Excellent article.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001506.html

"I'm going to try to see if we can't shift the attention of the American people from the report on the military situation to a report on the political situation since everybody acknowledges that it's the failure of the political arena and the political areas that are the cause of the ongoing violence in Iraq," said Levin, who is taking his eighth trip to Iraq since the war began. 
For months now, the media and the Democrats have been saying that the Military cannot win this war.  It must be done politically.  The assumption being that the two items are mutually exclusive.  The two items are interwoven very tightly and Sen. Levin’s statement overlooks the basic premise that the political situation is directly tied to the security situation in Iraq.
We are now seeing military success on the ground, which when tied to political improvements with the Iraqi government means that progress is being made.
At what point, does the Democrat controlled US Congress stop playing political games with our troops and give them the support they need to finish the job.  The troops have now begun to show success and real progress despite the best efforts of the politicians and the politicians reaction is to “shift the attention” away from that success.  The troops have done and continue to do their job and Congress needs to take responsibility and support the war they voted for!!!!

The road to peace in Iraq is long and hard. That's the path America chose, Democrats and Republicans alike. The road has multiple layers, the security, the economic, the infrastructure and the political. The soldiers in Iraq are laying the foundation of that road (Security). We can’t build the rest of the road without the Security. The Iraqi people have made great strides in the second layer by creating marketplaces and embracing free market democracy. The American military and the “evil” contractors are creating the third layer by building the infrastructure (roads and bridges, power, pipelines, schools, hospitals, etc) necessary for Iraq to succeed. The final layer is the political layer. We have made great strides forward in this area as well. Iraq has conducted free elections, written a constitution and formed a government in a very short timeline. The people in the Iraqi government, unlike the American government, are relatively new to running a country. America has many politicians who have years of experience. It takes time for the Iraqi politicians to learn how to run a country and cooperate (which the US government can’t seem to do) with each other to succeed.

As the infrastructure improves, the economy improves, and the politicians gain experience, the security will improve. We’ve already seen changes that signal Iraq is ready to move forward. As the first three pieces progress and they are progressing, the citizens of Iraq will eventually want an end to the violence. As Americans continues to rebuild schools and hospitals each time the insurgents blow them up, the Iraqi people will begin to work with the Americans to prevent the attacks. That doesn’t happen overnight.

In Baqubah, the former Iraqi insurgents are now cooperating with American soldiers to rid the area of AQ insurgents. That’s progress. The citizens of Baqubah have realized that the Americans are not the ones causing the problem. It took time for them to realize that we are helping them rebuild. The AQ insurgents are not. We build, the AQ insurgents destroy. It was only a matter of time before the Iraqi people made that connection. Early on, the Iraqis supported the AQ insurgents viewing American soldiers as the problem. They have now realized it is the AQ insurgents that are the problem. That’s a fundamental shift in the Iraqi perception. That shift is the foundation of solid security. 

Iraq is not a short term project. The arguments can take place forever regarding the justification for the war. The reality is America is committed to Iraq and needs to finish what was started.

I currently own a Mercedes and a Toyota. If this were 1949, would anyone believe that I would be driving cars made in Germany or Japan? We are two generations removed from World War II and we are forgetting the hard work, the resolve, and the determination that it took to make those two countries into the countries they are today.

History will determine whether George W. Bush is described as a good or bad President. If Iraq fails, and it will if we withdraw, President Bush will be seen as one of the worst Presidents of all time. If Iraq succeeds and I am buying an Iraqi vehicle in 50 years (if I’m still alive), President Bush will be deemed a genius. Time will tell.

By improving the infrastructure, building a government and supporting the economy we have enabled and thus persuaded the Iraqi people to support America and not the insurgency.  That's Winning the Hearts and Minds in my book!!!  We are WINNING!!!

One of the primary arguments against the war in Iraq is that Iraq was not involved with 9/11. The same argument can be made for Afghanistan. Afghanistan as a country did not plan or execute the Sept 11 attacks.

Afghanistan was a state sponsor of terrorism. Afghanistan, as a state, gave safe haven to terrorists and allowed terrorists to train in camps. The government of Afghanistan (the Taliban) allowed the camps (Tarnak Farms, Derunta, Al Farooq, Khalden, etc) to exist and train terrorists within their sovereign territory. The Taliban, to my knowledge, did not provide funding for the families of suicide bombers. The Taliban did not have a WMD program. The government of Afghanistan (Taliban) was not involved with the planning or execution of the Sept 11 attacks.

Why did we invade Afghanistan?

The terrorists that took part in the Sept 11 attacks received training in the camps in Afghanistan. They did not receive training in Iraq. Afghanistan provided safe haven, so did Iraq. Afghanistan did not provide funding to the families of suicide bombers, Iraq did. Afghanistan did not have WMD, Iraq did (everyone, bipartisan thought so and both sides made the case).

Iraq was a state sponsor of terror. Iraq, as a state, gave safe haven to terrorists, provided financial retribution to the families of suicide bombers, had a WMD program (at one point) and allowed terrorists to train in camps. The government of Iraq allowed camps (Khurmal, Salman Pak, etc) to exist and to train terrorists within their sovereign territory. The government of Iraq, had a WMD program. This was confirmed by multiple sources throughout the 90’s and there is evidence to support this argument. If they did not, why did the IAEA have teams in Iraq? The unanswered issue is what happened to the WMD, not whether or not they had them. The government of Iraq (Saddam Hussein) was not involved with the planning or execution of the Sept 11 attacks.

Why did we invade Iraq?

Iraq is at the heart of the Middle East. If America wanted to make a fundamental, long term, ideological change in the Middle East, Afghanistan is not the place to do it. Iraq is.

