American at heart

This from Michelle Malkin:

"Just across on CNN. According to the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, Iraqi police ran across “an insurgent group” on the road between Fallujah and Samarra and shot it out with them, wounding Abu al-Masri and killing one of his top associates. They have the associate’s body, but al-Masri got away."

This could be huge. Updates Galore from Hot Air:
Now MSNBC might be retracting their prior claims...
More intel from Pajamas Media says it's a false claim.

Also, if you remember... I linked to this story from the Jawa Report. Sounds like they might have been right all along. That's a hell of a prediction!

This is pretty good too, if you find it humorous that some people in congress still think that it's all about Iraq. I found it via The Jawa Report.

And this is a little old, but some fine reporting from the INDCJournal shows us what's going on in Fallujah.

Labels: War On Terror

Herschel Walker has more on the Security of Iraq and Winning the Hearts And Minds.

This piece really struck a chord with me: (Links Included)

"This campaign of torture and intimidation exemplifies brutality at its worst. Iraqi police and Marines recently completed “Operation Three Swords” south of Fallujah, the purpose of which was to detain members of murder and intimidation cells within the rural area of Zaidon and the villages of Albu Hawa, Fuhaylat and Hasa. During the operation, members of the Fallujah police Department and Coalition Forces discovered a torture house and rescued three individuals. The house had blood-stained walls, and the torture devices included shackles, chains, syringes, rifles, knives, chord, clubs and a blow torch. The condition of the torture victims was said to be dire."

That type of warfare is wrong. Terrorists are horrible, horrible people and should be treated as such. To be politically correct with terrorists is like arresting a child molester here in the states and instead of jail time, sentence him to community service at the local grade school. It's Just Friggin Retarded! I'm going to blame the politicians. If they want to fight this war so bad I suggest they enlist. Otherwise, let the soldiers on the ground do what they need to do. I mean really... Torture Houses?! Are you kidding me. That leads me to my "Eye for an Eye" Iraq war strategy which I'm hoping to turn into Army Doctrine within the week. (kidding... sort of)

Here goes… Every terrorist we arrest gets tortured. Severely. Beat them to within an inch of their life, then drop them off at the scene of a recent attack on civilians with a sign saying: “I am a terrorist, and the good guys are now winning”
I’ll bet after the first week normal people will be thinking twice about helping the bad guys. It's perfect. I'm a genius. Why aren't I running things? Oh yeah, because I would offend every tree hugging, same sex marrying, kumbaya singing FREAK living it this country who thinks that we should mind our own business and the Islamic Extremists will just leave us alone. Yeah, and target the Brits instead. Idiots.

Labels: War On Terror

Here's a few links dealing with the war this week. The first is an update of the "Surge" in Baghdad from Pajamas Media. Looks like B-1 Bombers have been spotted once again. We haven't had them flying in Iraq (that I know of) since the initial push. This could mean the end for the cowardly islamofascists. Speaking of which... How are the bad guys doing in Iraq? Strategy Page has the answer here.

And how should we deal with these "bad guys"?

According to Joe Gish at the Victory Caucus:

President Reagan said it best: "We win, they lose!"

"Al Qaeda must be discredited, humiliated and emasculated We must find them wherever they hide--they have sent large numbers of jihadis to Iraq--and we will hunt them down like the dogs that they are. No mercy."

"Running away from Iraq is running away from Al Qaeda."

Well then, what shall we do with Iran? As well as pointing out more Liberal Hypocrisy, Uncle Jimbo has an answer that I feel is a pretty good idea. Eventually we are gonna have to fight every insurgency, as they all want us dead, but we must choose our battles wisely. One of the biggest reasons we chose Iraq as our "battlefield" is not only it's diplomatic promise, but it's geographic location. All the fanatics go there to fight. We've been killing them for 4 years. Perhaps it's time for a change in tactics. Say, bring the fight to the enemy? Start running patrols INTO Syria and Iran... Or even Africa. Maybe SOF is already there... Just a thought. And I wonder what else SOF has been up to?

