Al Qaeda in Iraq – Frederick Kagan, Weekly Standard
Al Qaeda In Iraq is part of the global al Qaeda movement. AQI, as the U.S. military calls it, is around 90 percent Iraqi. Foreign fighters, however, predominate in the leadership and among the suicide bombers, of whom they comprise up to 90 percent, U.S. commanders say. The leader of AQI is Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian. His predecessor, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, was a Jordanian. Because the members of AQI are overwhelmingly Iraqis--often thugs and misfits recruited or dragooned into the organization (along with some clerics and more educated leaders)--it is argued that AQI is not really part of the global al Qaeda movement. Therefore, it is said, the war in Iraq is not part of the global war on terror: The "real" al Qaeda--Osama bin Laden's band, off in its safe havens in the Pakistani tribal areas of Waziristan and Baluchistan--is the group to fight. Furthermore, argue critics of this persuasion, we should be doing this fighting through precise, intelligence-driven airstrikes or Special Forces attacks on key leaders, not the deployment of large conventional forces, which only stirs resentment in Muslim countries and creates more terrorists. Over the past four years, the war in Iraq has provided abundant evidence to dispute these assertions.
Petraeus' Pivotal Report – Austin Bay, Washington Times
There really is no particularly informative historical precedent for Gen. David Petraeus' upcoming public assessment of Iraq. Perhaps we are entering new historical terrain, where the commanding general's pivotal strategic gambit is a media event. And media event it is. With its certain long-term global import and short-term political impact, Gen. Petraeus' report meets a hustling television exec's primal requirement: drama. When the spotlight strikes his face and he begins to speak, we will witness drama in large letters. No one, however, should confuse the general's appearance with entertainment. The quick commentators will dub his report a historical pivot. That will be true, but only in a narrow sense. Despite the sensationalist headlines and hyperbolic fretting, given the decades of terror and the centuries of political fossilization afflicting the Middle East, the trend lines in The War on Terror are astonishingly good.
Limited War vs. Total War – Diana West, Washington Times / Real Clear Politics
History, as Marx famously said (by way of paraphrasing Hegel), repeats itself -- "the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." A catchy concept, to say the least. And while there's definitely something to it, it's also true that sometimes history does not repeat itself. Take American wars in Japan, the Koreas, Vietnam and Iraq. President Bush, addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, recently made a case -- a flawed case -- for a kind of core continuity linking these disparate conflicts. It's not that he didn't admit that there are many differences among them ("There are many differences" among them, he said). But he mostly argued that American involvement over time across the Far East had ushered in postwar peace and prosperity, and that this demonstrated "a precedent for the hard and necessary work we're doing" in Iraq. How do you equate total victory in Japan with bloody stalemate in Korea with congressionally mandated defeat in Vietnam... and Iraq? Of course, it was the invocation of Vietnam -- the president offered a cautionary tale against withdrawal from Iraq by pointing to the ghastly fate of millions of South Vietnamese and other U.S. allies on our abandonment of them in 1975 -- that triggered media distress, with the liberal-elite-complex going dyspeptic over the implication that its beloved antiwar movement was culpable in the humanitarian disaster visited on anti-communists in Southeast Asia.
Time for a Reality Check on Iraq - Pierre Atlas, Yahoo / Real Clear Politics
Incomprehensibly, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the dwindling number of Iraq war enthusiasts continue to push the false argument of "They attacked us on 9/11, and we're fighting them in Iraq." Who are "they"? There was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before we overthrew Saddam Hussein. The self-proclaimed "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia"--a band of Iraqi and foreign terrorists who are, at most, loosely affiliated with Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda--came into existence after our invasion. We are not in Iraq because of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq because of us. By invading Iraq, we created a self-fulfilling prophecy. As we approach the sixth anniversary of 9/11, the "they" who actually did attack us on September 11, 2001 are still out there, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We long ago took our eye off the ball with our decision to launch a war of choice in Iraq.
