Gerry Charlotte Phelps

Iraq and the Security of Israel

                           (Image of Jerusalem, from synergize.com)

Does the war in Iraq relate to Israel?  How?  Here is what Chuck Colson says after a conversation with Ehud Olmert, Prime MInister of Israel.  (Excerpted from Colson's "Breakpoint" today:)

Whether we should have invaded Iraq or not in the first place is something historians will debate for years to come.  But withdrawing without establishing order and some measure of stability is another matter - one with devastating consequences: a bloody civil war in Iraq would ony be the beginning.

...Israel would be placed in great danger.  Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already promised to "wipe Israel off the map" as soon as he gets the chance...Anybody who thinks that an American withdrawal from Iraq would not embolden Iran and its apocalyptically-minded leader is fooling himself.

Four years ago, I was invited to a luncheon for Christian leaders to meet Ehud Olmert, now Israel's prime minister.  I asked Mr. Olmert...what effect the invasion of Iraq by coalition forces had had on Israel.  He looked startled.  "You would have to ask me?" he said.  He then told me the invasion had secured Israel's east flank - and that military might was the only thing the Islamic world would understand.

Sound the alarm over the consequences, if we pull out of Iraq.  How many friends do you suppose we would have left in the Middle East if Israel is destroyed?

Angelina Jolie: Stay to Help in Iraq

Angelina Jolie, UNHRC Goodwill Ambassador

       (Image from a.abcnews.com)

Angelina Jolie has a remarkable, and very well written, article in the Washington Post urging America to stay in Iraq, in order to help some 4.5 million Iraqi refugees re-establish themselves in their homeland. 

Not only does Ms. Jolie go against the Hollywood trend of urging us to get out of Iraq, her position also offers the Democrats a great opportunity.  If they use their heads, they cau use this - and other such humanitarian reasons to stay in Iraq - to get out ot the box in which they have trapped themselves of having to leave Iraq, no matter what.

The article is so good that it deserves to be read in whole, here.  In "Staying to Help in Iraq," Ms. Jolie summarizes by saying "We have finally reached a point where humanitarian assiatance, from us and others, can have an impact."  She writes:

The request is familiar to American ears: "Bring them home."

But in Iraq, where I've just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.

In the six months since my previous visit to Iraq with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this humanitarian crisis has not improved. However, during the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.

We still don't know exactly how many Iraqis have fled their homes, where they've all gone, or how they're managing to survive. Here is what we do know: More than 2 million people are refugees inside their own country -- without homes, jobs and, to a terrible degree, without medicine, food or clean water. Ethnic cleansing and other acts of unspeakable violence have driven them into a vast and very dangerous no-man's land. Many of the survivors huddle in mosques, in abandoned buildings with no electricity, in tents or in one-room huts made of straw and mud. Fifty-eight percent of these internally displaced people are younger than 12 years old.

She writes of another 2.5 million Iraqis who have fled to other countries, mainly in Syria and Jordan.  But these countries are overwhelmed by these refugees, and are not taking any more.  Ms. Jolie says:.

I'm not a security expert, but it doesn't take one to see that Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden. They have been excellent hosts, but we can't expect them to care for millions of poor Iraqis indefinitely and without assistance from the U.S. or others. One-sixth of Jordan's population today is Iraqi refugees. The large burden is already causing tension internally.

She speaks of the proud and resiliant Iraqi families she has met, who only want their homes back.  But many of their homes have been destroyed, or are occupied by squatters.  Many will need to build new homes.  Iraq is not ready yet to absorb some 4 million refugees, but there are signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.

UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner António Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR's presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.

She also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki,

who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.

She also is convinced that we have a moral obligation to help these famlies, and also "a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis."  She asks, " Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?"

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons....I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

As to whether the surge is working, she states what she witnessed:

U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Bravo, Ms. Jolie!  A good message with great timing, along with being willing to lend your fame to a good, yet difficult,  cause.  It is much appreciated.

