull out.

Iraq is a sovereign nation ruled by an elected government. Since when has America turned a blind eye to free democracies asking for help from terrorists and those who wish to build dictatorships? Regardless of why we went to Iraq, it is our duty to protect freedom and democracy, wherever it grows.

Labels: iraq, media

Permalink

AP Reports Good News (but backtracks in the article)

Suicide bombings fell in November to their lowest level in seven months. Yet the AP noting this fact felt the need to talk about the continued deaths, going so far as to specifically mention a US Soldier that died in a car crash in Iraq yesterday.

Tell me, when was the last time you saw an article in the US press that seemed optimistic about progress in Iraq? One that could be, by some stretch of the imagination, called "positive"?

The US is under attack for paying Iraqi media outlets to carry information provided by US troops. Information, not misinformation. We're talking about subsidizing media for printing the truth, not bribing papers to print lies. I didn't realize there was anything wrong with that. In fact, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement back home, too.

Who's for it? I'd pay a little extra tax money to provide funds to get CNN and Fox News to show all the facts, not just the ones that support their agenda. Is there a law against that? Not that I'm aware of, although our media apparently thinks it's wrong.

You can't pay a paper to print a good story, but they'll carry Zarqawi's propaganda and lies for free. God bless the "free" press, as long as they're on your side.

Want another look at Iraq? Kevin Sites writes about a museum erected in Sulaymaniyah by Iraqi Burds, who want to ensure their children remember what they were forced to live through before America freed them. Does anyone else remember the Anfal campaign, in which 182.000 Kurds were killed? I wish we could send Americans to that museum...

Labels: iraq, media

Permalink

A Marine reports from Iraq

This article was in the Washington Post today. There's really no need to elaborate on it. I really don't like to repost entire articles; I prefer to post a link and write up my own commentary on them, but I want to ensure everyone reads this piece. Our Marines are on the ground, kicking ass and taking names, and they don't understand why the press keeps saying we're losing the war. Supporting our troops does not mean bringing them home so they can live in fear of terrorists, it means giving them what they need to win. This article talks about what they really need:

A Marine reports from Iraq

TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By An anonymous Marine
November 22, 2005

Editor's note: There's nothing like word from the field to know what works, what doesn't and how the enemy's tactics are affecting our soldiers in battle. Below is one U.S. Marine's take on those questions, verified and relayed to us through his father, a retired Marine. We've withheld the Marine's name and his father's to spare them the inevitable political or institutional flap. Among the most interesting tidbits: Our Marine reports that servicemen are shocked at negative press coverage of the war, and they believe the United States is winning decisively -- but that the number of troops in the field should be bolstered. On equipment, our Marine thinks the older, battle-tested parts of the U.S. arsenal are the most useful equipment in the fight against insurgents. M-16s aren't much good, but "Ma Deuce" is, and the .45 pistol is highly coveted. Body armor has plusses and minuses.

Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son... [He] spent seven months at "Camp Blue Diamond" in Ramadi, a.k.a. "Fort Apache." He saw and did a lot. The following is what he told me about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous information which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird's eye view's opinions.
• The M-16 rifle: Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the sand over there, which is like talcum powder. The sand is everywhere. You feel filthy two minutes after a shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it also has jamming problems. Marines like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cannot be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.
• The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon) .223 cal: Big thumbs down. Drum-fed light machine gun. Universally considered a piece of s***. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. That's fun in the middle of a firefight.
• The M9 Beretta 9mm: mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in a desert environment, but everyone hates the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys get hit multiple times but are still in the fight.
• Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well and is used frequently for clearing houses, to good effect.
• The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal belt-fed machine gun: Thumbs up. Developed to replace the old M-60 -- what a beautiful weapon that was -- it is accurate, reliable and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle-mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
• The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight-stopper, puts their d**** in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
• The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, it can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special-ops guys -- who are doing most of the pistol work -- use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
• The M-14: Thumbs up. It is being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special-ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low-power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and people love the 7.62 round.
• The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers -- we actually stop a lot of them -- and barricaded enemies. Definitely here to stay.
• The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in 308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been using them heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a Marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with over 100.
• The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approximately six pounds and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as s*** to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat, which averages over 120 degrees. Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bull**** about the "old" body armor making our guys vulnerable to improvised-explosive devices was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.
• Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more of the enemy are being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.
• Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon-mounted and personal lights are Surefires, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations. [Name redacted] carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.