Here’s Why the Iraqis Want U.S. to Stay – Robert Trahan, Washington Examiner
The dirty little secret that the average American does not know, and does not see from most media outlets today, is that the Iraqi people are glad we came back and removed Saddam Hussein from power. They want a chance at freedom and will continue to work hard to put a viable government in place. I had the privilege to watch as people stood in line for hours, despite the threat of attacks by insurgents, to cast their first vote in free elections in 2005. The Iraqi people understood and appreciated what a huge opportunity this was for them. Despite the threats, they took a stand for freedom. Contrast this to the low voter turnout we have become accustomed to here in the United States, where people don’t take the time to exercise this most valuable right in the safety of their local precincts. Give the Iraqis support and time, and they will establish an island of democracy in the Middle East.
Don’t Bomb, Bomb Iran – Victor Davis Hanson, National Review
There’s been ever more talk on Iran. President Bush — worried about both Americans being killed by Iranian mines in Iraq, and Tehran’s progress toward uranium enrichment — is ratcheting up the rhetoric. But so mirabile dictu is French president Nicolas Sarkozy. He suddenly, in the eleventh hour of the crisis, reminds the world that bombing Iran is still very possible (and he doesn’t specify by whom): An Iran with nuclear arms is, to me, unacceptable, and I am weighing my words…And I underline France's full determination to support the alliance's current policy of increasing sanctions, but also to remain open if Iran makes the choice to fulfill its obligations. This policy is the only one that will allow us to escape an alternative, which I consider to be catastrophic. Which alternative? An Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran. Note especially the French president’s reference to “us” and the logic of his syllogism: Iran can’t and won’t have the bomb; one catastrophic remedy is bombing; therefore someone must increase sanctions or someone will bomb Iran, as the least bad of two awful alternatives. He can say all that — without the global hatred that George Bush would incur had he said half that. Mohamed Ahmadinejad is still ranting, but with more a sense of false braggadocio than ever: Iran will inherit the mantel of Middle East hegemony; America is running from Iraq; our policies have already failed in Iraq — blah, blah, blah.
Threats Without Borders - Claude Salhani, Washington Times
Addressing a gathering of some 200 French ambassadors gathered at the Elysee Palace last Monday, President Nicolas Sarkozy stressed the urgency of what he called "The first challenge" facing the West: How to prevent a confrontation with Islam. "The threats we face today — terrorism, proliferation, crime — know no borders, warned the French president. "There's no point in waffling: this confrontation is being called for by extremist groups such as al Qaeda that dream of establishing a caliphate from Indonesia to Nigeria, rejecting all openness, all modernity, every hint of diversity," said Mr. Sarkozy. "If these forces were to achieve their sinister objective, it is certain that the 21st century would be even worse than the last one, itself marked by merciless confrontation between ideologies." It would be wrong, said Mr. Sarkozy to underestimate the threat of a confrontation between Islam and the West. Citing the affair of the Danish newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that stirred violent protests from London to Jakarta, the French president said it should be seen as "a forewarning." All countries, he said, including those of the Muslim world, are now under threat of criminal attack similar to the attacks on New York, Bali, Madrid, Bombay, Istanbul, London and Casablanca. "Think of what would happen tomorrow if terrorists were to use nuclear, biological or chemical materials."
Back From Hell - Ralph Peters, New York Post
If you saw any news clips of intense combat last January, you were probably watching the fighting unfolding on Baghdad's Haifa Street: 10 days of grim sectarian violence. Until we put a stop to it. The boulevard of Sunni-inhabited high-rise apartments erupted in shootouts pitting the "Haifa Street Gang" and its al Qaeda allies against heavily Shia Iraqi army units. It was a recipe for massacre, as terrified residents - those who remained - cowered in their apartments. Then the U.S. Army moved in. Commanders must've felt tempted to just level the former Saddamist stronghold. Instead, they decided to rescue what they could. Our troops cleaned out the terrorists with what Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks - one of the Army's rising stars - termed "very focused kinetic effects."
