"Of Course I Bear Responsibility...Write it Down"

Donald Rumsfeld doesn't pass the buck.

"Suffering Fools"

Saddam Ejected from Trial Again

The judge in Saddam's genocide trial tossed out the chief defendent for the third straight hearing:

New chief judge Mohammed al-Ureybi, who had thrown Saddam out of the two previous hearings he has chaired in the past week, opened Tuesday's hearing with a lecture to Saddam to behave.

He let him read a 20-minute statement, with microphones off so those in the glass-enclosed press gallery could not hear.

But after listening to two Kurdish witnesses, Saddam again began to argue and the judge lost his patience.

"You are a defendant and I'm a judge," Ureybi said. "Shut up, no-one talk ... The court has decided to eject Saddam Hussein from court."

As Saddam left, smiling, his six co-defendants -- top commanders under Saddam -- stood and tried to follow him out, demanding they leave too. The judge shouted back: "Get Saddam out and put the others back in their seats."

Several co-defendants started shouting and pointing fingers at the judge. Unusually, the sound was left on for television broadcasts, allowing all Iraqis to watch and listen during several minutes of courtroom pandemonium.

Ureybi ejected one, former defense minister Sultan Hashim, ordered a recess and switched off the sound. A source close to the court said he then ejected the others.

When the hearing resumed, it was the first time the genocide trial proceeded with none of the defendants in court.

The defense lawyers have been boycotting the trial since the new chief judge took over last week, so the defendants were represented only by court-appointed back-up lawyers.

And I thought the O.J. Simpson trial was wild and wacky.

"Saddam, Aides Ejected from Genocide Trial"

Obsessing over Numbers

How many Bush-bashing, Leftist shibboleths can one reporter put into an "objective" news story? Count along with we go through the Associated Press' Calvin Woodward:

Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now surpass those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next.

The latest milestone for a country at war came Friday without commemoration. It came without the precision of knowing who was the 2,974th to die in conflict. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

An Associated Press count of the U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 2,696. Combined with 278 U.S. deaths in and around Afghanistan, the 9/11 toll was reached, then topped, the same day. The Pentagon reported Friday the latest death from Iraq, an as-yet unidentified soldier killed a day earlier after his vehicle was hit by a roadside bombing in eastern Baghdad.

Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed.

I was waiting for this number to come up. For some reason Woodward doesn't bother to explain what 2,974 battlefield dead has to do with anything. The only thing interesting about that number is it provided Woodward a reason to write his anti-war "news" story.

Historians note that this grim accounting is not how the success or failure of warfare is measured, and that the reasons for conflict are broader than what served as the spark.

The body count from World War II was far higher for Allied troops than for the crushed Axis. Americans lost more men in each of a succession of Pacific battles than the 2,390 people who died at Pearl Harbor in the attack that made the U.S. declare war on Japan. The U.S. lost 405,399 in the theaters of World War II.

Despite a death toll that pales next to that of the great wars, one casualty milestone after another has been observed and reflected upon this time, especially in Iraq.

There was the benchmark of seeing more U.S. troops die in the occupation than in the swift and successful invasion. And the benchmarks of 1,000 dead, 2,000, 2,500.

Now this.

The only ones obsessing over body count numbers has been a sensationalist MSM and Bush-bashing, war protesters who wish they lived in a world where we could sing "Kumbaya" with Osama bin Laden and ask him nicely not to attack us again.

While each American death in the Islamist War is awful all of us must stay focused on the goal: defeat the enemy and secure the nation from future attacks. Many have already died, and many more will perish in this mission. Afghanistan and Iraq have been two places, and expect other places where the U.S. military will extend its sword in defense of the homeland. War is hell, yet we shouldn't shudder from the fight because of a body count.

Woodward is so obsessed with numbers so I'll give him a more important one. The number of Islamist terrorist attacks since Sep. 11, 2001: zero*.

[UPDATE: I made a mistake. I meant the number of Islamist attack on U.S. soil since Sep. 11. My apologies.]

Do you think President Roosevelt cared when the number of Americans killed in World War II equaled the number dead at Pearl Harbor? I doubt it. He was too busy commanding conflicts on both sides of the world. Did it matter to the Founding Fathers that the deaths at Lexington and Concord were greater than that of the Boston Massacre? No, they were a little busy organizing a resistance to the British.

"There's never a good war but if the war's going well and the overall mission remains powerful, these numbers are not what people are focusing on," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University. "If this becomes the subject, then something's gone wrong."

Beyond the tribulations of the moment and the now-rampant doubts about the justification and course of the Iraq war, Zelizer said Americans have lost firsthand knowledge of the costs of war that existed keenly up to the 1960s, when people remembered two world wars and Korea, and faced Vietnam.

"A kind of numbness comes from that," he said. "We're not that country anymore — more bothered, more nervous. This isn't a country that's used to ground wars anymore."

Almost 10 times more Americans have died in Iraq than in Afghanistan, where U.S. casualties have been remarkably light by any historical standard, although climbing in recent months in the face of a resurgent Taliban.

Hey Woodward, casualties have also been "remarkably light by any historical standard" in Iraq too. Before the war in 2003 I fully expected 10,000 troops to die. I thought Saddam's vaunted Republican Guard would put up a tougher fight, and chemical weapons--that the whole world thought Iraq had--would produce grotesque injuries and deaths. Despite my fears of so many deaths I firmly supported the invasion because I thought the cause was true. Thankfully, the invasion went well. The occupation and Iraq's rebuilding has been the real challenge.