Also, Ace Of Spades has some intel on crackdowns in Iraq AND Afghanistan. We just keep on killing these rat bastards... and I friggin love it!

Labels: Iran, Liberal Hypocrisy, War On Terror

This is a must read. Once again, Herschel Smith has gone above and beyond and put together another wonderful essay on Rules Of Engagement.

I've gone over this again and again. This war will be won easily with the relaxing of the current ROE. Soldiers are not trained to fight a PC (Politically Correct) War. I am not a policeman, nor do I play one on Television. Here is an excerpt from a previous ROE post at The Captain's Journal where the problems of the ROE were discussed:

Our ROE was simple. The right to self defense was never denied. The ROE was based on a method of determining a life threatening scenario from a non-life threatening one. We called this the “Escalation Of Force.” Show, Shout, Shove, and Shoot. It’s pretty self explanatory and easy to follow in a perfect world. The problem is that the world isn’t perfect.

Scenario: You’re a gunner on an M2 .50 caliber machine gun mounted atop a M1114 Up-Armored HMMWV. You are the last vehicle and you are pulling rear security. A vehicle in the distance is swerving through traffic on a mission from God and closing on your convoy quickly. You wave your arms to get the driver’s attention to no avail. You yell obscenities at the crazy Iraqi while drawing down on the vehicle with your large caliber, fully automatic, machine gun. Hell, you even throw your water bottle hoping to get the hood on a bounce. Nothing. You notice a male driver who appears to be gripping the wheel a little too tight and who has beads of sweat forming on his brow. You realize that this could be trouble. But… to complicate the matter, there is a woman (presumably his wife) and 4 children in the car as well. The vehicle is fast approaching… and you have a mere second to react. Your buddy’s, nay, family’s lives are on the line behind you. They trust you to make the right decision. What do you do?

Option 1: Warning shots. Sure. Can work. Collateral damage becomes an issue, and high ranking military personnel HATE such paperwork.

Option 2: Wait it out. This choice is putting the lives of a “civilian” before the lives of your military “family.” I wholeheartedly disagree with this choice, but it keeps you out of Leavenworth.

Option 3: Stop the vehicle by any means necessary. Shoot ‘em up and ensure the safety of your family who depends on you.

Now with any of these options you find out in the end that either… A) Vehicle drives right on by and through the convoy, apparently the wife was in labor and they were speeding to the hospital. B) Vehicle drives right by you and slams into middle vehicle as 5 155mm Mortar rounds detonate the vehicle killing 3, wounding 4 and truly screwing up your day.

So, you don’t know if a pregnant wife is being rushed to the hospital or a family of insane insurgents are preparing to destroy you.

That is a lot of responsibility to be put on an 18 year old private sitting behind an uber powerful machine gun. That’s why our armed forces are so wonderful. We have 18 year old kids who can and do make those decisions daily. What a wonderful country we were born in.

You make the wrong move and kill civilians though, you not only have to live with the mistake, but you will be ridiculed unmercifully by the media/big army. You will be buried in proceedings and paperwork the remainder of your deployment, and you will not be the same. Your buddies will be affected as well. Cpl. X will see how bad it could be to make the wrong decision, and will hesitate just a hair too long when there is a real threat… and more men will die. The fear of failure leads to hesitation, and hesitation in war is a lesser form of suicide.

That, in my opinion, is the problem. This is not a war. The enemy does not wear uniforms, and therefore the Geneva Convention is null and void instead of applicable.

My unit, as well as the thousands of other soldiers in our area dealt with these problems on a daily basis. The “details” of the ROE changed daily. Some examples… For a time, the gunners would bring buckets full of rocks into the turret with them to throw through the windshields of vehicles not adhering to our warnings to stay away (that ended quickly after command had to pay for numerous windshields). We put signs in Arabic/Kurdish/Turkish on the backs of the vehicles warning them to stay away. We fired warning shots. We did nothing. We drove in the center of the road and dominated our routes by running ignorant drivers right off the road. We drove with the flow of traffic and narrowly averted disaster numerous times.