I can't help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old. With all our technology, it's the World War II- and Vietnam-era weapons that everybody wants. The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.
Bad guy weapons:
• Mostly AK47s. The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt-fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like s***. Undisciplined "spray and pray"-type fire. However, precision weapons are more and more common, especially sniper rifles. Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they know better now.
• The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable and as common as dog****. The enemy responded to our up-armored Humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.
• The improvised-explosive device: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jerry-rigged artillery shells. A lot found in [name redacted]'s area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take two or three 155mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank.
Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready-made IEDs are supplied by Iran, the country which is also providing terrorists, Hezbollah types, to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray-painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40 percent before they detonate. The bomb-disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.
• Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The Soviet-era 122mm rockets, with a range of 18 kilometers, are becoming more prevalent. One of [name redacted]'s NCOs lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage "inside the wire." [Name redacted]'s base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (it worked). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds and then haul *** in a matter of seconds.
Bad guy technology is simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones and also by email on laptops. They use handheld Global Positioning System units for navigation and "Google Earth" for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their explosives and bomb technology is top of the line. Night vision is rare.
They are very careless with their equipment, however, and the captured GPS units and laptops are intelligence treasure troves when captured.
Who are the bad guys? Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province -- Fallujah and Ramadi. These are mostly "foreigners," that is, non-Iraqi Sunni Arab jihadists from all over the Muslim world and Europe. Most enter Iraq through Syria -- with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian government -- and then travel down the "rat line" which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we've been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young jihadists who end up as suicide bombers or are used in "sacrifice squads."
Most, however, are hard-core terrorists from all the usual suspects -- al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. The Chechens, many of whom are Caucasian, are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired and led Iraqi Shi'ites. The Iranian Shia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local government, police and army. Since the early 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, they have had a massive spy and agitator network there. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.
Bad guy tactics: When the enemy is engaged on an infantry level they get their a**** kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal banzai-type charges were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice eight-to-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing AKs and RPGs directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like grass every time -- see the M2 and M240 above. [Name redacted]'s base was hit like this often. When engaged, the enemy has a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the end of that, more often than not.
These hole-ups are referred to as "Alpha Whiskey Romeos" ("Allah's Waiting Room"). We have the laser-guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast movers, mostly Marine F-18s, are taking an ever-increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night. Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all. Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45,000 and 50,000. That is why we're seeing fewer and fewer infantry attacks and more improvised-explosive devices, suicide bomber s***. The new strategy is simple: attrition.
The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties, so therefore schools, hospitals and especially mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi government. Kidnapping of family members, especially children, is common to influence people they are trying to influence but cannot otherwise reach, such as local government officials, clerics or tribal leaders, etc.
The first thing our guys are told is, "don't get captured." They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the Internet. Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American serviceman.
This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give a s*** about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option.
The Iraqis are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a s***.
Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake.
Many Iraqis were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intelligence because the Iraqis are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.
According to [name redacted], morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see s*** like "Are we losing in Iraq?" on television and the print media.
For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line, though, and they all say this: There are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cannot stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally -- with, of course, permanent U.S. bases there.
That's it, hope you found it interesting, I sure did.

Labels: heroes, iraq

Permalink

Military Recruiting and Evidence of WMDs

Once again I apologize. I've been remiss in keeping the blog current. I'm only one person, and I expect work conditions to keep me in this semi-blogging state probably through the holidays. In the meantime, I'll try to get one or two posts a week up, and if any non-bloggers out there have any good original material, send it my way and I'll see if I can't fill some gaps.

The first thing I want to mention today is Colin Powell. He's apologized for his speech in the UN. NewsMax asked a very good question, though -- why has everyone forgotten the actual evidence he presented? Does no one else remember the audio tape of a base commander freaking out because inspectors were coming to his base, and he still had some evidence? If not, the link above has a transcript.

The second thing I want to mention is an article entitled Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11. I hate the title, personally -- it should be "Who Carries the Torch?" or something a little more reflective of the debt we owe those who protect our nation. The upshot of the article is that despite liberal assertations to the contrary, the military is not feeding off the poor and underprivileged. Military recruits come from all walks of life, but are slightly skewed towards the wealthier end of the scale. Since 9/11, the average recruit is better educated and better off than before.

What does this mean? It means that despite a few angry personnel mouthing off in the MSM, the majority of our Soldiers and Sailors joined not out of necessity, but out of desire to serve. They believe in America, they believe in our country, and they believe in our elected leaders. They don't feel they're being let down, as liberals claim, but rather that they are backing us up.