Angelina Jolie, an actor, is a UNHCR goodwill ambassador.

Angelina Jolie: Stay in Iraq to Help

Angelina Jolie, UNHRC Goodwill Ambassador

       (Image from a.abcnews.com)

Angelina Jolie has a remarkable, and very well written, article in the Washington Post urging America to stay in Iraq, in order to help some 4.5 million Iraqi refugees re-establish themselves in their homeland. 

Not only does Ms. Jolie go against the Hollywood trend of urging us to get out of Iraq, her position also offers the Democrats a great opportunity.  If they use their heads, they cau use this - and other such humanitarian reasons to stay in Iraq - to get out ot the box in which they have trapped themselves of having to leave Iraq, no matter what.

The article is so good that it deserves to be read in whole, here.  In "Staying to Help in Iraq," Ms. Jolie summarizes by saying "We have finally reached a point where humanitarian assiatance, from us and others, can have an impact."  She writes:

The request is familiar to American ears: "Bring them home."

But in Iraq, where I've just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.

In the six months since my previous visit to Iraq with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this humanitarian crisis has not improved. However, during the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.

We still don't know exactly how many Iraqis have fled their homes, where they've all gone, or how they're managing to survive. Here is what we do know: More than 2 million people are refugees inside their own country -- without homes, jobs and, to a terrible degree, without medicine, food or clean water. Ethnic cleansing and other acts of unspeakable violence have driven them into a vast and very dangerous no-man's land. Many of the survivors huddle in mosques, in abandoned buildings with no electricity, in tents or in one-room huts made of straw and mud. Fifty-eight percent of these internally displaced people are younger than 12 years old.

She writes of another 2.5 million Iraqis who have fled to other countries, mainly in Syria and Jordan.  But these countries are overwhelmed by these refugees, and are not taking any more.  Ms. Jolie says:.

I'm not a security expert, but it doesn't take one to see that Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden. They have been excellent hosts, but we can't expect them to care for millions of poor Iraqis indefinitely and without assistance from the U.S. or others. One-sixth of Jordan's population today is Iraqi refugees. The large burden is already causing tension internally.

She speaks of the proud and resiliant Iraqi families she has met, who only want their homes back.  But many of their homes have been destroyed, or are occupied by squatters.  Many will need to build new homes.  Iraq is not ready yet to absorb some 4 million refugees, but there are signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.

UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner António Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR's presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.

She also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki,

who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.

She also is convinced that we have a moral obligation to help these famlies, and also "a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis."  She asks, " Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?"

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons....I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

As to whether the surge is working, she states what she witnessed:

U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Bravo, Ms. Jolie!  A good message with great timing, along with being willing to lend your fame to a good, yet difficult,  cause.  It is much appreciated.

Angelina Jolie, an actor, is a UNHCR goodwill ambassador.

"Christians, Come Back To Your Home, Iraq"

          Photo by independent embedded journalist Michael Yon, here. 

This is the same church pictured in my post 11/9/07, here, with Christians and Muslims putting the wooden cross back up on the church roof. 

Now Michael Yon reports this:

Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here.

The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.”

They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.”

                           LTC Stephen Michael at St John’s.   

Michael Yon writes:

LTC Michael told me today that when al Qaeda came to Dora, they began harassing Christians first, charging them “rent.”

It was the local Muslims, according to LTC Michael, who first came to him for help to protect the Christians in his area. That’s right. LTC Michael told me more than once that the Muslims reached out to him to protect the Christians from al Qaeda. Real Muslims here are quick to say that al Qaeda members are not true Muslims.

From charging “rent,” al Qaeda’s harassment escalated to killing Christians, and also Muslims. Untold thousands of Christians and Muslims fled Baghdad in the wake of the darkness of civil war.  Most of the Christians are gone now; having fled to Syria, Jordan or Northern Iraq.