Did anyone pay attention to these posts? Well according to Herschel:

"Using Google Analytics, I can tell what network domain is being used to access my site. The day I posted my first article on ROE I received more visits from the Department of Justice and the U.S. Administrative Court than I did from the Pentagon and CENTCOM combined (although many more from Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine network domains than either of the above … possibly a very informative statistic about who is truly concerned about ROE)."

Hopefully people are starting to take notice. And not just your run-of-the-mill Republican, but influential politicians, lawyers, and the like. We are quite dedicated to the war on terrorism, specifically in Iraq, and for us to quit... to cut and run now... would be a tragedy. We fight to win. And if we're gonna follow through then we need some help from the lawmakers to ensure victory.

Labels: ROE, War On Terror

This from Bill Roggio:

"On the heals of a U.S. military presentation which provided evidence of Iranian made Explosively formed projectiles, mortars and other weapons being supplied to to Iraqi terrorists, as well as evidence of Iranian Qods Force operatives captured in Iraq, The Telegraph reports a significant quantity of Iranian owned sniper rifles have been seized in Iraq. Over twelve percent of Iran's Steyr HS50 sniper rifles purchased by the "National Iranian Police Organisation" in 2005 have been found inside Iraq."

And The Telegraph's Thomas Harding reports:

"More than 100 of the .50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids. The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year...
Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon. Over the last six months American forces have found small caches of the £10,000 [about $19,500] rifles but in the last 24 hours a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100, US defence sources reported..."

Mr. Roggio also points out:

"It should be noted that the information provided by the U.S. military during Sunday's briefing, as well as the information on the sniper rifles, is what the military can prove with 100% certainty."

Labels: Iran, War On Terror

This is super important. Tired of your voice not being heard? Here's the chance. Head over here and sign up. We're gonna get together, rally the troops, and let the lying lefties get a taste of their own medicine.

This here from Matt over at Blackfive:

For a long time have we thought and argued here about how to define victory and how to get the politicians to take a stand for victory. I've been in some discussions with others with the same thoughts and we think that there is demand for a gathering place to talk about winning the war and only winning the war, dedicated to identifying and supporting candidates who are serious about winning the war, and devoted to serious exchanges about the war. As a member of the Board of Governors (including Hugh Hewitt, Dean Barnett, Austin Bay, Frank Gaffney and Ed Morrisey), I am proud to announce the formation of:

The Victory Caucus
"Not a Dime for Defeat, No Matter How Disguised"

So GET THERE and let our voices be heard!

Labels: War On Terror

I've come across a couple relevant links while researching the Feith fiasco.

This from Powerline.

"The current flap over the Pentagon Inspector General's report on Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans has embarrassed the Associated Press, the Washington Post and, if he has any shame, the Inspector General. The controversy does have the merit, though, of raising once again the issue of the relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda and other terrorists."

They include an ABC news report from 2000 which has been conveniently forgotten.


And then Flopping Aces puts together a nice little wrap-up as well.

I suggest reading it all. There is a lot going on today in the blogosphere. I recommend at least bookmarking some of this stuff for later reading.

Labels: Al Qaeda in Iraq, War On Terror

"Iran Denies U.S. Charge That It Is Arming Terrorists in Iraq."

Great headline. How obvious does the news have to be?? Could you really imagine the headline reading:

Iran admits that they are fueling the fire in Iraq by arming terrorists with weapons!
In other news, US politicians say we should give Iran another chance. /look into future

Yeah, come on here. Report the obvious, fine. But honestly, the libs are gonna turn this one around and say we are making a case for war with Iran. "Hitler Bush is just trying to trick us into another war" will spew from their mouths.
It sounds like the Republicans are trying to spearhead that twist:

"On the Republican side, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi said he did not think the United States was trying to make a case for attacking Iran. Lott said the U.S. should try to stop the flow of munitions through Iran to Iraq but that 'you do that by interdiction ... you don't do it by invasion.' "

He makes a good point... But since I'm a war monger, I slightly disagree. We will go to war with Iran. But not because of trickery, deceit, or force by the administration. We will go to war with Iran because they will bring it. They will announce it. They will attack us. They will attempt to bring down The Great Satan. Mark my words. It's happened once to us... It'll happen again. I just hope we aren't still sleeping.