 Friday, June 08, 2007

From the front lines in Fallujah The following is an email from Marine Sam Bond: Hey everyone. I beg you to stay with me on this letter - it's long, but the issues involved are deeply troubling to me, and I feel it would be a great disservice to all concerned, particularly the brave young Marines and Iraqis on the streets everyday - simply to remain silent. Two days ago I returned from an operation in Northeastern Fallujah. I was exhausted, but I took satisfaction in the knowledge that, not only had all of my Marines returned safely, but also we had established a new precinct headquarters building in a small section of the city. This building will serve as a local outlet for Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army, and a small cadre of Marines to conduct small-scale patrols in a dedicated area. The overall concept has been proven effective in Ramadi to our west, and this was the first such precinct established in Fallujah. Despite encountering a laundry list of small logistical and operational setbacks, the short-term effects of the operation were largely positive: almost 200 Iraqis had volunteered for police recruitment, hundreds more had received outpatient medical care, many settled damage claims with Coalition representatives, and all present received food and oil rations from the precinct headquarters staff. One of my corporals stationed at the precinct HQ said the reaction of most of the Iraqis present was one of relief and great optimism about what this new building means to their safety and the progress of the city at large. Such a success story would be devastating to the enemy, and they attempted to disrupt the process with a suicide attack. However, due to aggressive patrolling by Iraqi forces, the bomber, who doubtless wanted to target the civilians at the headquarters itself in order to cause the most catastrophic effects, was forced to detonate his vest almost a half-mile away when he was halted by police. He succeeded in causing superficial wounds to one Iraqi civilian, as well as killing himself. No one else was injured, no other damage caused, and in the aftermath of the incident, the precinct signed up an additional 75 recruits for police service. This bomber failed - he failed to kill innocents, and he failed to deter the progress of standing up Iraqi police. Later that afternoon, from my temporary station at an Iraqi Army outpost, co-located with U.S. advisor personnel, I was checking the internet headlines when a "Breaking News" alert appeared: "Suicide Attack in Fallujah kills 25; Police Recruits Targeted." Shocked, and initially very concerned that perhaps the outpost command center was out of the loop on a major incident, I read on (quotes paraphrased): "A suicide bomber detonated outside of a police recruiting drive in Fallujah, killing 25 and wounding at least 50 others. According to unnamed sources within the Police Department, the bomber was able to gain access to the recruit line where he detonated a vest filled with explosives. An official at Fallujah General Hospital, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that he had treated at least 50 people with severe injuries in the aftermath." Literally running to the command center, I asked if anyone had heard of a second attack. Radio checks went around the horn, and everyone came back in the negative - there had been no further attacks, other than the completely ineffective one earlier. This was, in every way, a false report. Yet, I checked the other headlines: CNN, APNewswire, BBC, Yahoo - all picked up the same story. Over the next several hours, I was nervous that maybe we'd missed something, or possibly that the attack had happened somewhere else nearby in Anbar province, and that the location of "Fallujah" was simply misreported. But, in the aftermath, we found out that no other attack that day could possibly have been referenced. Those headlines referred to the failed attack - but depicted a dramatically different outcome. And then something interesting happened. That night, after the stories had been on the web for at least five or six hours, all traces of the story disappeared. It was as if they'd never been posted in the first place - every effort to find any mention of the story was futile. I was initially relieved, and recognized that the reporting agencies had probably found out that the initial reporter had received bogus information. But then I realized: there doesn't appear to be any retraction, and there certainly wasn't any update that indicated the real events. So, the thousands upon thousands of people who saw that headline will assume that a tragic event unfolded in Fallujah, lump that in with all the other bad news that makes up the grim picture of Iraq, and move on. (In fairness, there may yet, at some unknown point in the future, be a story that addresses this initial report as false, or chronicles the establishment of other such precincts in Fallujah as indicators of success. And, it may get as much reader exposure as the "successful suicide attack" did. But I'm not optimistic.) Fresh from the frustration of that incident, I returned to our base at Camp Baharia. Good news greeted me the following morning: a combined Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police, and Marine patrol in Fallujah's industrial district encountered a small band of insurgents at a makeshift suicide vehicle factory, some of whom were wearing suicide vests. The Police engaged the enemy, killing four of them, and the Iraqi Army and Marine contingent were able to maneuver around the flank of the other fleeing enemy and engage them before they could escape, killing an additional three insurgents. Subsequent investigation of the scene led to confirmation of two large trucks, laden with explosives, and rigged to be suicide vehicles. The engagement, and discovery of the suicide trucks, was about as great a success story as we can expect to have. After finishing the site exploitation, and cordoning off the area to ensure no local nationals were nearby, U.S. Explosive Ordinance Disposal teams placed demolition charges on the trucks, and remotely initiated the charges, removing the threat and causing a large - but harmless to civilians - explosion. Needless to say, this event led to a lot of excitement on our part, as well as our Iraqi counterparts. The enemy was killed in his tracks, his best weapon was discovered before it could cause any harm, and there were no civilian casualties whatsoever. So, it was with profound disappointment that I encountered an alternate version of events while reading the "Western Media Highlights" this morning on our daily intelligence summary. I read a synopsis of the report, and while I didn't see the full video clip, I did see a freeze-frame from CNN.com with a picture of Iraq, Anbar province highlighted, Fallujah outlined, and a banner that reads: "Children Killed." According to the story: "A U.S. tank fired a high-explosive round at insurgents emplacing an IED in Fallujah yesterday, killing three Iraqi children. Once the smoke cleared, the insurgents got away. An investigation is underway." (I later discovered that there was an engagement similar to this story, although not inside of Fallujah, and it is under investigation. I don't have other details to share.) Casual observers, both in the U.S., abroad, and even in other parts of Iraq, will assume that overzealous U.S. personnel used excessive force in Fallujah and innocent Iraqis died as a result. I highly doubt that the other events of the day in Fallujah would have otherwise reached any of you had I not relayed, but the actual events for our Battalion boil down to this (pardon the expletive): We kicked the $#!