                                                    The interpreter “Ice”

Yon writes:

Ice, pictured here with members of the congregation outside St John’s after mass, grew up in this neighborhood. His family is Christian and St. John’s is their church. I asked Ice if the Muslims treat the Christians poorly in Iraq, and he said what other Iraqi Christians and Muslims have also told me: an unequivocal “No.” Ice said they had no problems at all until al Qaeda instigated friction between people.

Beginnings of Christian-Muslim Friendship in Iraq

Michael Yon, brave independent reporter in Iraq, took this icon of a photo.*  He wrote here

A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from “Chosen” Company 2-12 Infantry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.

The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. ” Thank you, thank you,” the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.” The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers. (Videotape to follow.)

Wretchard at The Belmont Club, here, says:

Joe Rosenthal didn't know what was in his camera the day he snapped the flag-raising at Iwo Jima. There are times when a single picture captures the essence of an entire campaign. Maybe Michael Yon's picture from Baghdad has done it for the Surge.

This is the iconic photo on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima during WWII.  Wretchard adds:

All just wars are about the restoration of peace. But it's important to remember that the flag raising on Suribachi occurred on the fourth day of a campaign that would last a month longer. In the War against extremism, as in Iwo Jima, the worst may be yet to come. But it's good to take a deep breath and remember what the journey is all about..

Finally, another famous photo, of the last U.S. helicopter out of Saigon, Viet Nam.  The scene is the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.  The helicopter was about to leave for the last time, unable to take the hundreds of waiting Vietnamese allies whose frantic hope was to leave with them.  It is in stark contrast to the other two photos above.

_________

*  Michael Yon does not receive funding or financial support from Fox News, or from any network, movie, book or television deals at this time. He is entirely reader supported. He relies on his readers to help him replace his equipment and cover his expenses so that he may remain in Iraq and bring you the stories of our soldiers. If you value his work, please consider supporting his mission.

Buried - Great News On Iraq

                                  (Image from naturalhorsetraining.com)

It is still happening, even though the surge is working and violence is down drastically in Iraq.  Major media still can't stomach such good news out of Iraq.  They still headline any bad news about Iraq and bury the good news. 

This time, the "paper of record" the New York Times carried the amazing story that Al Queda can no longer be found in Baghdad, but buried it in its back pages, here.

But they still can't bring themselves to call Al Queda "terrorists" but persist in calling them "militants."  And they still can't bear to write the words "Al Queda in Iraq" but continue the awkward "Al Queda in Mesopotamia" instead.  (Mesopotamia??  Are they hoping no one will connect that with Iraq?  What confidence in the underperformance of U.S. education!)

Then the prestigious Washington Post buried the spectacular news that Sunni and Shiite clerics issued a major Fatwa together, banning violence in Iraq.   It can't even be found in their online version.  So here it is, from CNN news.  (Scroll down to the second story.)

So - Al Queda can no longer be found anywhere in Baghdad.  Good work and kudos to the U.S. Military and to all citizens of Baghdad!

And Shiites and Sunni clerics have forbidden fighting between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq!  Wow!  This from a top-level conference in Mecca, Saudia Arabia by the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) and signed by the sheik heading the Sunni Endowment in Iraq and the leading Shiite cleric, Al Sistani.  Applause, please!

What great news!  A good news day on the Iraqi front, after a long drought.

Silence in Syria, Panic in Iran

This story is making the rounds now, at Free Republic, here, and other sites.

