Slaughterhouse '07

With any luck, that's what we can call Baquba soon. From Michael Yon in Iraq:

Our guys are tough. The enemy in Baqubah is as good as any in Iraq, and better than most. That’s saying a lot. But our guys have been systematically trapping them, and have foiled some big traps set for our guys. I don’t want to say much more about that, but our guys are seriously outsmarting them. Big fights are ahead and we will take serious losses probably, but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered.

Setting the Tone

In any competitive setting the aggressor sets the tone. John Podhoretz today notes that that simple rule applies in war as well:

No matter how you slice it, the reason there could be no deal with the Palestinians then or now is that the Palestinians with whom you have to negotiate are utterly uninterested in improving the daily lives of ordinary Palestinians. They have an ideological and geopolitical aim, which is the destruction of Israel and (in the case of Hamas) the extension of Iranian power to the Mediterranean.

The sad truth is that you can have peace processes all you like, but if one side is committed to war, then it's war.

While it speaks of an entirely different situation, Michael Yon's latest offering about the now-ongoing offensive against Al Qaeda makes a similar point:

Smart politics leaves more people standing with their heads, and so discretion has to be seen as vital to the war effort. Reports claiming that no political progress is happening here because the Iraqi parliament seems stalled are tantamount to claiming that when the US Senate bogs down the stop lights don’t work on Main Street USA. At the same time, no one is interested in going for the broomstick once they’ve seen the man behind the curtain, so smart politicians don’t let that happen, especially when the stakes are this high.

Al Qaeda was never at this table and no one is planning to set a place for them now. They are mass murderers anywhere they can be: Bali, Kandahar, London, Madrid, New York and now, Iraq. This enemy is smart, resourceful and tough, and our early missteps created perfect conditions for the spread of their disease in Iraq.

Political solutions only work with people interested in a resolution where all parties can move forward. Al Qaeda is more interested in an outcome where they dominate through anachronistic anarchy. Our philosophies are so fundamentally different that fighting is inevitable. They want to go backwards and are willing to kill us to do so. We are unwilling to go backwards, and so they started killing us. Finally, we started killing back, but only seriously so after they rammed jets into our buildings, by which they hoped to cause the same chaos and collapse in America (where they failed) that they are fomenting in Iraq (where they are succeeding).

The doctor has made a decision: Al Qaeda must be excised. That means a large scale attack, and what appears to be the most widespread combat operations since the end of the ground war are now unfolding. A small part of that larger battle will be the Battle for Baquba. For those involved, it will be a very large battle, but in context, it will be only one of numerous similar battles now unfolding. Just as this sentence was written, we began dropping bombs south of Baghdad and our troops are in contact.

Northeast of Baghdad, innocent civilians are being asked to leave Baquba. More than 1,000 AQI fighters are there, with perhaps another thousand adjuncts. Baquba alone might be as intense as Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah in late 2004. They are ready for us. Giant bombs are buried in the roads. Snipers—real snipers—have chiseled holes in walls so that they can shoot not from roofs or windows, but from deep inside buildings, where we cannot see the flash or hear the shots. They will shoot for our faces and necks. Car bombs are already assembled. Suicide vests are prepared.

The enemy will try to herd us into their traps, and likely many of us will be killed before it ends. Already, they have been blowing up bridges, apparently to restrict our movements. Entire buildings are rigged with explosives. They have rockets, mortars, and bombs hidden in places they know we are likely to cross, or places we might seek cover. They will use human shields and force people to drive bombs at us. They will use cameras and make it look like we are ravaging the city and that they are defeating us. By the time you read this, we will be inside Baquba, and we will be killing them. No secrets are spilling here.

Our jets will drop bombs and we will use rockets. Helicopters will cover us, and medevac our wounded and killed. By the time you read this, our artillery will be firing, and our tanks moving in. And Humvees. And Strykers. And other vehicles. Our people will capture key terrain and cutoff escape routes. The idea this time is not to chase al Qaeda out, but to trap and kill them head-on, or in ambushes, or while they sleep. When they are wounded, they will be unable to go to hospitals without being captured, and so their wounds will fester and they will die painfully sometimes. It will be horrible for al Qaeda. Horror and terrorism is what they sow, and tonight they will reap their harvest. They will get no rest. They can only fight and die, or run and try to get away. Nobody is asking for surrender, but if they surrender, they will be taken.