@ out of the insurgents yesterday. We rocked 'em. Echo company 2/6, the Iraqi Police, the Iraqi Army, their respective advisor teams - all share in the accomplishment and satisfaction of knowing this: on that one day in Fallujah, we decisively and absolutely won. End of story. But, as you can see, as far as anyone else who may have been watching the news yesterday night is concerned, we did not win. In fact, by our alleged carelessness in a separate incident - the merits of which are still being determined - we contributed to unfortunate and unnecessary bloodshed, while an invisible, invincible, and dedicated enemy got the better of us yet again. This kind of selective sensationalism wouldn't fly in the states. There are too many protections, both ethical and legal, that prevent such calculated, intentional, and malicious bias - evidenced by both selective omission of the good and intentionally pessimistic spin of the bad. But apparently, our military - and the Iraqi military - aren't afforded such protections. Our collective benefit of the doubt is gone, and apparently good news must be scrutinized for inflation or propaganda, while bad news is automatically both reliable (due to the sheer volume of similar reporting) and time-sensitive enough to merit immediate and far-flung dissemination. Incomplete information is rarely footnoted as such, and updates that mitigate or even contradict the initial blood banner aren't worthy of public scrutiny. Where is the accountability? Make no mistake: the one area in which we are absolutely, positively, and without a doubt LOSING this war is in information operations. We are getting demolished, both by nefarious enemy media outlets, moles, and reporters (FYI - we know of plenty of instances where "reporters" or "sources" for Arab and other news agencies are either on insurgent payrolls, or have known sympathies with insurgent organizations), AND by a collective Western media that either fails to realize, or worse fails to care, that they are often being manipulated by enemy elements. What incredible economy of effort the enemy is afforded when U.S. media is their megaphone! Why spend precious resources on developing your own propaganda machine when you can make your opponent's own news outlets scream your message louder than you could ever have hoped to do independently? That said, failure to provide context, in addition to the tendency to overstate patterns by projecting localized incidents into broader themes, are cardinal sins of reporting in this conflict. As such, I'll try (albeit somewhat half-heartedly) not to commit the same sin by claiming or insinuating that other incidents in other areas of the country are similarly misreported. I have not the ability, nor the inclination, to spend the time required to research the details of every Baghdad bombing, Sadr City Rocket, or Basrah mortar in search of comparable false reports. And it would be inappropriate to ignore that U.S. and Iraqi personnel have, on too many occasions, made fatal errors of judgment and execution that do result in deaths of innocent civilians or friendly military casualties. Indeed, the sheer volume of those stories (real or fabricated) has reached a point that the cumulative effects completely drown out any tidbit of good news. I can count on one hand the number of positive stories I've heard through the media this deployment - yet every day that I've seen a television or been on the internet there's been an Iraqi "Doom and Gloom" scrolling-banner of death and carnage. So with that disclaimer, I will simply state the facts as I know them, and you can be the judge as to whether it's worth noting, or even caring. After all, in the end they are limited in scope, and probably will have no discernable impact on the greater conflict - for better or worse. From May 30th to June 2nd, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army, and U.S. forces won two decisive battles in Fallujah, Iraq. The enemy was intercepted, denied, and in both cases, outright killed. The results of these engagements are as follows: One civilian wounded, no civilians killed; One Iraqi policeman wounded, no other Iraqi Security forces wounded; No coalition force casualties of any kind; eight enemy combatants confirmed killed, four enemy suspected wounded, at least two enemy suicide operatives discovered and killed before they could carry out their attacks (with a third forced to detonate early and to no substantial effect), at least two enemy suicide trucks discovered before their construction was complete, four foreign fighters detained. 200 Iraqi police recruits signed up for duty, and a new precinct headquarters was established. Western media reports for the same time period and area indicated no enemy killed, 28 civilians killed (including three children as the result of U.S. action), upwards of fifty civilians wounded, and an investigation underway. I'm sorry for dragging on so long. These two particular incidents are very important to me and my fellow Marines, and many of us were taken aback by the discrepancies between what we saw with our own eyes and what we saw on screen. In spite of having our small victories essentially robbed, we'll be fine - we'll keep fighting the fight, and doing what we can to accomplish the mission, assist the Iraqis, and provide for the security of the new government. We will make mistakes, and we will suffer setbacks and casualties. You will probably hear about them. We will also have successes, victories over enemy combatants, and oversee more progress, stability and growth in the new Iraq. I doubt you will hear about those. When I see future discrepancies between reports and reality, I will try, if possible, to alert you all to them. Admittedly, my readership doesn't have the scope of the big media outlets, but at least you few will know that there is an alternative explanation to what everyone else is hearing. Thanks for your time and for allowing me to vent some frustration. I hope all is well stateside. Cheers, Sam Bond May God bless Sam--and his fellow Marines.  Stories like this must get out.