Dr. Jack Wheeler wrote on September 19, 2007:

One of India's top ranking generals assigned to liaise with the Iranian military recently returned to New Delhi from several days in Tehran - in a state of complete amazement. "Everyone in the government and military can only talk of one thing," he reports.  "No matter who I talked to, all they could do was ask me, over and over again, ‘Do you think the Americans will attack us?' ‘When will the Americans attack us?' ‘Will the Americans attack us in a joint operation with the Israelis?' How massive will the attack be?' on and on, endlessly.  The Iranians are in a state of total panic." And that was before September 6.  Since then, it's panic-squared in Tehran.  The mullahs are freaking out in fear.  Why?  Because of the silence in Syria. What happened on September 6?  The Israeli Air Force attacked a target deep inside Syria, leaving a massive "hole in the desert."  The odd thing is that Israel won't comment on it.  Even more odd - the Syrians deny it ever happened! Oddest of all - the Syrians had just finished installing a brand new, very expensive, state-of-the-art air defense system from Russia, better even than Russia's own present system.  Somehow - no one knows how - the Israelis blinded it.  It never worked.  Not only did it not work, it did not even detect the Israeli strike. So why did Iran panic?  Because Iran's air-defense system is from Russia too.  Iran was facing the likelihood that its own system is worthless too, and could not defend it against air strikes to take out its nuclear facilities - or any other part of Iran. Now the French are getting in on the fun too.  French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner announced since then that "France should prepare for the possibility of war over Iran's nuclear program." Wheeler ends by saying: Syria is shamed and silent.  Iran is freaking out in panic.  Defenseless enemies are fun. (Hat Tip to Robert Martin)

Update:  See "Did Admadinijad Predict Armageddon at the UN?" at The American Thinker, here.

Military Chaplain Asked to Pray Against Iraq War

     (Jonathan Fisher documents his First Tour in Iraq. The accompaniment is a very nice contemporary acoustic version of “For all the Saints” by Indelible Grace.  From Military Chaplain Mitch Lewis' blog here )

Military Chaplain Mitch Lewis - a United Methodist Chaplain - has been getting mass emails from a Christian Leader asking that people pray that the U.S. will abandon Iraq.  How does a military chaplain feel about praying against what his troops are doing?  He responds here :

Lewis notes that church-father Origen said that Christians:

...did pray for the king and his armies to have success when they were fighting for a righteous cause, even to the point of praying for the "destruction" of the forces of evil.

He comments that:

If it's permissible to pray against the forces attenpting to restrain evil doers - those who bomb market places, schools and places of worship - those who kidnap and murder the innocent - those who terrorize their communities and the world - why is it shocking to pray for the success of those who are fighting for the rule of law and a measure of freedom?

He also quotes from Training Letter 5 for Chaplains:

Pray for the defeat of our wicked enemy whose banner is injustice and whose good is oppression.  Pray for victory.  Pray for our Army, and Pray for Peace.

Finally he asks:

The fact that we are praying for success in an enterprise that costs lives shouldn't stop us from praying for its success.  As I wrote in Like David, "How can I participate in something that I cannot ask God to bless?"

What do you think?  Does that make sense to you?

But read his whole post.  And think about visiting his excellent blog on a regular basis.

      

Iran Behind Attacks on U.S. In Iraq Since 2002

                         (Image from mensa-barbie.blogspot.com)

At the Belmont Club, here, Wretchard writes in "The Other War In Iraq:"

I can't recommend Kimberly Kagan's short history of the Iranian war effort against the U.S. in Iraq, at the Weekly Standard, strongly enough.  There are two points she repeatedly makes: first, the Iranians began deployments to Iraq in anticipation of OIF in December, 2002.  Second, she describes the tactical alliances between Iran and Sunni/Al Queda fronts in considerable detail.

He is right.  You should read her report.  It describes how, even before U.S. troops arrived in Iraq, Iran was preparing with the potential Sunni resistance, the potential Shi'ite militias and Al Queda to fight the U.S. in Iraq.  Training was - and is - provided for these three, both in Iran and in Iraq, by Hezbollah and by Iranian Qods trainers.  Armaments were - and are still - provided, including the new explosives that have replaced the old IEDs and which can pierce through the armor of U.S. Humvees and troop carriers.