And while you're here, grab some coffee and gain some knowledge about the who, what, when, where, and why of the war against fanatical Muslims as brought to you by the Steven Den Beste archives. Boy, that man is a genius.

Labels: Iran, War On Terror

Here is a good look at the last 48 hours in Iraq. Sounds like Al Masri is on the run... Especially since in the last 48 hours we've captured SIX al Qaeda leaders! Remarkable. Damn, we sure are kicking some ass over there.

Here's the link to this story.

Plus, via Instapundit, is this article. Go NPR!

Labels: War On Terror

Right. We're NOT Losers... It's the War We Hate:

Jonah Goldberg wrote this article for the NRO in early December. I was just reading it again and realized how vital this information really is:

"The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq remains below one percent of our WWII losses."

So why is it sooo important to point out that we've "drug this quagmire" out for 1,347 days?

Jonah answers:

"When people invoke the WWII analogy, what they really mean is that we've been in Iraq too long. Fair enough. But it's not clear that the chorus of tsk-tskers appreciate the implications of their complaint."

True. And as he points out:

"...you don't hear many people complaining that we still have troops in Japan and Germany more than 20,000 days later."

Hmmm... Something to think about, isn't it?

Labels: War On Terror

Here are some gems from Democratic leaders concerning the war. I love to play Monday morning quarterback, but only when someone deserves it. Such as... let's say... Hypocrites.

It seems to me that these people used to be intelligent. What happened?

Either way, Enjoy:



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Labels: War On Terror

Newly released video from the daring rescue of the fallen Royal Marine in Afghanistan last week. These guys rode on the Outside of Apaches. For those of you who haven't seen an apache... You are NOT supposed to ride on those wings... especially at speeds of well over 100mph. These guys have balls the size of grapefruits. Well done boys.

Now go watch this video!

Labels: War On Terror

Hooray for the Iraq Study Group! They have finally solved it. I'm sure glad that they have all the answers. I'm voting for them. < /sarcasm >

I'm not quite sure how disappointed I should be that stuff like this is widely accepted as "Media worthy" truth.

I started reading the report and at about page 12 had to stop. This line really did it for me: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved."

Now, I hope for the sake of the free world that this quote was aimed at the terrorists. Now, unless things have changed since I spent 337 days patrolling the dusty streets of that country, we are winning the war... and in a big way.

I've said it before in regards to this war, but a diplomatic approach is wrong. Diplomacy doesn't work in war! It's a fact. Wars are won with violence. Oh wait, no... WWII ended when World leaders sat around, held hands, and talked about love and peace. I almost forgot about that famous gathering. Are you kidding me?! We had to drop more than 1 bomb in Japan before they gave up! We physically marched into Germany and DESTROYED the Nazi regime. Have we forgotten that the 42nd ID lost half their men fighting for Dauchau? Uuuggghhhh...
But no... The Iraqi Study Group believes that:
"The US should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region."

Why?!? So more US troops can die while being blindsided and cheated to death in a war fought unfairly by the other "side"???
I don't get it.

Let's CRUSH the insurgency like we should have done in 2003. Let the troops do what they are trained to. Kill. Then we can hold hands and sing songs with the "new leaders" of Iraq. Until the terrorists are dead and defeated, I will NOT quit voicing my distaste with the way this "War" is being "fought".

I'm done.

Go read the Study if you'd like. Here's the link to the PDF version.


****************** UPDATE ************************

Froggy over at Blackfive has more or less written something similar to what I'm saying as far a solution is concerned. He goes into a bit more detail. And if I'm sharing the same military opinions as someone as accomplished as he is, then I must be doing something right!

Labels: War On Terror