The Pentagon reports 56 military deaths and one civilian Defense Department death in other parts of the world from Operation Enduring Freedom, the anti-terrorism war distinct from Iraq.

Altogether, 3,031 have died abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.

The toll among Iraqi civilians hit a record high in the summer, with 6,599 violent deaths reported in July and August alone, the United Nations said this week.

Wouldn't it be better to lump these tragic deaths to Iraq's liberation and ascension into civilization? No, because Woodward wants to pull at his readers heartstrings. If anyone should be blamed for those deaths it's the resistance who reject a democratic regime.

Among the latest U.S. deaths identified by the armed forces:

_Army 2nd Lt. Emily J.T. Perez, 23, Fort Washington, Md., who died Sept. 12 in Kifl, Iraq, from an explosive device detonated near her vehicle. A former high school sprinter who sang in her West Point gospel choir, she was assigned to the 204th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

_Marine Sgt. Christopher M. Zimmerman, 28, Stephenville, Texas, killed Wednesday in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

These are all patriots who deserve nothing but gratitude.

A new study on the war dead and where they come from suggests that the notion of "rich man's war, poor man's fight" has become a little truer over time.

Among the Americans killed in the Iraq war, 34 percent have come from communities reporting the lowest levels of family income. Half come from middle income communities and only 17 percent from the highest income level.

That's a change from World War II, when all income groups were represented about equally. In Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, the poor have made up a progressively larger share of casualties, by this analysis.

Now, we get into Woodward's bit of class warfare. He mentions the income distributions of casualties in a number of wars but "forgets" to note that there's no longer a draft. We have a voluntary armed forces. Men and women are free to enlist and now renew their enlistment when their service time in done. But that important piece of information would unravel Woodward's "rich man's war, poor man's fight" canard.

Eye-for-an-eye vengeance was not the sole motivator for what happened after the 2001 attacks any more than Pearl Harbor alone was responsible for all that followed. But Pearl Harbor caught the U.S. in the middle of mobilization, debate, rising tensions with looming enemies and a European war already in progress. Historians doubt anyone paid much attention to sad milestones once America threw itself into the fight.

Yes, because we don't have an MSM and Bush-bashing Left obsessed with making President Bush look bad instead of seeking victory over our enemies.

In contrast, the United States had no imminent war intentions against anyone on Sept. 10, 2001. One bloody day later, it did.

To Calvin Woodward and those Bush-bashing, anti-war protesters I give you this from Victor Davis Hanson:

Today I finish the last class of a five-week course I taught this late summer at Hillsdale College on World War II. What is striking is the abrupt end of the war, whose last months nevertheless saw the worst American casualties in Europe of the entire struggle. 10,677 of our soldiers died in April 1945 alone, just a few days before the collapse of the Nazi regime— about the same number lost a year earlier during the month of June in the 1944 landings at Normandy and the slogging in the Hedgerows. Okinawa saw our worst casualties on the ground in the Pacific—and was declared secure only 6 weeks before the Japanese surrender. 1945 was far bloodier than 1939, a reminder that in the midst of a war daily losses are not necessarily a barometer of how close or far away is the end of the carnage. Ask the Red Army for whom the final siege of Berlin—361, 367 Russian and Polish soldiers lost—may have been their worst single battle of their entire war, itself characterized by killing on a scale unimaginable in the West.

I don’t know how close or far away we are in Iraq from securing a chance for Iraqi democracy to stabilize, but I do know—despite the recent spate of doom and gloom journalistic accounts—that, as in all wars, it is almost impossible to tell from the 24-hour pulse of the battlefield.

For more reaction there's Allahpundit, Tigerhawk, and Chad the Elder.

"War Price on U.S. Lives Equal to 9/11"

*Since we don't know who was responsible for the anthrax attacks soon after Sep. 11 I don't count that. Even if it is discovered to be al Qaeda's or some other terrorist group's doing I will include that with Sep. 11 since the nation was only in the beginnings of responding to the Islamist threat.

Saddam's Lawyer Caught Snoozing

Saddam's lawyer is either enjoying the Baghdad nightlife too much, or he doens't give a damn about his client:

THE chief judge in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial castigated a defence lawyer for falling asleep during the proceedings, as a witness was recounting a gas attack.

Banging his hammer, an angry Abdullah al-Amiri brusquely interrupted an ethnic Kurd recounting a gas attack in his village in northern Iraq in 1988 to berate one of the lawyers for Saddam and his six other co-accused.

"It appears you're falling asleep," the judge said.

"Who me? No, no. I'm just tired like everyone else here. I wasn't asleep. I was listening on behalf of my client," said lawyer Badea Arif, appearing somewhat embarrassed.

I almost feel sorry for Saddam, but then I remember the thousands he had killed. That sympathy quickly evaporates.

"Judge Castigates Sleeping Saddam Lawyer"

Bush: War Can't Be Islam Vs. Christianity

If you ever talk to radio yapper Mike Gallagher you shouldn't bother to say it's off the record. That won't stop him from blabbing as he did when he mentioned to the George Christian Coalition what President Bush told him recently:

He told the audience he was fresh back from an hour-and-45-minute session which President Bush held in the Oval Office Friday afternoon with him and four other conservative talk show hosts: Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t make it, he said.