After mid-level, back channel talks began between Iran and the U.S., the Iranians denied all of this to the face of U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.  This gives a disturbing picture of how fruitless "negotiating" with Iran can be. 

George Friedman at Stratfor also wrote about this in "Move and Countermove: Ahmadinejad and Bush Duel" on 8/29/07.  He notes that Bush has said that for the U.S. to leave Iraq would be to turn Iraq over to Iran.  Friedman says that Iran would then move toward taking over the super-rich but militarily-weak Saudi Arabia and its oil.  The Saudis have a large Shi'ite minority.  And they live around the Saudi oil fields.

Both Friedman and Kagan agree that because of Iran, the U.S. dare not stop fighting in Iraq, and must prevail there in order to keep Iran from dominating the region's militarily-weak oil countries.  Iran in charge of the world's biggest oil reserves, and what they would do with all that money to fuel their push for a new Caliphate over all the world, is what a retreating U.S. would be risking.

Sen. McCain Questions Petraeus & Crocker

Sept. 11: John McCain questions Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the Iraq war reports. (MSNBC)

Go here to see video of McCain's questioning.  http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=cf5bd617-0e77-4feb-b248-0a38b3e5ee5b&p=Source_MSNBC&t=m5  From MSNBC.com - Tuesday 9-11-07

Highlight of this exchange:

Sen. McCain: "Ambassador Crocker, what is your degree of confidence that Maliki will do some of the things that we have been asking them to do for a long time?"

Ambassador Crocker:  "My level of confidence is under control."  (Chuckles from Senators)

Crocker added that Maliki and the Iraqi government are making some modest steps that he finds encouraging, and that the government does have the intention of working together. 

On Monday Crocker testified that although the Iraqi government has not yet enacted formally what the U.S. has requested, they are already doing some of those things informally while proposed laws are being put together.  For instance, they are already sharing oil revenues with all the provinces, even though the formal law requiring that has not yet been finished and enacted.

(Hat Tip to www.wikio.com)

Video - Ambassador Crocker Testifies Before Congress

    Ambassador Royce Crocker Testifying Monday, September 10, 2007

        (Image from amyproctor.squarespace.com)

This is U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Royce Crocker testifying before Congress on Monday, 9-10-07.

(Hat tip and thanks to Amy Proctor, here ) 

Video - General Petraeus Before Congress

      General David Petraeus Testifies Before Congress Monday, September 10, 2007    

                                   (Image from amyproctor.squarespace.com)

This is the testimony of General David Petraeus, for those who missed it.

(Hat tip and thanks to Amy Proctor, here )

Petraeus-Crocker Update

                                                                                                

Gen. David Petraeus, top

Ambassador Ryan Crocker, bottom

(Images from afsouth.nato.int and islamabad.embassy.gov)

General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were interviewed an hour on by Brit Hume on Fox News Monday.  Go here for part of that interview.  (The same page has other links to transcripts of their testimonies before Congress,, as well as videos of their interview by Brit Hume, about half-way down the page on the left.)

Both will be grilled - if not roasted - by Congressional committees again on Tuesday.

(See post below, "Testimony by Gen. Petraeus & Amb. Crocker Today"  for more background.)

Testimony by Gen. Petraeus & Amb. Crocker Today

                                           General David Petraeus

                                           (Image from a101avb,org)

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker

(Image from islamabad.usembassy.gov)

Today General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified before Congress concerning the situation in Iraq, and what course we should take in the future. 

Before Petreus' testimony today,  the New York Times ran a full-page ad by Moveon.org which attacked the credibility of Gen. Petraeus.  It asserted that he had been coached as to what to say by the Bush administration, and that he would not tell the truth.  It also called him "General Betray Us."

General Petraeus stated at the first of his testimony that he wrote his report himself, and had not shared it with either the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the White House.