Another example of the progress in Iraq despite the efforts of the MSM media in America.  I applaud the Washington Post for running this article. 

Don't Abandon Us

By Hoshyar Zebari
Friday, May 4, 2007; A23

Last weekend a traffic jam several miles long snaked out of the Mansour district in western Baghdad. The delay stemmed not from a car bomb closing the road but from a queue to enter the city's central amusement park. The line became so long some families left their cars and walked to enjoy picnics, fairground rides and soccer, the Iraqi national obsession.

Across the city, restaurants are slowly filling and shops are reopening. The streets are busy. Iraqis are not cowering indoors. The appalling death tolls from suicide attacks are often high because of crowding at markets. These days you are as likely to hear complaints about traffic congestion as about the security situation. Across Baghdad there is a cacophony of sirens from ambulances, firefighters and police providing public services. You cannot even escape the curse of traffic wardens ticketing illegally parked cars.

These small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in a downward spiral. The Iraqi people are indeed suffering tremendous hardships and making grave sacrifices -- but daily life goes on for 7 million Baghdadis struggling to take back their capital and country.

Today, at an international summit on the future of Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, my government will ask the international community to maintain its engagement in our country to help us achieve our goals of security and stability. We recognize that our request conflicts with a plethora of voices decrying the situation in Iraq and those in the British and American publics who seek an expeditious withdrawal from a war they claim is all but lost.

So why should the world remain engaged in Iraq?

There is no denying the difficulties Iraq faces, and no amount of good news can obscure the demons of terrorism and sectarianism that have risen in my country. But there is too much at stake to risk failure, and everything to gain by helping us protect our hard-won democratic achievements and emerge as a stable, self-sustaining country.

We remain determined in spite of our losses. Spectacular attacks may dominate foreign headlines, but they cannot change the reality that Iraq has made steady political, economic and social progress over the past four years. We continue to strengthen our nascent democratic institutions, pursue national reconciliation and expand Iraqi security forces. The Baghdad security plan was conceived to give us breathing space to expedite political and economic development by "securing and holding" neighborhoods across the capital. There is no quick fix, but there have been real results: Winning public confidence has led to a spike in intelligence, a disruption of terrorist networks and the capture of key leaders, as well as the discovery of weapons caches. In Anbar province, Sunni sheikhs and insurgents have turned against al-Qaeda and to the side of Iraqi security forces. This would have been unthinkable even six months ago.

Contrary to popular belief, most government ministries are located outside the Green Zone, and employees drive to work every day despite death threats and attacks on colleagues and families. We government ministers are always at risk of assassination. When a suicide bomber attacked parliament last month, the legislators sat in defiance in an extraordinary session the following day. I am particularly inspired by the commitment of the young diplomats in the Foreign Ministry, a diverse mix of Sunni, Shiite, Christian, Arab and Kurdish men and women who serve their country without subscribing to religious or sectarian divisions.

Iraqis are standing up every day, and we persevere because there is no other option. We will not surrender our country to terrorists. They have failed to cripple the elected government, and they have failed to intimidate us into submission. Iraqis reject their vision of a future whose hallmarks are bloodshed and hatred.

Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain.

Iraqis, for all our determination and courage, cannot succeed alone. We need a healthy and supportive regional environment. We will not allow our country to be a battleground for settling scores in regional and international conflicts that adversely affect stability inside our borders. Only with continued international commitment and deeper engagement from our neighbors can we establish a stable democratic, federal and united Iraq. The world should not abandon us.

The writer is foreign minister of Iraq.

To continue my fortune telling skills I will unveil my next amazing prediction.

Some Democrats, and I am paraphrasing, have stated that if there is no change in Iraq by September that it will be a grim month for the Bush Administration.

Here's my prediction.  No matter what happens on the ground, whether progress is made or not, the Democrats in Congress will claim that the surge in troops did not work.  To reinforce that perspective the MSM and the Democrats will continue to present Doom and Gloom for the next 4 months.  We will see very few stories of progress and an overwhelming number of stories about death and destruction.

We will see an increased number of American combat deaths during the next 4 months which will get spun as a lack progress.  The reality is that a surge means that more troops will head into combat situations to secure the areas within Baghdad.  It doesn't take a rocket scientists to realize that more troops in combat means a higher death rate.  That is an accepted risk of the surge. 

The only way to win this war is to fight this war.  We cannot keep "hoping" the situation on the ground will get better.  The only way it get's better is to take action and that action has risks.  War is an inherently risky business and soldiers know those risks when they take the oath to defend America.

I am not downplaying the lives of the soldiers who will die in the next 4 months because they will have sacrificed in an extremely important mission.  When the surge prevails, there will be a different situation on the ground in Iraq.  Based on my prediction, the American people will never know that the surge prevailed because the MSM will not report it and the Democrats in Congress will downplay any progress.

Sadly, this fall will be a good time for Democrats regardless of whether or not the surge works. 

As I watch the MSM and listen to liberal pundits I keep hearing a recurring theme.   That the solution to Iraq is political and not military.  They quote Gen Petraus as stating that the military alone cannot win this war (paraphrase).

The missing link in the argument (conveniently, for political gain, missing I might add) is that the Iraq war cannot be won with strictly a political solution either.  It will take a combined military, political and economic solution to bring peace to Iraq.  Which in turn means we win the war. 

A second theme I hear is "what does winning look like?".  It looks like a peaceful Iraq.  An Iraq where people can get an education, by an XBox, a TV, get health care, etc, etc.  That is happening to some extent in Iraq in many areas.  Many areas in Baghdad are obviously not secure yet.  That fact only solidifies the need for the troop surge. 

I have posted before that winning takes a combined effort and President Bush has outlined that effort.  For every democrat or liberal who has stated that the President did not have a plan "for the peace" you were wrong.  To state that there was no plan is blatantly lying to the American people.  If there was no plan for the restructuring of Iraq then how did Iraq end up with a President, a Cabinet, a Parliament, Army, Police Force, etc. 

The truth is the war was planned, the restructuring was planned, and the long term end state is what that planning is working to achieve.  That is an important point.  The long term objective is to create a peaceful Iraq and foothold of stability within the Middle East.  We cannot live in the here and now.  We needed to take action today to solve the issues of tomorrow. 