Though he said this session was supposed to be off the record, Gallagher described it at some length, including Bush’s observation to the right-wing radio jocks that the War on Terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.”

“Remind me never to invite you to an off-the-record session,” [Ann] Coulter said after his introduction.

As James Joyner observes, "It’s no small irony that this was revealed while introducing, Ann 'invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity' Coulter."

"An Evening with Ann… and Lynn"

France Shamed into Sending 1,600 Troops to Lebanon

Italy sending 2,000 to 3,000 troops to Lebanon as well as public shame at France surrendering before they even deployed got Jacques Chirac to agree to send 1,600 troops to support the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.

The question still remains whether the 15,000 troops under a U.N. mandate along with 15,000 troops of the Lebanese army will disarm Hezbollah, the terrorist state-within-a-state or will let them quietly rearm and prepare for their next clash with Israel.

"France Pledges 1,600 More Troops for Lebanon"

France Surrenders Before Going into Lebanon

When the Israel-Hezbollah War starts again I'm blaming France:

France on Thursday rebuffed pleas by U.N. officials to make a major contribution to a peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, setting back efforts to deploy an international military force to help police a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, according to U.N. and French officials.

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France would contribute only 200 additional troops to the U.N. operation in southern Lebanon, which the Security Council wants to expand from 2,000 troops to 15,000. Chirac said that a force of about 1,700 French troops and crew members on warships off the coast would provide logistical support.

France was a prime mover on the U.N. Security Council to send in 15,000 troops to bolster the Lebanese army. Yet, when push comes to shove the French run away like--well--the French.

But wait! There's more!

Chirac also told Annan that "France was prepared to assume command" of the bolstered U.N. force, according to the statement.

Wow. France is willing to order around the international force but not to risk their own rears.

France had a moment to step up to the plate and show the world they could still be a world player. They're failing like--well--the French.

"France Declines to Contribute Major Force for U.N. Mission" [via QandO]

U.N. Approves Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire

The U.N. Security council passed a ceasefire resolution that will bring in 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers to bolster the Lebanese army:

At the heart of the resolution are two elements: It seeks an immediate halt to the fighting that began July 12 when Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli troops along the Blue Line, the U.N.-demarcated border separating Israel; and it spells out a series of steps that would lead to a permanent cease-fire and long-term solution.

That would be done by creating a new buffer zone in south Lebanon "free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL" the acronym of the U.N. force deployed in the region since 1978. The force now has 2,000 troops; the resolution would expand it to a maximum of 15,000.

South Lebanon had been under de facto control of Hezbollah, a Shiite militia, for several years until Israeli forces occupied parts of it after the start of the fighting last month. The political solution would include implementation of previous Security Council resolutions calling for Hezbollah's disarmament.

Under the resolution, UNIFIL would be significantly beefed up to help coordinate when 15,000 Lebanese troops deploy to the region. As Lebanese forces take control of the south, Israeli troops would withdraw "in parallel."

Israel will withdraw in parallel from Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon when the U.N./Lebanese forces move in. Israel will still be allowed to continued defensive operations. They'll be able to launch attacks at Hezbollah rocket positions.

The resolution will stop the killing, but unless Hezbollah is disarmed and not allowed to simply build up its military stores with Syria's and Iran's help war will return.

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked his cabinet to accept the deal while at the same time he ordered troops to push into southern Lebanon. He must see his window of opportunity closing and wants to damage Hezbollah as much as possible before the ceasefire is implemented.

Captain Ed sees the resolution as putting blame on Hezbollah. The terrorist organization indeed was the protagonist antagonist. However, it stood up to the vaunted IDF and didn't lose. Hassan Nasrallah earned honor in the Arab tribal culture that is the Middle East, while Israel lost some face. Israel's Arab opponents may see that she isn't the same Israel that defeated Arab forces in the 1960s and 70s. Much importance now falls on Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora. Will he actually order the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah in the south? Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and such action risks returning the nation to civil war.

Andrew McCarthy at The Corner declared an Israel defeat:

Hezbollah wins this big just by being legitmized. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, not a country. The resolution we are signing on to, however, addresses it as if it were a country. The resolution doesn't purport to direct any UN member nation to make Hezbollah cease firing — least of all Lebanon, the purported sovereign of this territory. Instead, it appeals to Hezbollah directly — in the same paragraph in which it addresses Israel, as if there were no difference in status between the two — and "calls on" it to stand down.

If Hezbollah is perceived in the region as being the victor then it will gain public support and make it difficult to be disarmed. An armed Hezbollah means future war with Israel since the goal of the organization is the destruction of the Jewish state.

"Security Council OKs Mideast Peace Deal"

"Olmert Accepts UN Ceasefire Deal"

UPDATE: John Hawkins writes, "Actually, I think Israel has accomplished more than most people realize."

Waiting for Outrage after Hezbollah Attack on Peacekeepers

Hezbollah mortar rounds injured three Chinese peacekeepers. A U.N spokesman said, "A mortar round from Hizbollah impacted inside the headquarters of the Chinese contingent in the al-Hinneyeh area. They received medical treatment in position. Their condition is stable and they were not evacuated."

