The military says crackdowns by the Iraqi government are working, and that the number of attacks has dropped to about 300 a week from 1,600 in June.
By Alexandra Zavis, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 26, 2008
BAGHDAD — The U.S. military said Sunday that the number of attacks by militants in the last week dropped to a level not seen in Iraq since March 2004.

About 300 violent incidents were recorded in the seven-day period that ended Friday, down from a weekly high of nearly 1,600 in mid-June last year, according to a chart provided by the military.

The announcement appeared aimed at allaying fears that an uprising by militiamen loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr could unravel security gains since 28,500 additional American troops were deployed in Iraq in a buildup that reached its height in June.

Navy Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, a military spokesman, credited the decrease to a series of operations launched by the Iraqi government in the last two months to extend control over parts of the country that have been under the sway of armed Sunni Arab and Shiite militants. They include crackdowns in the southern oil hub of Basra, the northern city of Mosul and Baghdad’s Sadr City district.

The late March operation in Basra triggered a fierce backlash by Sadr’s militiamen in Sadr City and across the overwhelmingly Shiite south, drawing in British and American forces.

The number of attacks nationwide rose to about 850 in the week that the Basra crackdown began, according to the military’s chart. The figure has ebbed and flowed since then.

The fighting in southern Iraq subsided a week after it started when a truce was reached between Sadr’s movement and the main Shiite factions in Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s government. Violence also has dropped in Sadr City since another deal was signed May 12, clearing the way for Iraqi troops to deploy throughout the heavily populated district, which is a bastion of Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia. But clashes have persisted in other sections of the capital, where U.S. and Iraqi forces are confronting Sadr’s militia.

The offensive against Sunni insurgents in Mosul has met with little resistance. Maliki’s government had been promising a crackdown there since January, and many fighters are believed to have fled the city before it began. But Iraqi military officials say more than 1,000 suspects have been detained in Mosul. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker was quoted in wire service reports as saying Saturday that Al Qaeda in Iraq, a mostly homegrown militant group that American officials say is foreign-led, has “never been closer to defeat than they are now.”

Driscoll agreed at a news conference that “they certainly are off-balance and on the run.” But he cautioned that the group remained a “very lethal threat.”

He said the number of attacks nationwide had declined 70% since the peak of the troop buildup. Most of the additional forces are expected to leave Iraq by the end of July.

alexandra.zavis@latimes.com

1. Defend the Country
2. Protect and Regulate the Borders
3. Regulate and mediate interstate commerce.

The jettisoning of massive amounts of welfare and special interest spending would be used to:

1. Eliminate deficit spending
2. Pay off the national debt
3. Restore the Social Security Funds spent by congress
4. Rebuild Nationally owned infrastructure
5. Reduce and simplify taxes
6. Encourage extremely rich Americans to contribute as much additional tax as they choose
7. Secure the borders

As a part of the National Defense I would

1. Reduce and eventually eliminate stationing of US Troops in Japan, Europe and Korea.
2. Correspondingly Increase troop strengths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait (other Middle East Countries as needed).
3. Make a major push in Iraq to seize upon the strengths of the surge with the goal of leaving by fall of 2012.
4. In January 2013 begin the phased removal American Troops from the Middle East
5. Pass the “Assured Destruction” initiative. This would let belligerent States like Iran know that if the US is attacked and it is tracked back to them, we will level their 3 largest cities and destroy their infrastructure from the air.

To make keeping troops in the middle east past 2012 unnecessary I would engage in a National Energy independence initiative with he goal of being energy independent by 2050.

1. Immediately Fund a new “Manhattan Project” to discover/invent a new fuel for cars, trucks and power plants
A. Offer the technology to the car companies for free to incorporate it into their products
B. Seed the buildout of privately owned National distribution so consumers can get fuel for the new vehicles
2. Incentivize consumers and industry to continue to upgrade to green technologies and make energy conservation a National Priority.
3. Continue to use foreign oil and keep our own as a reserve until a suitable replacement is found.

Just a start.

That action in unstable Iraq seriously jeapordized America’s ability to contain violence, which has only now shown a measurable drop since the Surge has shown success.

A new threat has emerged that has the potential to set the clock back once again. This time it is being perpetrated by non other than the Speaker Of the House of Representatives of the United States Government, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat.

Speaker Pelosi is planning to bring a resolution branding the killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks as “genocide” to a vote in the House. Turkey reportedly killed up to 1.5 million Armenians in the period around World War One.

At issue is not the validity of the resolution, but the timing. Turkey currently facilitates transit of much of the US military’s logistic support of the war effort in Iraq, and that hospitality could be in jeopardy in the wake of an affirmitive vote on the resolution. Also at issue is Turkey’s desire to invade northern Iraq to counter Kurdish rebels.

Like the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque touched of a cycle of violence, the consideration of this ill-timed resolution may cause the same. The US House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi do not exist in a vacuum and if they vote and pass this resolution, they will be responsible for the results.