A key point that every politician is now touting is that mistakes were made.  Absolutely mistakes were made.  We are fighting a war!!!  Mistakes happen and soldiers die.  Soldiers who had the courage and patriotism to stand up and fight for this country.   Soldiers believe in America and believe that America is worth defending.  Terrorists have attacked us multiple times and we needed to strike back. 

The political talking point answer to that statement is "Iraq didn't attack us".  No, Iraq did not attack us directly but they did harbor and sponsor terrorism to include AQ, who did directly attack us.  If we didn't do something in the Middle East the entire region would have become a much larger haven for terrorism.  Iraq was the logical choice for change for a number of reasons:  Geographical, Regime, WMD, Terrorism links, History, Strategic impact.  How much clearer does it need to be?

The political talking point rebuttal to that argument is "No WMD's" or "Meeting in Prague didn't happen".  Those are 2 points in a much larger argument that keep getting broadcast as truth for the entire justification to go to war.  The MSM can prove the WMD were there but they choose not to.  The meeting in Prague is irrelevant, it would only have provided another link in a much larger chain. 

The reality is that the war was justified, the aftermath was expected and nobody said that this would be easy.  They said the initial ground war would be easy, and it was.  They said reconstruction would be a long hard road and it is.  It will take a Political system in Iraq, an Economic system in Iraq and it will take Security in Iraq to win this war.  No single alternative is the answer.

As predicted nearly a month ago, the Democrats in Congress have begun to point the finger of blame at the President for the funding bill not being passed.  By keeping the timetable for withdrawal (as well as the incredible amount of pork) they have forced the President to veto the bill and put themselves in the position to blame the President for not passing the funding.

The analogy that I like to use goes something like this.  Imagine someone has offered to give you the cure for cancer.  The only way they will give you the cure is for you to distribute Anthrax to the people with cancer.  In addition you have to pay the people who gave you the cure.

I will once again state that if the Democrats truly support the troops, they should present a bill that is free from pork and free from additional requirements that inhibit the ability of the military to finish the mission.

The quickest way out of this war is to give up and surrender.  

The best way out of the war is to take the fight seriously.  

Analogy number 2.  Imagine that you and all of your friends are convinced that one of the other kids has a knife in his pocket and is threatening to stab you.  Being the biggest kid, you punch the kid and try to take the knife only to find out he didn't have a knife.  Now that kids buddies are stepping in and hitting you in the back and one of them is actually sharpening his knife in front of everyone.  All of your "friends" are now running away and leaving you to fight alone.  You know you can win the fight by yourself but if your friends would stick it out and help the fight would be over in half the time.  Now your friends are telling the teacher that you started the fight.  You have to decide if you want to win or lose.  You can stop fighting and be subjected to continuing attacks from the kid and his friends who now do have knives.  Or you can give him a butt kicking that he won't forget and set an example to his buddies so they leave you alone.

We have a decision to make in America.  Do we want to win the fight and convince the enemy not to mess with us or do we walk away and hope they don't try to get revenge now that they know we won't finish the fight.

More importantly, Congress has to make a decision about funding the war.  Give the soldiers the ability to win the fight and convince the world that terrorism is not the answer. 

Excellent summation of the War in Iraq!!!

Remarks at Florida State University
by Steve Russell

April 9th, 2007

Should we be in Iraq?  This is perhaps the most contentious question of our day.  Some have argued passionately that we were not justified in attacking Iraq.  Further, they contend that not only was the war a mistake, but that it resulted from carefully planned lies that hid secret motives.  When viewed from this filter, all policy and decisions to support this war are for naught, given the belief that it is useless to pursue an unjust cause to begin with.

Here are a half a dozen of the most popular claims as to why we should not be there:

The war was launched to find weapons of mass destruction, yet there was no evidence that Saddam possessed such weapons or that he had the capability to develop nuclear weapons.

We entered the war with no plan for an exit strategy and miscalculated at every turn.

The war’s costs are untenable.  We cannot afford to spend another dollar or another life in Iraq.

It is the wrong policy to be in Iraq

The surge is only escalating the conflict.

America has spoken.  It is time to pull out. 

Taking these claims head on, let us examine the first – that the war was started to destroy Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and that none were found. This is not the case.  The war was authorized as a continuation of the 1998 “Iraq Liberation Act,” which called for a regime change in Iraq.  It was passed by 90% of the US Congressmen, and with unanimous consent of the US Senate.  The act was signed into national policy by President Clinton.  President Bush then continued this policy by making the case that Saddam left unchecked would become a clear and present danger to the United States, and to the world community at large, in ways greater than he had already.  Our nation has long recognized that the dictator of Iraq had defied the world, that he had attacked every bordering country save Syria, that he murdered 30,000 political opponents and 350,000 Shias and Kurds, that he led over a million of his countrymen to their death in ill-conceived and miscalculated wars, and that someday, he would have to give account.  It has been one of the greatest achievements in my life to hunt down Saddam, see him captured, then brought to trial and find himself at the end of a rope.  We should never ever be apologetic about taking a stand against evil.

With regard to no weapons of mass destruction found, during my service in Iraq, US soldiers in Baghdad captured Saddam’s most prominent nuclear scientist, Dr. Ubaydi, and found a Zippe centrifuge, along with all the components and blueprints to produce more.  Saddam’s nuclear scientist stated that with the centrifuge technology, Iraq possessed all the technical skill to produce a nuclear bomb and were making efforts to do so.  The centrifuge captured was the same centrifuge technology that Iran is currently using to enrich uranium and to develop their nuclear weapons.  The story was completely buried by the press.  But the soldiers know what we found.

With regard to non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi General Georges Sada has testified that Saddam ordered the military to smuggle their most important weapons into Syria and he further states that this was accomplished.