Let's wait and see if Kofi Annan will accuse Hezbollah of intentionally targeting U.N. peacekeepers (an oxymoron, I know). That's what he did last month when Israeli forces hit a UNIFIL position. He accused Israel of "apparently deliberate targeting" of U.N. peacekeepers. [via Wizbang]

"Hizballah Hits U.N.: Where's the Outrage?" [via digg]

The Double Standard Facing Israel

Ed Morrissey had a good op-ed in the Washington Examiner on the double standard facing Israel and her enemies. Here's a portion:

The U.N. Security Council held a rare Sunday session in response to the tragic Qana bombing. Governments from Britain to Bahrain scolded the Israelis for their disproportionate response to the war Hezbollah provoked, and the Lebanese government in Beirut decried the “massacre” at Qana.

All of this hand-wringing has a rational point. We want to see civilians spared the horrors of war, and we push combatants to take all possible steps to achieve that end. The Geneva Conventions have that explicit mandate, and the world should remain constantly — and consistently — vigilant.

Unfortunately, the global community has failed miserably at this task, and this war not only highlights that failure, but springs from it. While the world holds Israel to this standard, things become curiously silent when it’s time to hold Hezbollah responsible for its conduct of war. Hardly a word has escaped from the U.N. or Europe on the 2,500 missiles that have rained down upon Israeli civilians, deliberately targeted by Hezbollah. Those attacks have displaced more than 300,000 civilians, a fact the global community and the mainstream media ignore.

Those who argue that Israel has occasionally violated the Geneva Conventions in its attacks casually ignore the blatant violations of Hezbollah, whose combatants wear no uniform, deliberately hide in civilian populations and fire weapons from residential areas. Hezbollah conducts none of its operations within the rules of war — and yet world leaders and the media never mention it.

Why? Because no one expects terrorists to follow the rules. This is the soft nihilism of low expectations.

This creates an impossible double standard for Israel and political victories. In order to defeat terrorists, Israel will have to engage them when they attack, wherever that happens to be. In their effort to zealously apply the rules of war to only one side, the global community doesn’t act to reduce the tragedies of civilian casualties, it increases them by encouraging Hezbollah’s tactics. The terrorists counted on precisely this response, which dictates their tactics and strategy to this moment.

"This is the Soft Nihilism of Low Expectations"

Blame Hezbollah for Civilan Deaths

It's Hezbollah's uncivilized tactics like fighting among civilians that caused the deaths of 34 children.

Will the world community hold Hezbollah to account?

"Photos that Damn Hezbollah"

"We are all Hizbullah"

It's nice that terrorist sympathizers come out to protest. That way authorities can know who to keep an eye on.

"Anti-Israel Protest in London"

Kos' Israel Silence

On the latest war Israel is involved in (The Lebanon War? The Hezbollah War? The 2006 War? We need a name.) I'll give Kos a little slack for only writing one front-page post on it.

I too am flumoxed at Israel and the Arabs. Much of it has to do with the honor-shame calculations involved when dealing with the Arab tribe cultures and have been incorporated into Israeli security thinking. David Pryce-Jones' The Closed Circle helped, but I'm far from understanding this pre-rational thinking. The Arab-Israeli conflicts are far different than the cool calculations of the Cold War. If one doesn't have anything valuable to say it's sometimes best to keep silent.

What Dean Barnett's Weekly Standard article shows is those Kossites not as politically astute as Markos Moulitsas see Israel, the strongest democratic republic in the region, as a "spreading plague."

Kos can't control completely what webloggers and commenters write. That's just the nature of the weblog beast. Kossites can be seen as early adopter when it comes to technology and politics. What we're seeing is the slow, steady trend of the GOP gaining American Jewish support because of its strong support for Israel.

"Kos, Hezbollah, and Israel" [via Althouse]

[Added to OTB's Beltway Traffic Jam.]

A.N.S.W.E.R. Rally in August

Neo-Stallinists A.N.S.W.E.R. don't just hate America, they hate Israel too. They're rallying as many West haters has they can for an 08.12.06 protest in Washington, D.C. Jeff Harrell got the e-mail and replies:

I can’t help noticing that International ANSWER didn’t call for a “national emergency march” every time a Hezbollah rocket exploded in an Israeli neighborhood. They didn’t call for a “national emergency march” when Hezbollah militants kidnapped Israelis. It was only when Israel started to take steps to get their soldiers back and to force the newborn Lebanese govenment to disarm or expel the terrorists within her borders that International ANSWER thinks the time has come to act.

In A.N.S.W.E.R.'s North Korea-loving mind they think Israel asked to be attacked. Just like some rape victims "ask" to be attacked for wearing a short skirt to a bar.

A.N.S.W.E.R. may be planning ahead, but they're not very smart. In August D.C. empties like a bottle of gin in the hands of Ted Kennedy. The only ones covering the kooks will be cable newsers who want non-Middle East war stories and webloggers.

"They’re So Cute When They Plan Ahead" [via LMA]

Inklings of a Resolution

Israel sent some ground troops into Lebanon and sent the beginnings to a possible cease-fire:

On Sunday, Lebanese officials said Israel had sent the terms of a possible cease-fire through Italian mediators. The terms were the release of two captured Israeli soldiers, and a Hezbollah pullback to roughly 20 miles from the Israeli-Lebanese border.

This situation might not have escalated had Hezbollah released the soldiers sooner.

"Israel Hammers at Lebanese Infrastructure"

Gingrich Declares World War III

Newt Gingrich told a Seattle reporter that President Bush should be bolder and tell the nation we're fighting World War III.