We will go in on foot and fight from house to house if needed. We will shoot rockets into their hiding spaces, and our snipers will shoot them in their heads and chests. This is where all that talk of cancer and big ideas of what should be or could be done will smash head on against the searing reality of combat.

I strongly suggest reading the entire dispatch. It is clear and concise if not comprehensive in it's understanding of the problem and the knowledge that rides piggyback with it, namely how to deal with the situations we let fester for over two years.

Al Qaeda in Iraq, like Hamas in Gaza and Hizbollah in Lebanon will not be negotiated with. They refuse and they do not relent. Podhoretz is correct; they have but one aim for and about which they are unashamed.

They can't and won't broker peace, they will either win or lose. From the American perspective, they must be defeated.

Does America still have a will to finish what we began even though it may look nothing like what was ostensibly promised us 4 years ago? I certainly hope so because the alternatives are not acceptable in my opinion and for a multitude of reasons.

That we can win this fight I am certain. Like Yon and others though I am not so convinced as to whether or not we will.

It made me mad

As part of a discussion last week about the ill-fated and short-lived (thank God!) decision to kill Army milblogging, these comments about the effect of milblogging made me angry. From the interview:

HH: Yup. What about the impact on understanding the war? I keep coming back to the fact, I linked earlier today to the Lawrence Wright Terror Web piece from the New Yorker a few years ago, on how the jihadists have this mastered. They pump information propaganda, and their view of the world, into the internet, 24/7, from a thousand portals. A lot of civilians try and put stuff up there, but the guys who know and the gals who know what’s going on are in uniform, and have seen the enemy face to face. It doesn’t compare. And there’s only one Michael Yon, there’s only one Bill Roggio. If we don’t have the milbloggers writing this stuff, it doesn’t get to us, because John Burns is about the only guy who leaves the Green Zone.

MB: Pretty much. That’s pretty accurate. And I would add probably Arwa Damon’s probably one of the most well-regarded reporters, and she happens to work for a network I don’t really care for. But CNN…

HH: Yeah, there are others. That’s hyperbole. There’s ten or fifteen, but…

MB: But right, but there’s…maybe. Maybe there’s ten. And absolutely, I agree, but also, they’re not giving the first-hand experience. You know, Burns is going to try to balance the article out, he’s going to try to say what else is going on, and how it affects Iraqis, which is important. But another facet of that is really what’s the soldier’s opinion. The other aspect of this, the part that really irks me, is the fact that a lot of the keeping the media honest pieces will be missing. So for instance, I happen to know in Anbar, because I have friends in Anbar, and you do, too, you just don’t know that right now, Hugh, and I could tell you about that off-air.

HH: Actually, I do know one Colonel Don in Ramadi, but I hope there are others.

MB: Well, you’ve had some guests on that I know of that are in the fight right now.

HH: Oh, cool.

MB: And they’re telling me that we own al Qaeda in the west, and that we have effectively shut them down, that the Iraqi politicians can’t wait for the elections, that they are working with us. And these are staff sergeants, sergeants first class. These are not full bird colonels, these are not careerists. These are the kind of people we need to be hearing from. And this is where the ground truth comes from. This is not, you know, and these are e-mails, these are posts, all this stuff, will be lost if this regulation gets enforced.

Have you seen this anywhere? I certainly have not.

Big Media has abdicated it's responsibilities in regards to telling the story of Iraq. They refuse, on the whole, to print or broadcast anything that doesn't include car bombs, dead Iraqis or dead Americans.

To their shame.

While we're on the subject...

Al-Qaeda isn't all it's cracked up to be it seems. At least in this one man's opinion:

What would you call a campaign that after 4 years had achieved only 1% of its goal — despite throwing everything it has into that effort?