Let’s take the next point then, that even if we were continuing a national policy to remove Saddam from power and even if we did find evidence of weapons of mass destruction, we still entered the war with no clue of how to win it or get out of Iraq.  This is not true.  As I recall, our mission when we first entered Iraq was to destroy the Iraqi Army, Kill or capture Saddam, eliminate the Baathist government and establish the new Iraqi government by means of an elected assembly that would appoint ministers and a president, who in turn would draft the new constitution.  Operating under this legal authority, the new Iraq would create its new military and police forces and secure their own nation.  Today, all but the raising of an adequate security force has been accomplished, and this despite the steady diet of defeatism and disillusionment offered by terrorists abroad and opponents of the war here at home.

But the opponents will say that this war cannot last forever and that it is untenable.  It has cost us too many billions and too many lives.  From 1961-1964 America spent 9% of the GDP on defense in a time of peace.  From 1974-1994, we spent 5.8%.  Today we spend only 3.8% in a time of war.  Even though we are spending less, Americans spent nearly twice as much on Pepsis and Fritos last year than on the Army National Guard Budget. What are Americans really sacrificing for victory that the cost is too high for them?  Can we not even give up a Pepsi or a bag of chips?   Walmart today has more than twice the number of employees than the US Army has soldiers.  Less than half of 1% of our nation even defend it.  So what sacrifice has the other 99 1/2% made to help those that are fighting to win?  We must be more than an Army at war and a nation at the mall.  And while the over 3000 American losses so far in this war are tragic—I personally lost soldiers in battle and have had to bury good friends—we should take note from history about what Americans of the past have sacrificed for our freedom and for the freedom of others.  More than double our entire war loss we lost in the first 48 hours on the Normandy beaches of France.  Six thousand Americans were lost in the first 5 days of Iwo Jima, where, undaunted, we still had the men of grit and determination to simply put a flag at the top of the tallest rock on that island.  That was the greatest generation.  What will ours be called?  The pathetic generation?  The quitting generation?

The notion that our national policy in Iraq is wrong, that Iraq was better off under Saddam and that this war makes us less secure as a nation is a dangerous one.  That would be to embrace the notion that evil is good and good is evil; that is was wrong to remove a dictator that killed hundreds of thousands of people and oppressed millions; that the prevention of the further slaughter of masses of human beings was evil; that Saddam’s use of poison gasses to slaughter innocents was somehow good; that his development of a nuclear program was somehow good; and that the blood shed by terrorists and Saddam’s henchmen is somehow on our hands.  That being the case, then it would be wrong to have a responsible Iraq in the world community of nations and to have the Arab and Kurdish citizens break free from decades of tyranny and advance along the lines of Kuwait, Jordan and Oman.  I am at a complete loss to understand this twisted version of ethical standards by which good and evil are reversed.

And suppose we correctly deduce that Iraq would be better off without tyranny than governed by it?  Are we still to suppose that an increase in troops and a change of tactics are not worth the effort?  But before we consider that, consider that saying the addition of 20,000 troops is a surge is like reducing the water pressure in your home by 20% and then a year later increase it 18% and call it a surge of water pressure.  The truth of the matter is that even with the additional troops, we have only restored the number of troops to the December 2005 force level, a level that probably needed raising even then.  And what of it?  If we are just where we were in December 2005, do we really think that it will make a difference?  Why don’t we ask the Iraqis that enjoy 60% less violence since February, or those that land on the 233 airline flights a day at the Baghdad International Airport, or the 4000 new Sunni police that have rejected Al Qaeda in Al Anbar province and have pushed recruiting numbers there by 400% since February?  Or how about we just ask a soldier that has been there?  For the soldier, these issues are not academic.  They are experiential.

Americans have spoken.  And large numbers of them want to quit.  Politicians and opponents of this war state that their actions to cut our troops, pull funding and portray the war as a hopeless endeavor are not meant for us but are intended to be a strong message to the president.  That is like someone coming up to you at work, slugging you in the gut and saying, “ Oh, that was not meant for you.  I like you.  That was meant for your boss.”  If this is the kind of support that some Americans want to offer us, we reject it!  We despise it!  It rubs against the grain of everything inside us as soldiers and defenders of America.

What shall we say?  What more can we give to our nation than the type of sacrifice we have already given?  What words can we the soldiers use to convince Americans at home that the biggest mistakes being made in this war are on the home front, not the battlefront?  What will be the value of our temporary civilian comforts and the illusion of national safety when a giant shadow of Jihadist terrorism is casting itself onto our shores?  What will be the meaning of the rhetoric and the political debate when we sift through the rubble of a workplace, a shopping mall, or public transit—digging out American bodies targeted for no other reason than because of our way of life and who we are as a people?  It is a scene that every soldier who has witnessed it abroad will fight with all his might to keep away—but we never thought that our own people would betray our efforts.

We all want to come home to our families, but to safe homes and not until we win!  If we fail our nation, what is next?  Do we extend the same attitude of non-involvement to our community?  Our places of worship?  Our own children?  There are things still worth fighting for.  America was not built on the backs of the cynic and the critic.  Americans of the past knew how to sacrifice.  And they knew the difference between what was evil and what was good…who was a threat and who was harmless…whether to live free—or quit and die.

So where do we go from here?  What can Americans do at this critical hour?  America must sacrifice today along with her soldiers.  We must be more than an Army at war and a nation at peace.  Here are some things America can sacrifice on behalf of her soldiers.  Sacrifice doubt.  Sacrifice anxiety.  Sacrifice cynicism.  Sacrifice any notion that will cause us to come home as losers.  It will not be enough to remember our service and our losses in this war on slabs of white marble and national monuments of black stone.  That will not be enough.  It is only remembering.  But if we want to honor those who will not come home, who gave up their youth, their future, their ability to love, who will never raise a family, or live to an old age and to see their grandchildren, then we must honor what they fought for and honor it with victory.