He lists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, this week's bomb attacks in India, North Korean nuclear threats, terrorist arrests and investigations in Florida, Canada and Britain, and violence in Israel and Lebanon as evidence of World War III. He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and "connect all the dots" for Americans.

He said the reluctance to put those pieces together and see one global conflict is hurting America's interests. He said people, including some in the Bush Administration, who urge a restrained response from Israel are wrong "because they haven't crossed the bridge of realizing this is a war."

"Gingrich Says it's World War III" [via digg]

Prisoners to Get Geneva Protections

The U.S. will extend Geneva Convention protections to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other locations:

The policy, described in a memo by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, appears to reverse the administration's earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus not subject to the Geneva protections. But the administration has insisted that it has always treated the detainees humanely.

QandO's McQ writes,

It also paves the way for designation of detainees as POWs which allows the administration to keep them almost indefinitely (or until the "war" is over). In the big scheme of things, that seems the most important point.

In World War II I know of German prisoners of war camps in Wisconsin where prisoners helped harvest crops, can foods, and cut down trees. Don't expect the same treatment for our Islamist opponents.

Extending Geneva protections won't please the anti-war/Bush bashing crowd who wants Gitmo shut down and the prisoners released. They just don't seem to care if they'll end up continuing their jihad.

Captured Islamist enemies will receive Geneva protections even though they don't fall under the Geneva convention because they dress as civilians and wear nothing to distinguish themselves as combatants, nor do they abide by the provisions themselves as the pictures and video [WARNING: Very graphic.] of killed U.S. soldiers attests.

With this decision the government has answered the question of what to do with Islamist War prisoners. Despite Ralph Peters' good point [via Riehl World View] that "an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability" we're going to play nicer. Captain Ed doesn't think so. Instead, he sees "more casualties for our enemies, as we will not put our soldiers at unnecessary risk for the minimal gain of capturing these terrorists if they give us no opportunity for giving us intel on ongoing operations." I hope being nicer doesn't get more innocents killed.

"U.S. Will Give Detainees Geneva Rights"

Al-Qaeda in Iraq in "Crisis"

Documents found at al-Qaeda in Iraq hideouts indicate the U.S. and her allies were winning the insurgency:

The document also said al-Zarqawi planned to try to destroy the relationship between the United States and its Shiite allies in Iraq.

While the coalition was continuing to suffer human losses, "time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance," the document said.

The document said the insurgency was being hurt by, among other things, the U.S. military's program to train Iraqi security forces, by massive arrests and seizures of weapons, by tightening the militants' financial outlets, and by creating divisions within its ranks.

One of the documents called the current situation a "crisis." Tell that to Sen. John Kerry who now says he made a mistake in voting for the Iraq War.

The strategy for al-Qaida in Iraq is to get the U.S. involved in a war with Iran and/or Iraq's Shiites.

"We mean specifically attempting to escalate the tension between America and Iran, and American and the Shiite in Iraq," it quoted the documents as saying, especially among moderate followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq.

"Creating disputes between America and them could hinder the U.S. cooperation with them, and subsequently weaken this kind of alliance between Shiites and the Americans," it said, adding that "the best solution is to get America involved in a war against another country and this would bring benefits."

They included "opening a new front" for the U.S. military and releasing some of the "pressure exerted on the resistance."

Obviously the U.S. anti-terrorist missions along with training Iraqi security forces is the cause of the "pressure." It sounds like the Bush administration's plan is working just don't expect them to get any credit from knee-jerk Bush bashers.

One wonders if al-Qaeda in Iraq has had any contact with Iran in trying to draw the U.S. into a military confrontation. For Iran a U.S. attack would pump up Persian nationalism and give support to the government while al-Qaeda could use it to egg on Muqtada al-Sadr's forces.

The Counterterrorism Blog has published one of the documents.

"Papers Show 'Gloomy' State of Insurgency"

One Measure of Progress

One way to measure security progress in Iraq is the day President Bush will be able to travel to Baghdad without it being a secret mission. Today isn't that day, but the Iraqi government is making an effort to secure the capital:

Iraq's new prime minister promised Tuesday to show "no mercy" to terrorists and said before President Bush arrived for a surprise visit that a long-awaited security plan for Baghdad will include a curfew and a ban on personal weapons.

Bush, who was expected to be in Baghdad for about five hours, met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to discuss Iraq's next steps.

Security officials said tens of thousands of Iraqi and multinational forces would deploy Wednesday throughout Baghdad, securing roads, launching raids against insurgent hideouts and calling in airstrikes if necessary.

Underscoring the lack of security, a series of explosions struck the northern city of Kirkuk, killing at least 16 people.

Iraqi security forces planned to deploy 75,000 Iraqi and multinational forces in Baghdad as part of al-Maliki's ambitious plan to crack down on security in the capital, a top Iraqi police official said.

There will come a day when a Presidential visit to Iraq won't be shrouded in secrecy.

"75,000 Forces to Be Deployed in Baghdad" [via QandO]

Celebrating

With the news of Zarqawi's death Girl on the Right declared today a "cheesecake for breakfast day." Me? I'm going out for a nice lunch.

For your mid-day reading here's The Atlantic's piece on Zarqawi in their latest issue.

"Zarqawi Dead? Again?"