Incompetent? A failure? Ridiculous.

I’d call it al-Qaeda.

ABC News has a new tape from Ayman al-Zawahiri: “Al Qaeda No. 2 Wants 200,000-300,000 U.S. Dead in Iraq”

Really? 300,000 U.S. dead.

After 4 years, the casualty list shows 3,300 American dead.

At this rate, al-Qaeda will meet its goal of 200,000 in about 2353. I’ll be 400 years old then.
Zawahari said he opposes the timetable for a U.S. surrender: ”This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap.”

By all means, let us not disappoint this cold-blooded killer.

Iraq is now the center of the war on terrorism. Bush said it. Zawahari said it. His words — bluster, really — tell any logical person why we must stay.

You can lead the horse to water but you can't always make it drink...

Nice PR strategy

It can't be good for Democrats when Ayman Al-Zawahiri is repeating their rhetoric. Or can it?

In any reasonable world, this man's repeating of Democrats' ridiculous war rhetoric would go beyond politically embarassing.

One Less Terrorist

If this report is true, Al-Zarqawi's replacement as head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq may be dead at the hands of Sunni's:

Iraqi officials have received reports that the leader of al-Qaida in
Iraq was killed by Sunni tribesmen, but the chief government spokesman said Tuesday the information has not been confirmed.

The statement by spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh followed a welter of reports from other Iraqi officials that Abu Ayyub al-Masri had been killed. Iraqi officials have released similar reports in the past, only to acknowledge later they were inaccurate.

U.S. officials said they could not confirm the reported death.

Al-Dabbagh told Al-Arabiya that word of al-Masri's purported death was based on "intelligence information," adding that "DNA tests should be done and we have to bring someone to identify the body."

Good Morning!

When is a civil war not a civil war?

Michael Novak explains:

Two false assertions are being made these days about the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq. The first is that they have been fighting one another for ages. The second is that they are currently waging civil war upon one another.

Shiites and Sunnis have lived in rather remarkable proximity in many cities of Iraq, with not a few intermarriages, and for many generations. They have often boasted of being Iraqis first, before being Sunnis and Shiites.

The most influential Shiite Imam, Ayatollah Sistani, has been amazing for his peacekeeping and calming effect, urging the Shiites not to seek revenge and, instead, to turn to democracy and peaceful ways, rather than futile combat. In fact, Imam Sistani has been so successful at this preaching that, in desperation, al Qaeda dramatically changed strategy during 2005. They viciously destroyed the old, revered, beautiful “golden dome” of the mosque in Samarra. They stepped up their campaign to terrorize other Shiite mosques and the worshipers attending them.

Al Qaeda members are virtually all Sunnis, from foreign countries, and they care not a whit either for Iraqi Shiites or Iraqi Sunnis. Their strategy for 2006 was to commit horrible atrocities against Iraqi Shiites, so that the hotheads among them would unleash death squads against the Sunnis in retaliation. Then the Sunnis would retaliate against the Shiites. This was not real civil war. It was a contrived and phony ploy to bait each side into fighting the other, while the foreigners waited to pick up the spoils.

One has to remember that the foreigners who make up both al Qaeda and nearly all the (self-immolating) bombers are motivated by politics, not by faith in Islam. They have no hesitation about bombing mosques, murdering imams, or destroying hundreds of worshipers. They regard anyone who does not join their war of terror, even if they are Muslims, as infidels worthy of death. They will use any means necessary to keep their toehold in Iraq and to work to eventually take over Iraq for their own political purposes.

This is not civil war in Iraq; it is a limited, strategic, and tactical ploy whereby foreigners try desperately to inflame Iraqis against one another. The aim of these foreigners is to bring about such a cataclysm of murder and insecurity and fear that their tiny, tiny minority can then capture total power — just as the small minority of Bolsheviks did in the early rise of the Soviet Empire; just as the tiny bands of ruthless black shirts and brown shirts under Mussolini and Hitler spread social paralysis to launch the rise of Fascism. Mayhem requires only a ruthless few.