Americans today are so apprehensive.  We fret about so many things.  But the difference between what is good and what is evil has not changed—only our ability to identify it.  Keep the faith.  Don’t quit.  God bless you all.  SDR

Steve Russell, Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (ret.).  The unit LTC Russell commanded was a central player in the hunt and capture of Saddam Hussein. Steve Russell serves as Chairman of Vets for Victory and speaks across the nation to rally the American public to support the troops with victory, not just words. Click Here for information on how to book him for a speaking engagement or media event.

 Excellent Article by Ray Robison.

America's Broken-Down Media

Sunday , April 15, 2007

By Ray Robison

According to Mark Thompson, writer for Time magazine, America's army is broken. While it can not be argued that the military can possibly maintain the same state of readiness in war time as it does in peace time, broken has a certain specific ring to it: incapable, demoralized and poorly trained.

Mr. Thompson begins the article — featured on the Drudge Report — with the story of Private Matthew Zeimer. Brave PVT Zeimer died within hours of his arrival at a Forward Operating Base in Iraq. Thompson describes PVT Zeimer's training before going on to make the case that the surge cut the young Private's training short. In Mr. Thompson's recounting of PVT Zeimer's tale, he essentially was killed because he had insufficient training.

"If Zeimer's combat career was brief, so was his training. He enlisted last June at age 17, three weeks after graduating from Dawson County High School in eastern Montana. After finishing nine weeks of basic training and additional preparation in infantry tactics in Oklahoma, he arrived at Fort Stewart, Ga., in early December.

"But Zeimer had missed the intense four-week pre-Iraq training-a taste of what troops will face in combat-that his 1st Brigade comrades got at their home post in October. Instead, Zeimer and about 140 other members of the 4,000-strong brigade got a cut-rate, 10-day course on weapon use, first aid and Iraqi culture. That's the same length as the course that teaches soldiers assigned to generals' household staffs the finer points of table service."

Mr. Thompson finds confirmation from Congressman Murtha: "The truncated training — the rush to get underprepared troops to the war zone — is absolutely unacceptable,' says Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and opponent of the war who chairs the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. A decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam, Murtha is experiencing a sense of déjà vu. 'The readiness of the Army's ground forces is as bad as it was right after Vietnam.'"

Sounds like a pretty solid case doesn't it? But something just didn't sit right with me. I immediately knew this wasn't the full story. So I used a journalistic research tool, possibly unavailable to Time, called Google.

You see, this article makes the brave young Matthew Zeimer sound like an infantry soldier. Infantry soldiers go to the Infantry Training Brigade for 14 weeks of intense training after completing basic training. How can it be he didn't go? Is the Army so bad off infantry soldiers don't go to Advanced Infantry Training anymore?

In my research, I found this article: "Soldier's last days at home memorable" at the Billings Gazette. The article tells the story of the brave Private's short military career as told by his family and friends. "Matthew had come home on leave Nov. 8, after more than five months of basic training."

Five months of basic training? What this article means is that he did nine weeks of Basic Training, which every soldier does, and then went for three more months of Advanced Individual Training in which a soldier trains on their MOS (Military Occupational Skill).

About.com explains the process well: "Individuals who enlist under the 13X Infantry option attend Field Artillery OSUT (One Station Unit Training), which combines Army Basic Training and Field Artillery AIT (Advanced Individual Training), all in one course."

But most civilians just think of it all as basic training. The point being, this is three more months of a 24 hour a day resident course, tough as nails training that Mr. Thompson has neglected to mention. Three months is a significant amount of training.

And it doesn't stop there. According to the Billings Gazette: "Staff Sgt. Thad Rule, with the U.S. Army Recruiting Office in Glendive, said Matt joined the Future Soldier Program at the start of his senior year of high school, shortly after he turned 17. He spent nearly 10 months learning some of the basics about the Army, preparing him for his training.

"Rule said Matt 'wanted to do a combat job' and couldn't wait to join the Army. To speed things up, he opted to undergo artillery support training rather than going into the infantry, a move that got him into the Army a month earlier," the article continues.

Not only did PVT Zeimer do three more months of training than Thompson lets on, he spent 10 months of training before he even went in the Army. While this certainly does not equate to training in an active duty setting, it is a training opportunity that most soldiers don't get. In real terms, this brave young man was ahead of the training that a typical artillery junior enlisted soldier received when I was an artillery officer in the mid-'90s under President Clinton.

So was this truncated training as Murtha called it effective? Was he really ready? The Gazette goes on:

"Matt was 5 feet, 7 inches tall and weighed maybe 175 pounds when he went in for basic training. 'The kid came back and he was fit,' Rule said. 'I'd say his confidence was the big thing.' Tessa Hopper, Matt's former girlfriend, noted the same thing when she spoke Sunday evening during a wake service for Matt.

"'He was proud as a peacock when he came home for the holidays,'" she said. Damon noticed it, too. Matt had always liked to exercise, he said, but he got in excellent shape during basic training. 'He loved the way he looked when he came home from basic,' Damon said."

So according to PVT Zeimer's loved ones, he was fit, proud, motivated and anything but broken-down. He was a soldier damn it! Not a victim. Not a political talking point.

Mr. Thompson also tells us:

"The Army and the White House insist the abbreviated training was adequate. 'They can get desert training elsewhere,' spokesman Tony Snow said Feb. 28, 'like in Iraq.' But outside military experts and Zeimer's mother disagree. The Army's rush to carry out President George W. Bush's order to send thousands of additional troops more quickly to Iraq is forcing two of the five new brigades bound for the war to skip standard training at Fort Irwin, Calif. These soldiers aren't getting the benefit of participating in war games on the wide Mojave Desert, where gun-jamming sand and faux insurgents closely resemble conditions in Iraq."