Two Quick Observations

Here are a couple observations on the Al-Zarqawi news:

• Can you imagine U.S. reporters cheering like Iraqi reporters did when Al-Zarqawi's death was announced?

• AJ at AMERICAblog has a much more sensible reaction than the Kossite Nickle.
  

Now, I need to sleep a little so I can comprehend any new reporting and analysis.

Al-Zarqawi: Dead/"Terminated"

The AP reports Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will announce Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. NBC News reports the U.S. military confirmed it.

This is great, amazing, wonderful news. Big, big news. It shows progress is being made in Iraq. It is a signal that U.S.-Iraqi forces are relentless is hunting down the Islamists who want Iraq's government to fall a quickly as it rose.

Iraqi troops should march al-Zarqawi's body through the streets of Baghdad and allow people to smack it with their shoes or whatever insult is most appropriate in their culture. That evil man forced Iraq to endure so much suffering.

"Report: U.S. Forces Kill al-Qaeda Leader al-Zarqawi"

UPDATE: The AP reports al-Zarqawi was killed in an air strike.

The London Telegraph reports:

It was reported that Zarqawi was killed in the city of Baquba at 7.00 pm local time, in a joint operation involving Jordanian intelligence, US intelligence and American special operations forces.

"Today Zarqawi has been terminated," Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told a televised news conference also attended by General George Casey, the highest-ranking American commander in Iraq, and other senior officials.

Kudos go to the Jordanians.

The Guardian reports:

Mr Maliki said the air strike was the result of US forces acting on information provided to Iraqi security forces by local residents.

Kudos to local Iraqis. Obviously more reporting is needed to sort out who all should be praised.

CNN has remarks from Gen. George Casey:

Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi and some of his associates who were conducting a meeting approximately eight kilometers north of Baquba when the airstrike was launched.

Baquba is a volatile area northeast of Baghdad in Diyala province, a mixed Shiite-Sunni jurisdiction. There have been many roadside bombings and shootings throughout the province and within the week, severed heads were found in fruit boxes there.

Iraqi police were first on the scene after the air strike, and elements of Multi-National Division North, arrived shortly thereafter. We have been able to identify al-Zarqawi by fingerprint verification, facial recognition and known scars.

Oil futures have gone down on the good news.

UPDATE II: Omar at Iraq the Model: "CONGRATULATIONS TO IRAQ, CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WHOLE WORLD ON THIS VICTORY." [via Wizbang]

Michelle Malkin is as much of a night owl as I am.

A Kossite is already spinning it as not that great. [via Pajamas Media]

Sullivan: U.S. is a "Rogue Nation"

The United States is on par with Stallinist North Korea and millitant Iran. At least that's what Andrew Sullivan declares (emphasis mine):

The United States is a rogue nation that practices torture and detainee abuse and does not follow the most basic principles of the Geneva Conventions. It is inviolation of human rights agreements and the U.N. Convention against torture. It is legitimizing torture by every disgusting regime on the planet.

If you think making prisoners endure cold, hot, loud music, and the occasional waterboarding is the rebirth of the Inquisition then you're beyond my convincing. Is it U.S. policy to shove bamboo under prisoners' fingernails? Are interrogators systematically breaking bones? Are they, a la Jack Bauer, making prisoners swallow socks only to yank them back up their esophaguses? No, no, and no. Instead, they're making prisoners stand nude before women then having an Israeli flag drapped over them. Is it psychologically demeaning? Sure, but if I were a prisoner I'd gladly accept that "torture."

Look at the picture Sullivan posted.

That prisoner isn't in a comfortable position, but do you see any bruises, any gunshot wounds, any scars, any marks at all?

Crimes have been committed. The case of an Afghani killed from being kneed scores of times is an example. However, Bush critics have set the torture bar so low the real crimes become noise. At Guantanamo the prisoners have been well fed, can practice their religion, and can read Harry Potter. I'd prefer that to the Hanoi Hilton Sen. John McCain had to endure during the Vietnam War.

The U.S. gets attacked on Sep. 11, 2001 then proceeds on a quest to destroy Islamist groups. Afghanistan and Iraq both are liberated. Millions of people have the chance to create a regime of liberty and breathe free. President Bush has set the nation down a path to promote liberty the world over. And the U.S. is a "rogue nation?" We're the bad guys? It will take another terrorist attack on the homeland to shake Sullivan out of his delusions of Chomsky.

"We Torture" [via Michelle Malkin]

UPDATE: James Joyner and Jeff Goldstein both comment.

Iraq Has a New Government...Sort Of

From Reuters:

Iraqi leaders have agreed on a national unity government to be presented to parliament on Saturday, negotiators said on Friday, adding that the key interior and defense ministries would be filled later.

"The government will be announced tomorrow," a senior aide to Prime Minister-designate Nuri al-Maliki told Reuters.

The aide said Maliki, a Shi'ite Islamist, would temporarily fill the post of interior minister for one week and that Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, a Sunni, would take over defense, also for a week.

Parliament is scheduled to meet on Saturday to approve the government, ending months of political deadlock that followed elections in December.

No word on how long it will take to fill the defense and interior ministries. Baby steps forward are better than steps backward.

"Iraqis Agree on Government"

Islamists' Video Games

Islamists are using modified video games for training and propaganda purposes:

Tech-savvy militants from al Qaeda and other groups have modified video war games so that U.S. troops play the role of bad guys in running gunfights against heavily armed Islamic radical heroes, Defense Department official and contractors told Congress.