Their testimony had not ended at almost 6 p.m. CDT.  But Ambassador Crocker summarized his testimony by saying "The present course in Iraq is hard; the alternatives are worse."  General Petraeus' testimony could be summarized by saying that surge is working, that gradual draw-downs in U.S. troops are coming, and that withdrawal would cede Iraq to predator countries, mainly Iran.

Both will be interviewed tonight at 9 EDT and 8 CDT by Brit Hume on Fox News.  Hume hopes to get their testimony in a much shorter, more condensed form.

I may post links to transcripts of these hearings later, as they become available.  Meanwhile, here is General Petraeus' opening statement before Congress earlier today. 

Update:

Here is Ambassador Ryan Crocker's opening statement before Congress earlier today. 

How 'Backward' Islamists Will Force WW IV

                                  (Image from dailymail.co.uk)

Islamists come from backward countries without much of a military, or even much of an economy, except for oil.  So could they start, much less win, a truly world-wide war?

WW I, WW II and WW III (the Cold War) were fought by heavily industrialized, modern countries with huge militaries.  Their scientists were the best in the world, able to invent powerful new weapons.  The amounts of armaments the west produced was mind-boggling.

Now the U.S. is the most powerful country ever.  Its economy and military are unmatched.  It could literally wipe out any government in the world.  Many other Western countries also could devastate any less-developed country.

How then could people from such backward countries fight a world-wide war?  And continue it for a generation or more?  Or have any hope of winning?

Yet  Islamists believe they will win.   They believe Allah has commanded them to conquer the world and force it to be Muslim. They believe Allah has ordained this, and has foretold that it will happen.  And they believe Allah will award special delights to those who fight such a war.

But could they win?  Or even keep fighting?  Many experts say they could win.  They say WW IV has already started, will get much worse, and will last for generations.  Some of their reasons are here 

The Islamists have:

-A potential access to weapons of mass destruction that could devastate Western life.

-A religious appeal that provides deeper resonance and greater staying power than the aritificial ideologies of facism or communism.

-An impressively conceptualized, funded and organized institutional machinery that successfully builds credibility, good will and electoral success.

-An ideology capable of appealing to Muslims of every size and shape, from Lumpenproletariat to privileged, from illiterate to Ph.D.s, from the well-adjusted to psychopaths, from Yemenis to Canadians.

-a large number of committed cadres.  If Islamists constitute 10-15% of Muslims, they number some 125 million to 200 million, or a far greater total than all the facists and communists, combined, who ever lived. (All empnases added.) 

In short, the sheer size of what we are facing is daunting.  After all, even relatively low-tech attacks have the ability to seriously damage modern societies and economies, made fragile by being so highly interwoven and inter-dependent.

William F. Buckley comments:

Those critics who insist it is only a small war-party faction of the Islamists that we have to fear might have been asked a generation ago if it was not merely a small number of Germans and Russians we were properly exercised about.  Sixty million people were dead after that mis-reckoning.   

There Is Only One Political Issue

              What Happens When the Taliban Visit an Art Gallery

      (Image from static.flickr.com/83/279634632_70798c4a12.jpg)

Writing in the American Thinker today, Joseph Rosenburger says:

The current political squabbles in America between the liberal, socialist left and the moral capitalist conservative right are merely a skirmish line on the edge of two colliding civilizations.  The combatants are not the free market, individual-centric conservatives and libertarians vs. the Nanny State, socialist plantation liberal straw bosses.  Not at all!

The elephant in the room is Islamofacism - and President Bush and his brilliant General Patraeus, at the head of the greatest Army of our lifetime, are decisively engaged.  What is at stake dwarfs the '08 elections topics of single-payer medical care, unfunded social security, or our billions of dollare held by China and Saudi Arabia, for economic blackmail.

(Or, he might have added, immigration.)

Life as we know it - the profound blessings of the Age of Enlightenment and the spectacular technological progress in the arts and sciences that resulted -- is, absent a courageous defense, doomed to be devoured in the maws of a barbarian Islamofacism if President Bush's war leadership fails. 