“The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is: return on success,” the president said, trying to summon the nation’s resolve once again to help Iraq “defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.” source FoxNews.com

Fresh from calling General Petraus a liar, Democrats say that returning to pre-surge levels is not progress, not realizing that if the surge was failing, there would be no withdrawals, and the President would be asking for even more reinforcements.

The change of strategy Democrats demanded 6 months ago; new Generals, new Secretary of Defense, new rules of engagement, have been put in place, but are being ignored despite promising signs of success.

It is obvious that the Democrat Party strategy is organized around winning the Presidency, not winning the war. They cannot afford to support their own Country’s war effort because that would lend support to Republicans in the race for the White House. So they continue to criticize and second guess at every turn.

When the President is committing to withdrawing troops on success and the Democrats say no, what are they saying? They are saying they want to withdraw the troops on failure and defeat, regardless of the consequences in human lives and to US interests in the region.

In light of Osama Bin Laden’s videotaped message to the West (Or was it a press release from DNC Chairman Howard Dean?), one might be given to muse that liberal abhorrence for the President’s surveillance of incoming phone calls from known terrorists might ultimately stem from self-interest. Perhaps they simply do not want to be monitored as they share strategies and talking points with the Al Qaeda leader.

Furthermore, the DNC may decide to keep a copy of the Bin Laden tape, which could come in handy during the 2008 campaign season. Just as aspiring politicians feel compelled to pander in Spanish to the increasing numbers of “undocumented voters,” so might Dean and the Democrats want to remind those “Jihadist-Americans” in their native tongue which party will best ensure that their interests are served.

While such satire may be deemed overly harsh, in truth it fails to fully convey the depths to which the current Democrat leaders, along with their cronies in the media and the blogosphere, have sunk in their efforts to promote their anti-American cause. And as one outrageous example after another unfolds before the American people in the liberal/Democrat attempt to demean and undermine the war on terror, the case for their sedition becomes ever more crystal clear.

Read the rest here.

To say my fate is not tied to your fate is like saying your end of the boat is sinking.

This brings to mind the Democrat strategy to win the Presidency in 2008. They believe they must be relentless in their criticism of the war regardless of how it might embolden the enemy into believing they can win.

My first question is will this work? My second and more important question is, can the damage they are doing to America be repaired by the next President, regardless of which party wins?

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that a power vacuum is imminent in Iraq and said that Iran was ready to help fill the gap.

“The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly,” Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.” source: Breitbart.com

Credit goes to the Democrat Party who’s incessant calls for immediate troop withdrawal and Maliki’s resignation emboldens the Iranians and Al Qaeda, and prolongs the war.

posted by SactoDan, ht Foxnew.com and Youtube

Last night after President Bush’s speech about his new Iraq War strategy, Congressional Democrats gave their response. Dick Durbin said America should do less for Iraq so they will be forced to be responsible for themselves.

“More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.” -Dick Durbin

It’s obvious that the President’s new plan lacks a key ingredient needed to gain support of the Democrats. Bush should have offered the Iraqis the right to vote in American elections, and then the Dems would be lining up in droves to support his plan.

After watching both George Bush and Dick TDurbin, I know one thing; we are in trouble.

Going in to the speech you were either for the war or you were against the war. I have been saying that something needs to happen. Well folks, tonight something did. Our Commander in Chief who’s sworn duty is to protect us, laid out a plan to do so. He did the following:

-Admitted we need a change
-Took responsibility for the mistakes and failures in Iraq
-Laid out a plan for success
-Put the Iraqi government on notice that they need to step up as the Americans will not always be here

Bush is calling for 21,000 additional troops to be deployed in Iraq. I feel this plan will succeed. He has made extensive changes in the leadership and has a plan for success. When asked if the plan fails what happens, numerous senior White House officials are saying clearly, “We won’t need a plan B, period”. I have not seen this kind of conviction or confidence coming from this White House in quite some time.

Senator Dick Durbin had his five minutes in which he stated “Tonight President Bush acknowledged what most Americans know — we are not winning in Iraq … indeed the challenge is grave and deteriorating.”

Durbin also joined a statement made with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

“The president had an opportunity tonight to demonstrate that he understood the depth of the concern in the country, make a long overdue course correction, and articulate a clear mission for our engagement in Iraq. Instead, he chose to escalate our involvement in Iraq’s civil war by proposing a substantial increase in the number of our forces there,” they said.

If the Congress or Senate block or attempt to block this move or as Kennedy threatened, pull the funding, the American people need to know that will be the end. We will have lost the war. If we pull out of Iraq now, as Presidential Candidate Tom Vilsack suggests, then we are creating a breeding ground for terrorism. Going to Iraq, stay at hotel Al-Queda…

Bottom line, support our troops, get them what they need; more of them!