The games appear on militant Web sites, where youths as young as 7 can play at being troop-killing urban guerillas after registering with the site's sponsors.

"What we have seen is that any video game that comes out ... they'll modify it and change the game for their needs," said Dan Devlin, a Defense Department public diplomacy specialist.

Every technology will be used in this war. Islamist terrorists are (or were) using satellite and mobile phones, e-mail (probably encrypted), graphics programs to whip up propaganda pictures, the whole gamut of communications technologies. Employing new technology has been the norm in warmaking since there have been wars. One of the most famous instances was the Battle of Agincourt where English forces defeated the French with their long bow. Groups of people are working to make video games useful for training troops. It's not a surprise the enemy is doing the same.

There's at least one online gamer who doesn't mind the enemy playing video games. He offers some "advice."

"Islamists Using US Video Games in Youth Appeal"

Military Combats Worker Abuse in Iraq

One problem with the Iraq War has been oversight of contractors. Auditors have found massive amounts of cost overruns and wasteful spending. Now, the Chicago Tribune reports contractors have mislead new hires by telling some they were going to work in Jordan but instead sending them to Iraq. Another abuse was confiscating workers' passports. In essence they made them slave labor. The newspaper documented the abuses last October. Only this month has the military bureauacracy responded.

"Iraq War Contractors Ordered to End Abuses"

A Generals' Conspiracy?

A collegue mentioned to me he thought there was something nefarious and organized about all these generals coming out at the same time and calling for Donald Rumsfeld to resign. I tossed the notion aside thinking it was too conspiratorial. Tony Blankley wonders himself:

More specifically, can a series of lawful resignations turn into a mutiny? And if they are agreed upon in advance, have the agreeing generals formed a felonious conspiracy to make a mutiny?

This may sound far-fetched, but in Sunday's Washington Post the very smart, very well-connected former Clinton Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke published an article entitled "Behind the Military Revolt." In this article he predicts that there will be increasing numbers of retired generals speaking out against Sec. Rumsfeld. Then, shockingly, he writes the following words: "If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable . . . then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld."

...

But if active generals in a theater of war are planning such a series of events, they may be illegally conspiring together to do that which would be legal if done without agreement. And Ambassador Holbrooke's article is -- if it is not a fiction (which I doubt it is) -- strong evidence of such an agreement. Of course, a conspiracy is merely an agreement against public policy.

I wouldn't call it seditious since all the critics are out of the military with no evidence they are telling leaders still serving to ignore or undermine Rumsfeld. What I find most interesting is much of the ex-generals' concerns deal with pre-war planning. That's not news. There was a public decision on that in the 2004 election. More voters chose to retain President Bush than call for change with Senator Kerry.

"Seven Days in April -- Generals Prepare to 'Revolt' Against Rumsfeld"

"Behind the Military Revolt"

"Our Intimidated Generals"

"A Generals Revolt?"

Judging Rumsfeld

Gateway Pundit has links galore in defense of Donald Rumsfeld. A few generals should read and click. Anti-warriors could also use the dose of perspective.

"Judge Rumsfeld by His Successes And Failures"

Newt Speaks on Iraq Remarks

Ankle Biting Pundits has a video interview with Newt Gingrich allowing him to explain his views on Iraq. As with most things coming out of his mouth, Newt's thoughts are original and unique. There's no need for me to summarize since the clip isn't long.

"Vlog-clusive: Newt on Iraq"

Newt Doesn't Want "Pull Back" from Iraq

On Newt Gingrich's website his recent statements at the University of South Dakota are clarified. The Argus Leader quoted Gingrich as saying, "It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003. We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it." The newspaper reports that remark was given Monday afternoon before students and faculty before an evening lecture.

In a printed transcript along with an audio clip Gingrich didn't call for a "pull back." At the end of his evening lecture he said, "And I want us to reduce American casualties, I want us to be as smart as possible, but there are no circumstances where I want to see those kind of people win. Not on our watch." That doesn't sound like pulling out of Iraq.

Since there's no known recording of the afternoon talk we have Gingrich's memory compared to that of Monica Labelle's, The Argus Leader reporter on the scene. Newt has no track record of calling for an Iraqi pullout so I'm chalking this up as a misunderstanding (I'm not assuming liberal bias; that's a knee-jerk response for too many conservatives) on Labelle's part. A reader at this South Dakota weblog who was at the afternoon talk comments the paper got it wrong. Sibby Online was also at the afternoon talk and writes,

I did attend the afternoon session, and no way did Gingrich gave the impression that we should surrender Iraq and instead presented the three points that he now has at his web site. I also heard Gingrich on Sean Hannity’s talk radio show at 4PM today. After Hannity aired Gingrich’s actually position, Gingrich stated that the Argus Leader got it wrong. He then compared this to the Dan Rather fake document incident where the bloggers corrected the MSM mistake. And tonight I am reporting the terrible error made by the Argus Leader today. It will be interesting to see if the Argus Leader will run a correction and an apology.

Gingrich: "Pull Back" from Iraq

Newt Gingrich joins a growing list of conservatives to have second thoughts about the Iraq War:

"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."

AJStrata isn't too happy and writes, "Gringrich just lost any chance of a political come back with this backtrack."