Militant Islam means to convert, enslave or exterminate the infidel non-Muslim world, depending on the amount of resistance encountered.  The Koran demands it, and militant Islamists are implementing it wherever they have the critical mass to enforce it.  Secular pluralism and a democratically-established Rule of Law will not survive, absent protectors that exercise lethal force to defend it. 

This should be the litmus test of who our next president should be, and no other.

That is the only policy in this election that matters.  If we fail on this one, no other policy questions will be left even to be considered.  There is one, and only one, political issue now.

Rosenburg continues:

...Islamofacism or Western Civilizatin...will prevail depending on who imposes its will on its neighbors sufficient to expand its borders, increase its population, and accumulate treasure...The rise and fall of one society or another reflects the simple equation of warfare, biology and technology development.

For example, Islamofascists, reproducing rapidly, brainwashing young boys...raising battalions of Kamikazi homicide bombers, cutting off hands and heads to maintain discipline and tribal cohesion, are overcoming a complacent West, spoiled, secular and imploding with declining birth rates.  In fact, Islamists are reaching a tipping point in Europe, for example, nearing a critical mass in Spain, France and Great Britain.

We'll know for sure the game's over when they burn down the idolatrous art museums in Paris.

That Islam condemns half its population (females) to abject servitude and shows profoundly little ability to advance the frontiers of science and technology, suggests an approaching dark age if left unchecked.

The alternative, brighter future depends on supplying General Patraeus with what he needs, funding the Surge all the way.

Of course he is not the first so to define this choice.  But he does it well, cutting through the political distractions.

We can use the reminder!

How Much of a Lame Duck Is Bush?

___

___

___

___

___

___

_____

Dr. George Friedman, founder of Stratfor, the "private CIA," writes that all U.S. Presidents eventually become lame ducks.  But that does not apply to his military power.   Internationally, Friedman writes,...

The power of a lame duck president depends on the options he has militarily.  Foreign powers do not mess with American Presidents, no matter how lame one might be, as long as the president retains military options.

It is in his role as Commander in Chief that the President has almost autonomous powers.  There is little Congress can do to stop him, except withholding money after the fact. 

Many have speculated that in his last days in office, if Iran has become too serious a threat, Bush will order Iran bombed, perhaps with nukes, to eliminate Iran's nuclear blackmail on his way out of office.  Not so, says Freidman.  Bush's military options have become too restricted for that.  U.S. ground forces are almost completely used up in the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.  They are either on duty, rotating out or being trained for deployment.  There is little to no chance that the U.S. will deploy ground forces anywhere else.

The U.S. Navy and Air Force are still mostly held in reserve.  But once they are committed, the U.S. has no more reserves. They are standing guard over Iran at present.   So U.S. military options are limited.

Meanwhile, second-tier powers like Russia are using this situation to probe our defenses and to stake new claims of their own.  How can Russia do this?

Russia is not the country it was 10 years ago.  Its economy, fueled by rising energy and mineral prices, is financially solvent...becoming a more traditional Russian state: authoritarian, repressive, accepting private property but only under terms it finds acceptable.  It also is redefining its sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union and reviving its military.

The Russian airforce has been harassing Georgia.  It is making claims to the North Pole, after Canada began opening up its North West Passage.  They have announced a new air defense by 2015 - not very long as those things go.  They have announced they will create a new command-and-control system at the same time.

Russian long-range aircraft recently flew to Guam,..causing the U.S. to scramble fighter jets.  They also flew into what used to be called the GIUK gap (Greenland-Iceland-UK), probing air defenses along the Norweigan coast and in Scotland. 

Most interestingly, they announced the resumption of patrols in the Atlantic, along the U.S. coast...During the Cold War, patrols such as these were designed to carry out electronic and signal intelligence...designed to map out U.S. facilities along the Eastern seaboard and observe response time and procedures.