Thompson tells us that the Army callously failed to train the young private in desert warfare (which is not a deployment requirement for U.S. Army soldiers anyway). His writing certainly makes Tony Snow appear flippant about the issue. But we learn this from the Billings Gazette:

"After leaving the U.S. on Jan. 13, Damon said, Matt went to Kuwait for additional training before shipping out to Iraq on Jan. 25."

Yet more training? Yes, and it was in the desert just like Tony Snow indicated. But what about that training in Fort Irwin at the National Training Center (NTC) that Mr. Thompson referred to in his article? Would that have helped the brave private? You bet. More training is always better. But at some point the training stops when the fighting starts (actually, it continues even in combat, but not at a training facility). And a better understanding of what the NTC training mission is makes this clear:

NTC MISSION

— Provide tough, realistic joint and combined arms training;

— Focus at the battalion task force and brigade levels;

— Assist commanders in developing trained, competent leaders and soldiers;

— Identify unit training deficiencies, provide feedback to improve the force and prepare for success on the future joint battlefield;

— Provide a venue for transformation;

— Take care of soldiers, civilians, and family members.

Joint, combined, battalion, brigade, these are all keywords which mean that the NTC is first and foremost a unit trainer. The individual soldier goes to NTC more by providence than by design. Nobody keeps track of your NTC rotations. It is not a training requirement for individual readiness. An individual unit may not be scheduled for rotation to the NTC for as long as two years. It is one facility and there are many brigades. The NTC is not and has never been a requirement for individual deployment.

What happens at NTC? A unit rotation lasts four weeks. The unit typically spends the first week in preparation and the last week in recovery. That means that the unit spends two weeks "in the box". While the training is valuable, and is the best two weeks of training a unit can get in the army, it is only two weeks after all.

While it certainly increases the skills of the individual soldier, you don't have to send a soldier to brigade level training to learn how to clean the sand out of your weapon as Mr. Thompson laments. And dealing with civilians on the battlefield can be taught anywhere.

Mr. Thompson's article also states: "Under cover of darkness, Sunni insurgents were attacking his new post from nearby buildings. Amid the smoke, noise and confusion, a blast suddenly ripped through the 3-ft. concrete wall shielding Zeimer and a fellow soldier, killing them both."

What Mr. Thompson doesn't tell the reader is than the soldier that was killed with PVT Zeimer was "Spc. Alan E. McPeek, a 20-year-old who had been in Iraq for 14 months" according to the Gazette. Of course, it's difficult to make a soldier appear to have died due to lack of training when the soldier who died next to him was a 14 month combat veteran, isn't it?

As disgusted as I am by the absolutely misleading nature of Mr. Thompson's article and how it affects the general public's perceptions, I am far more sickened by these vultures not explaining to the families of men like PVT Zeimer that their son was a hero, not a victim to be used in creating a political talking point for shoddy journalists and opportunist politicians. Army officials should explain what the standards of deployment training are to the families of our brave soldiers before rotten tomatoes like these convince them that heroes like Matthew died for lack of training.

God bless you, Private Zeimer.

As a couple of friends and I left the MN Tax Cut rally at the State Capital today, we talked about the impact of new taxes on a number of topics.  The main topic was education since 2 out of the 3 of us will have children entering the education system in a couple years.  

Privatization of education has been talked about for years in MN but never seems to go anywhere.  As we talked through the arguments for and against it, something struck me.  What we were talking about is a Government program set up to manage money that they take out of my check in the form of taxes in order to give it back to me in the form of a voucher.  Ultimately, that adds a bureaucratic layer to a system that already can't be managed, which of course, costs money. 

Ultimately the educational system, as it stands today, has many flaws but provides a service to people who cannot afford to send their child to a private school.  Everyone deserves an education but ultimately not everyone wants one.

My recommendation in lieu of a voucher system is to make private school tuition tax deductible.  The gives me the right to choose to remove my child from the public education system.  I am still paying for the education but I am doing it on my terms and taking responsibility for it.  There is no one to blame but myself.

What this illustrates, back to my original point, is that if we take responsibility for our own actions, our own education, whether public or private we will succeed.  We need accept personal responsibility and be accountable for ourselves.  We do not need government regulation of our education.  What we need is be inspired to learn!!!

 

 Edwards slams McCain on Iraq

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003657192_mccain08.html

If I had to make a guess, I would say that every candidate running for President should stake his campaign on success in Iraq.  The last election revolved around the war and this one should too.  It is the single most critical issue that the country faces today. 

Iraq, and more importantly, the Global War on Terror will continue to be fought well into the next decade.  For those naysayers, Iraq was a state sponsor of terror and therefore a threat to America. 

For opponents of the war, they better campaign on a strong strategy to win, not exit, the war.  For those supporters, they better have a firm understanding of the Bush strategy so they can continue it.  Or a new strategy if they want to change it. 

The Democrats will use the same tired old line about calling for change.  "We need a change of course in Iraq" but never give any options.  More of the cut and run rhetoric will not fly with the American people.

The Republicans will, in my opinion, do a pathetic job of selling the changes they have made, which is sad because they have made a lot.  If they can't sell the progress and the changes then they will lose the Presidency.

As always, the election will come down to both bases voting for their party and the swing voters deciding the election.  Bill Clinton did a great job of capturing the swing vote by never really committing to anything or committing depending on his audience and I suspect that Hillary will employ much the same strategy knowing it worked for her husband. 

Bottom line, the war will be the deciding factor, again.  Candidates from both parties better stake their campaigns on a strategy to WIN the war.