"Gingrich at USD: Pull out of Iraq"

Carroll Recants

Jill Carroll disavows the statements she made in a video before her release:

Protected by the U.S. military and far from the country where she had been held hostage, Jill Carroll strongly disavowed statements she had made during captivity in Iraq and shortly after her release, saying Saturday she had been repeatedly threatened.

In a video, recorded before she was freed and posted by her captors on an Islamist Web site, Carroll spoke out against the U.S. military presence. But in a statement Saturday, she said the recording was made under threat. Her editor has said three men were pointing guns at her at the time.

"During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. So I agreed," she said in a statement read by her editor in Boston.

"Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not."

No surprise. People will do lots of things when there are guns pointed at them. Jonah Goldberg is man enough to admit he was initially wrong.

"Carroll Rejects Statements Made in Iraq"

Waiting on Judgement

Hooray to Jim Geraghty for not jumping on the "Jill Carroll must be crazy" bandwagon. A downside to the instant news and analysis the internet and blogosphere provide is many feel they must comment on an event ASAP. Geraghty writes,

My instinct is to lay off for a bit. If she comes out in a few weeks making the same comments and appears to be defending her abductors, then she’ll be fair game for criticism. But for now, I’m willing to chalk up the pre-release tape to duress and the strange comments in the immediate hours and days after her release to stress and trauma.

There's a time and a place for everything. Just because you can offer your opinion instantly doesn't mean you should.

"Hold Off on Judging Jill Carroll -- For Now"

UPDATE: This explains Carroll's remarks:

The night before journalist Jill Carroll's release, her captors said they had one final demand as the price of her freedom: She would have to make a video praising her captors and attacking the United States, according to Jim Carroll.
In a long phone conversation with his daughter on Friday, Mr. Carroll says that Jill was "under her captor's control."

Ms. Carroll had been their captive for three months and even the smallest details of her life - what she ate and when, what she wore, when she could speak - were at her captors' whim. They had murdered her friend and colleague Allan Enwiya, "she had been taught to fear them," he says. And before making one last video the day before her release, she was told that they had already killed another American hostage.

That video appeared Thursday on a jihadist website that carries videos of beheadings and attacks on American forces. In it, Carroll told her father she felt compelled to make statements strongly critical of President Bush and his policy in Iraq.

That's good enough for Captain Ed who wonders why many forgot the enemy uses prisoners for propaganda. They forgot because wanted to offer instant analysis and appear to be on top of the story. They sided with speed instead of truth which travels at her own pace. We amateurs who are still cutting our teeth in this new wide-open media world have to always keep that in the backs of our minds.

"Jill Carroll Forced to Make Propaganda Video as Price of Freedom"

Where are the Protesters?

One of my frequent commenters, Mjm, pointed out Gateway Pundit's coverage of the small number of anti-war protesters at demonstrations this weekend.

"Anti-War Anniversary Protests a Bust"

Progress in Iraq

A Nicole Kidman sighting in Baghdad is proof Iraq is slowly connecting with the rest of the world. That's a very good thing.

[via Ghost of a flea]

A Sense of Calm in Iraq

Curfews in Baghdad have kept people off the streets and have tapped down violence. Friday is often a day when Iraqis go to their mosques then protest after being rallied by imams. Not today. That doesn't mean the threat of religious violence (or "tribal anarchy" to use Lee Harris' chilling words) has passed. It is probably still simmering below the surface. Mohammed @ Iraq the Model is cautiously opptimistic. It's a "good thing is that the Sunni have not returned the attacks and I hope the Shia have satisfied their vengeance by now because I don't want to even think of what can happen if this situation lasts longer than this."

For now, we wait. We wait for the curfews to be lifted and for people to come out of their homes and publically gather. Now is the time to pray for Iraq and our troops in their midst.

"Iraqi Religious Leaders Call for Peace"

Iraqi Sectarian Violence

Pulling people out of cars and shooting them mark a low point in my hopes for a free Iraq.

Muqtada al-Sadr has raised his ugly head by blaming the government for his powerlessness. "If the government had real sovereignty, then nothing like this would have happened. Brothers in the Mahdi Army must protect all Shiite shrines and mosques, especially in Samara." His lack of support in backing the government has a lot to do with it. Mohammed at Iraq the Model reports, "In our neighborhood the Sadr militias seized the local mosque and broadcast Shia religious mourning songs from the mosques loudspeakers."

Omar at ItM thinks "foreign terror groups" were behind the attack on the Samarra mosque. UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw said, "al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida have been linked as it has the hallmarks of their nihilism."

"Dozens Slain in Iraq Sectarian Violence"

"Iraq Sunni Clerics Blame Shi'ite Clerics for Unrest"

Iraq in Nato

Big strategic news from Iraq:

The senior advisor in the Iraqi defense ministry Mohammed al-Askari told the press today that the ministry is looking forward to seeing Iraq become a member of the NATO and that the minister Sa'doun al-Dulaimi, the chief of staff and the higher commanders are planning to propose this plan to the new government once it's seated.

I say the more the merrier.

How would anti-war Democrats react?

"Iraq Wants to Join the NATO!" [via Instapundit]

Saddam Speaks

One of the most dramatic moments in the 12 hours of recordings comes when Saddam predicts — during a meeting in the mid 1990s — a terrorist attack on the United States. "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. "In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."

Those chilling words came from a man who used chemical weapons on defenseless Kurds. The monster had a track record joking addition aside. Saddam with WMD