Kill the Die-In – William Kristol, Weekly Standard
A motley crew of antiwar groups, including Iraq Veterans Against The War, CODEPINK, ANSWER, and MoveOn.org, are organizing a week of demonstrations in Washington beginning September 15. The "mobilization" will be kicked off with a "Die-In," sponsored primarily by ANSWER and Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). As they explain, "IVAW is asking that participants in the Die-In/Funeral select the name of one of the almost 4,000 soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. You can select a family member, friend or someone from your city, town or state. Please bring a photograph of that person and a sign with his/her name on September 15." Needless to say, the protesters who will be appropriating the names of soldiers and Marines killed in action have no intention of asking the permission of their families. But why should the families think their loved ones' sacrifices are being exploited in an unbelievably offensive way? After all, as one organizer explains, "The die-in will be led by an Honor Guard of Iraq Veterans Against the War who will simulate a 21-Gun Salute before taps is played to initiate the die-in." Grotesque. Will mainstream antiwar groups and antiwar politicians denounce this action, which is scheduled to begin the weeklong protest? Will the respectable parts of the antiwar movement stand with veterans and veterans' families who intend to protest this disgusting appropriation of their loved ones' names? Surely most critics of the war still have a sense of decency.
Hollywood Hates the Troops – The Scrapbook, Weekly Standard
"We've killed over 400,000 of their citizens." That's what actor Tim Robbins thinks U.S. troops have been doing in Iraq. He made the claim last week in an appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. He's wrong, of course. American soldiers have not been slaughtering 300 Iraqis a day for the last four years. Even for one of Hollywood's most feculent personalities, this is an appalling slander of U.S. troops. Just as we were inclined to dismiss Robbins as a lonely voice of idiocy, news came of director Brian DePalma's Redacted, one of eight new movies about the Iraq War due out in the coming months, according to Reuters. "Inspired by one of the most serious crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, it is a harrowing indictment of the conflict and spares the audience no brutality to get its message across." How about the reality of what's happening in Hollywood? Says Pete Hegseth of Vets for Freedom: "These statements reflect the utter ignorance of Robbins and DePalma about what American soldiers are actually doing in Iraq. At every opportunity, they use their celebrity status to bash the very soldiers and Marines who are fighting for them. They reflexively side with radical Islamic terrorists rather than take an honest look at the situation in Iraq."
Another U.N. Thugfest - New York Post editorial
Back in 2001, just days before 9/11, the United Nations convened a week- long orgy of ideological extremism aimed at America and Israel in Durban, South Africa. Things got so ugly at the so-called World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (whew!) that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell ordered the U.S. delegation home. Fidel Castro then lectured the delegates on the lack of human rights - in the United States, of course, not Cuba. And then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan rebuked Israel for using the Holocaust to excuse its "wrongs" against Palestinians. Six years later, they're at it again. And back in Durban, too. Not surprisingly, delegates picked up right where they left off: Libya's representative has been named chairman; the 19 vice-chairs include delegates from such paragons of human rights as Iran and Cuba. And though the conference terms specifically preclude any additions to the 2001 agenda, the delegates are busily leveling new, post-9/11 charges against the West of "religious profiling," "Islamophobia" and "defamation of religions."
Democracy in Turkey – New York Times editorial
The election of Abdullah Gul, an observant Muslim, to the Turkish presidency was a victory for democracy. The military, which has a habit of defending Turkish secularism at the expense of Turkish democracy, tried to block his candidacy last spring. Rather than bow to the generals, the government took the issue to the people, who delivered Mr. Gul’s party a mandate in July’s Parliamentary elections, smoothing the way for lawmakers to overwhelmingly approve Mr. Gul for the presidency. Though nearly all of Turkey’s 70 million people identify themselves as Muslim, the Turkish Constitution calls for strict secularity in public life. The insistence on secularism, in place since the country’s founding in 1923, was intended to counter what were viewed as anti-modern strains within Islam that impeded development. Over time, however, it led to the entrenchment of a secular ruling elite and the exclusion of more openly devout Muslims. In recent years, that observant group — which also accounts for much of the Turkish middle class — has fought back at the ballot box and scored victories.
-----