Labels: heroes, iraq, UN

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

Busy week for me here, so I haven't had as much time to do research as I'd like. That seems to be turning into a tradition here, but I'll do my best.

We've seen construction start on a number of water and sanitation projects in Iraq this week: a new sewer in Baghdad (11/8), some water compact units in Baghdad (11/11), and a new water transmission main in Fallujah (11/13). Work also completed on a water network project in Baghdad (11/10), and a new electricity network in Baghdad (11/9).

Many of these projects are now being done with local labor, which improves the economy and raises employment rates. The picture to the left shows Iraqi residents repairing their own electric lines, work that used to be done by US contractors. There's a good article about this here. The CENTCOM newsletter also listed a bunch of other signs of progress this week, but I can't provide any more detail on these:

• Fifty-eight teachers, supervisors, and administrators attend training to improve teaching methods.
• The Model Schools training program shows continued success in preparing secondary school teachers.
• Iraq Transition Initiative (ITI) grant provides for the rehabilitation of a local road, employing 60 local residents.
• ITI helps expand a non-governmental organization (NGO) focused on promoting gender equality and combating the physical abuse of women.
• A community center in northern Iraq, established to assist returning refugees, receives help in facilitating a training series.
• Construction continues on the library and student center for a university in the Wassit governorate.
• Universities discuss Centers for Excellence (CFE) to increase cross cultural understanding.
• Reconstruction of primary school in Qadissiyah completed.
• Work continues on Al-Sadder Stadium.
• Internet center in Wassit benefits Persons with Disabilities (PWD).

I'm hearing increasing reports of local support for terrorists diminishing within Iraq, and even cases of factional fighting between terrorist groups. Last year, after the elections, the terrorists suffered from a loss of support. Now, with elections approaching again, it appears they will suffer even more as Sunnis seem ready to vote in large numbers.

Labels: iraq

Permalink

More News About Jordan

Moustafa Akkad and his daughter died in the Amman terrorist attacks. Don't recognize his name? Sounds like another terrorist to you? Akkad was born in Aleppo, but immigrated to Los Angeles and become a filmmaker. He was responsible, among other films, for all eight Halloween horror flicks. Just thought you should know that. The Lebanese Daily Star carried the story here.

So the Washington Post carried an article today about Washington area Muslims mourning relatives lost in the attacks. Apparently two attendees of the Falls Church Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center lost a combined 17 relatives. Sheikh Shaker Elsayed decried "...this senseless act -- people who did nothing but go about celebrating the wedding of their son and daughter." He also said that Islam does not condone the killing of innocents.

What a nice man, and right here in our own backyard, too.

I could have swore I'd heard that name before. Shaker Elsayed used to be the Secretary General of the Muslim American Society. I wasn't surprised when The Counterterrorism Blog told me in this article why the name Sheikh Shaker Elsayed sounded familiar. Let me quote his speeches when he isn't comforting relatives of those who died in terrorist attacks:

"...about the subject unfairly named suicide bomber, homicide bomber, murderers, or killers. Our answer to this issue is simple... The Islamic scholars said whenever there is an attack on an Islamic state or occupation, or the honor of the Muslims has been violated, the Jihad is a must for everyone, a child, a lady and a man. They have to make Jihad with every tool that they can get in their hand. Anything that they can get in their hand and if they don't have anything in their hand then they can fight with their hand without weapons..."

"We say to the Palestinian people, 'Go ahead. Continue your fight against occupation no matter what name they give you because we give you the name of courageous people who stand for the rights and we're standing with you.' ...My name is Shaker Elsayed ... I'm the Secretary General of the Muslim American Society."

Heck, one only has to look at his perverted view on the US and Iraq, including the bizarre belief that the US ordered Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait so that we could drove him out in order to justify our "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. It's clear this man sees the world through blood-colored glasses.

So what's my point? We've got a rat in our own backyard, encouraging terrorism. Suddenly his good friends and followers come up and tell them they lost close relatives in a terrorist attack, and now he says Zarqawi was wrong. Wrong for hurting his friends, that is -- he should have concentrated on American troops and Israelis. You gotta love that hypocrisy.

Labels: iraq, jordan, terrorism

Permalink

Riots in Morocco

Another day, another riot where thousands pour in the streets, chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel!", and generally being a pain in the neck, right? No, not at all. Fortunately, there are millions of Muslims in the world who understand that death and destruction are wrong, and that freedom and liberty are rights. This picture shows them protesting against Al Qaeda. Betcha didn't see that on CNN, did you? As of today, searching CNN.com's website produces no mention of them, but they did cover a Moroccan sports story from the same day! Oddly enough, the AP and Reutuers did release it, but the MSM hasn't picked it up yet.