Those who falsely call this a “civil war” in Iraq are conferring on al Qaeda a success that al Qaeda has not been able to bring about itself. They are puffing up a phony, contrived civil war far beyond the bounds of reality.

I'm not 100% convinced that he's wholly right but the highlighting of Al Qaeda in Iraq's changed strategy is a marvelous point and one that is either glossed over or ignored completely when pundits gather to discuss the situation.

BOMBastING PAKISTAN

Last night VDH offered this little smack-down of talking-head roundy-round, the latest edition coming on the heels of the reporting of Al Qaeda's comeback:

I was watching the Scarborough cable news show this evening, where the talking heads went on and on about the impending Taliban spring offensive as the inevitable wage of our "taking our eye off the ball" by getting bogged down in Iraq-a country that didn't attack us and was not involved in 9/11 related terrorism.

Putting aside Saddam's violations of UN and armistice accords, and his long record of subsidies and sanctuary for various terrorists, or the 23 writs authorizing the war passed by the Congress, and ignoring the fact that over six decades ago, a much poorer United States fought simultaneously Germany, Italy, and Japan, and then in midst of rebuilding western Europe and Japan contained at the same time both communist China and the Soviet Union, there was no mention of WHY the Taliban was supposedly setting up camps with relative impunity in Waziristan and the other badlands of Pakistan.

Neither the host nor the animated guests offered any solution to how the United States is to engage in hot pursuit into or bombs over a nuclear Islamic country run by a dictator whose illegitimate rule hinges on concessions to Islamists. So until they offer a concrete plan on how to go into Pakistan to get al Qaeda, and why the resulting risks would be worth it, all their bombast about war mongering in Iraq preventing a solution to al Qaeda remains just that.

By-the-bye, James Robbins--VDH's virtual colleague--took a closer look at said reporting today at NRO:

What would winning look like in their framework? Osama bin Laden the most popular leader in the Muslim world, revered by all, leading an increasingly united nation of true believers. Attacks on U.S. and Coalition military installations and warships throughout the region, sometimes resulting in major losses, leading to a comprehensive retreat from the Middle East. Regimes in the region suffering internal revolts, riots, a breakdown of the internal security apparatus, mutinies among their troops, assassinations of key leaders, and eventually armies of mujahedeen seizing control of the capitals and pledging allegiance to bin Laden’s growing empire. A united Palestinian movement, religious in orientation and loyal to the al Qaeda program, waging a war to the death on an increasingly beleaguered and strategically isolated Israel. Incessant, occasionally dramatic attacks in the West and especially in the United States, showing the puissance of the movement and its ability to inflict damage on the U.S. at times and places of their choosing.

Is this the war we are fighting? Not even close. The U.S. is more involved in the region than ever before. No regimes in the region have been overthrown by al Qaeda or its minions, or are even close to being taken over. Israel is not about to be destroyed. And al Qaeda is finding that exporting the revolution is not as easy as they expected. They have lost their primary state sponsor, lost the initiative, lost their ability to make attacks of strategic significance, and their leaders are hunkered down in safe houses afraid to be seen in public and wondering day by day who around them might betray them. So by their own standards, what have they achieved?

This is where headlines can do a great disservice. The constant repetition of one piece of information, not understood in any greater context or flat-out wrong conveys a message that may be far different than what the actual information imparts.

At the risk of yet another bad analogy, I'm reminded of the objections raised by the program director at my college radio station in explaining his decision to self-censor and refusing to add Madonna's Like a Virgin to the playlist. Dave always maintained that the song lyrics themselves weren't truly objectionable (rather innocuous actually) but rather that the senior faculty advisor wouldn't enjoy sitting at his desk hearing a chorus of "Like a Virgin," over and over on a virtually endless loop.

Silly as it sounds now, these are things we worried about at a small, private Christian university in the mid-80's. It also illustrates, however poorly, the idea that the perception can be different than the reality.

Robbins' piece demonstrates there is an argument to be made about Al Qaeda's strength that belies the headlines.