Once again, a hat tip to Al Jazeera for covering this story that the western press is afraid to touch. Also, the Lebanese Daily Star and the Iraqi Al Mendhar covered the story well.

After two Moroccans were kidnapped and sentanced to death by Al Qaeda in Iraq, Moroccans have become inflamed. Morocco has been supportive of the new Iraqi government, and the Iraqi people. In a speech that I felt echoed some of President Bush's comments, Moroccan Foreign Ministry said its embassy would not succumb to "blackmail," particularly "coming from a terrorist group which cannot claim to represent Iraq."

Funny how Moroccans in France violently riot, trying to gain the right to enforce Sharia law within the ghettoes, while Moroccans in Morocco peacefully demonstrate against violence.

Good comments on these protests are over at Hyscience, Gateway Pundit, In the Bullpen, and Officers Club. Check them all out.

Labels: iraq, media, Morocco

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

Yes, I know, I'm late. I apologize, but I've been very busy. Still, here's some news from Iraq for the last week.

Omar has some great pictures of a family amusement park built by Americans to give Iraqi families something to enjoy. Check out his blog entry to see more photos like the one here. Samawa is the MSM's darling city of death and destruction; if you listen to them, there is nothing in the city but terrorists trying to kill Americans. These photos show the side of the majority, ordinary people who want to enjoy life.

I'd also like to point out this week saw a wave of major infrastructure projects beginning work. Construction began on a new sewer system in Mosul (11/1). Also new water systems in Al Dayer (11/2), Karadah (11/3), and Kirkuk (11/6). A new substation feeder broke ground in Altrush as well (11/4).

On a humor note, I'd like to also draw your attention to two terrorists in Baghdad who were assembling a car bomb when it detonated. In America, we teach children not to make homemade explosives. If only that message were taught around the world....

In somewhat related news, Project Valor-IT is trying to raise money to purchase voice-activated laptops for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines with hand or arm injuries. It's being run as a competition between supporters of each of the service (as of writing Navy is winning). To donate, go to this link and support your troops.

Lastly, I want to show the dedication that our troops have to defending our freedom. Roderick Evans was at home when a recruiter stopped by to talk to his son. Inspired by the recruiter, Roderick said he wanted to join as well. Unfortunately, at 418 pounds, Roderick was too heavy to walk a block, much less fight a war. To join, he began a workout regimen that caused him to lose 230 pounds. He's now a private in the Reserves, undergoing combat medical training. For more information (and photographs) of this amazing story, click here.

Labels: heroes, iraq

Permalink

What the Press Won't Tell You

Michelle Malkin writes in a wonderful piece entitled "All the news that's fit to omit" about a New York Times article opining about the 2,000 casualty in Iraq (link here, but you have to pay). Let me start by saying that the article failed to alert readers to the fact that nearly a quarter of those deaths were not combat related. I don't know why 1,588 combat fatalities is a "grim milestone," but I'll grant the NY Times that license to embellish.

What bothers me is that the article focuses on a single soldier, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, who died April 30th in Ramadi. Note that Cpl Starr wasn't the 2,000 soldier to die, rather, he died months ago. He was chosen out of all the soldiers who perished in Iraq, to symbolize the cost of the war. The title of the piece? THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: THE FATALITIES; 2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark

Allow me to quote from the article:

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

Is it just me, or does it sound like this young man was disillusioned, upset at being in Iraq, and fearful for his own life? One is left wondering why he was willing to go to Iraq three times with that attitude. Lest I leave you with the impression that this hero of our country was anything less than that, allow me to quote a little more of the letter, not published by the New York Times:

Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.

The American public needs to know the Cpl Jeffrey Starr did not die following orders he did not understand. He did not die fighting for a cause he didn't believe in. Cpl Starr died because he felt it was his duty to allow people all around the world to enjoy the same freedoms he enjoyed at home. He found for his country, and the Iraqi country. He knew the risks, and accepted them freely without hesitation or reservation. The New York Times has no right to take that away from him, and turn him into a symbol for peace at any cost.

In lighter local news, the Washington Post reports that Mayor Anthony Williams has changed his mind and signed the emergency DUI law. It's obvious that he did so in order to attempt to preserve some kind of high ground for a compromise law that, while not setting the legal limit as ridiculously low as before, would still have DC presuming intoxication at levels every other state in the nation recognizes as generally safe. This is at best a half-victory; it means the police harassment of innocent people will abate for the time being, but everyone needs to write their councilmen and Mayor Williams and tell them the only acceptable law is one in line with the rest of the nation.

And click on the news article scan, it's worth reading. Trust me.

Labels: alcohol, dc, heroes, iraq, media

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

This week in Iraq has seen quite a bit of good news that missed the media spotlight. First, I'd like to congratulate the San Francisco Chronicle for having the courage to report on MAJ Steve Warren, and how he feels about the Western coverage of Iraq. In this article, MAJ Warren says that he watches American TV reports from Iraq, "and I ask myself, 'where are they?'"

MAJ Warren is in Diyala, part of the Sunni Triangle. He had a translator listening to a local radio talk show, where Sunnis complained of the US troops' presence. But they also complained about the trash on the streets. Knowing that soldiers are training from boot camp to be as clean as possible, he saw a solution. The troops bought garbage trucks and cleaned the city up, literally. Now instead of complaining about the Americans, the Baquba residents complain about schools and unemployment. Progress is being made, thanks to heroes like MAJ Steve Warren and his men.

Chad Evans from In The Bullpen posted an entry yesterday about the US troops reducing their presence. I think it's too early to significant withdrawal -- there is much left to be done. Nevertheless, we have been cutting back. Since February, the US has either closed or transferred to the Iraqi military ten bases in Iraq. Next month we'll be turning over Saddam's presidential palaces to the Iraqi government.

In other news,

• Two generators installed at water treatment facilities in Baghdad (10/24) Further increasing the flow of clean water.
• Construction begins on a million-dollar water project in Kirkuk (10/25) Ditto. This is a lot of money being spent to fight disease and starvation.

Do all these reconstruction news bits really make a difference? You bet they do. LTCOL S. Jamie Gayton, commander of the 2nd Brigade Troops Battalion wrote "Technicians and operators were challenged with maintaining an electrical distribution network that was ignored throughout the years of Saddam Hussein's reign.... The electrical distribution system in Betoul has changed the lives of all the residents. When we arrived here, this area was one of the first I visited. The project had just started and the residents told me of its importance. On every return trip, they remained upbeat and patient, trusting that good things would happen. They were rewarded this summer when a special electrical feeder was linked to the distribution network and the system was energized for the very first time." The picture above shows Gayton's troops looking over the new electrical system in Betoul, a poor Baghdad suburb.

Labels: heroes, iraq, media

Permalink

Profiting From Dictators

Before I begin, I just want to link to this AP story. Should a later post talk about the Iranian government, I want everyone to know just how dangerous that country is.

In a speech Wednesday, [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad denounced Israel and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks "will wipe this stigma from the face of the Islamic world." Citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

In other news, the Independent Inquiry Committee investigating abuses in the Oil for Food program released its final report that clearly shows who was and wasn't profiting from the program. Not surprisingly, those who profited most (France, Russia, and Germany) were the ones most strongly against the war.
What does the report say?

Iraq received $1.8 billion in kickbacks and bribes from 2,200 companies. That would be one-point-eight billion dollars paid to Saddam Hussein's coffers. American, British, and Japanese companies did not make any such bribes, if only because Saddam Hussein would not allow companies from those countries to obtain contracts. On the other hand, French, Russian, and Chinese companies were given preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts -- a move that successfully split the Security Council on all matters involving Iraq.

Worse, Iraq paid some of this money back out to those it needed to secure support. Most notably, France's ambassador to the United Nations received $165,725 from the Iraqi government.

One issue that was not covered in depth by the report is the $34.5 billion dollars in "humanitarian goods" sold to Iraq. Table Seven of the report (linked above) describes loosely what the UN was allowing Iraq to buy despite the sanctions. Some of the items are clearly humanitarian (e.g., rice). Others are very questionable (e.g., black tea). And still others are just downright confusing (e.g., decorated wall tiles). Since when has decoration been a basic human need? What's the point of sanctions if those sorts of deals are allowed? What were we sanctioning, anyway? Keep searching, and you'll find cars, art supplies, computers, stained glass, office chairs, cigarettes, and other assorted "humanitarian needs." You'll also find items that clearly have military applications, just as mobile radios and radio relay links.

Now that the final report is out, it's time to take action against the companies that profited from supporting Saddam in violation of UN sanctions. With this report we can account for every dollar illegally made by various companies around the world. The United Nations should take that money back, and donate it to Iraqi reconstruction. To let them keep the money would be to reward criminal profiteering.

Labels: iran, iraq, israel, UN

Permalink