The Russians are using the window of opportunity to redefine, in a modest way, the global balance and gain some room to manuever in their region...The more the Russians manuever, the more the United States must hold what forces it has left - the Navy and Air Force - in reserve.  Launching an Iranian adventure becomes that much more risky.  If it is launched, Russia has an even greater window of opportunity.  Every further involvement in the region makes the United States that much less of a factor in the immediate global equation...

The Russians are...dealing with a lame duck president with fewer options than most lame ducks.    Before there is a new president, and before the war in Iraq ends, the Russians want to redefine the situation a bit.

Remember that Russia and China have just held joint military exercises, attended by Iranian President Admadinijad.  Consider also that our current lack of options is the result of our drastic reductions in military spending - now at a new low, as a percentage of the Gross National Product.  We did that at the end of the Cold War, when we imagined there would be a "peace dividend."  When many of us managed to believe there would be no more wars.

We need to hurry and increase our investment in our military to a much greater level, very soon.  Americans need their president to have greater military options than now.  After all the post-cold-war wistful thinkng, the world is still a very dangerous place.

(Friedman's whole article may be read at www.stratfor.com.)       

Der Spiegel Says Iraq Going Well

                                  (Image from windsofchange.net)

Der Spiegel, the big German newspaper, has long been a harsh critic of the U.S. war in Iraq.  So it was quite a surprise when it published an article Friday praising the U.S. effort in Iraq, saying it was going very well.  Here is an exerpt.

Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq--it is proof that the U.S. military is more successful than the world wants to believe.  Ramadi illustrates that large parts of Iraq--not just Anbar province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers--are essentially pacified today.   This is news the world doesn't hear:  Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious "Sunni Triangle," is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction....

Something is happenng in Iraq that is consistently concealed behind images of bombings.  The situation that the White House and its deceptive advisors had erroneously predicted before their invasion--that the troops would be greeted with candy and flowers--could in fact still come true.  That's already the case in many places.

Not only is "late better than never," but such an honest and speedy turn-around sets a good example for other media of how it should be done.  Kudos to Der Spiegel.

Iraqi Interpreter Talks Freely to U.S. Reporter

The excellent Belmont Club today has this story here, with comments by Wretchard.

                                     Iraqi Interpreter

                       (Image from michaeltotten.com)

Michael Totten interviews an Iraqi interpreter for US troops, here.  (Below is a much-shortened and edited version.  You have to read the whole thing to get the true flavor of it.)

An Iraqi Interpreter’s Story

By Michael J. Totten

“Please, sir, can you help me? I must work with Americans, because my psychology is demolished by Saddam Hussein. Not just me. All Iraqis. Psychological demolition.” – Iraqi woman to New Yorker reporter George Packer.

Iraqis who are not American citizens and who work as interpreters for the American military cover their faces when they work outside the wire. Mahdi Army militiamen and Al Qaeda terrorists accuse of them of collaboration with the enemy. They and their families are targetted for destruction.

Here is the story of one such interpreter who works with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad. He calls himself “Hammer.”

MJT: Why do you work with Americans?

Hammer: When I was 14 years old all I liked was American cars and American movies. America was my dream. It was a dream come true when the United States Army came to Iraq. It was a nightmare in 1991 when they left again.

MJT: Why do you have to cover your face?

Hammer: To protect my family. My family lives in Iraq. If they go to the U.S. I won’t have to do it. But I don’t want anyone to know me, to follow me and see where I live and kill my wife and son.

MJT: How did you feel when the U.S. invaded Iraq?

Hammer: Happy. It was like I was living in a jail and somebody set me free. I don’t want Saddam ruling me. Never. I was just waiting and waiting for this moment.

MJT: What do you think about the possibility of Americans leaving?

Hammer: It is like bad dream. Very bad dream. A nightmare. Worse than that. Like sending me back to jail. Like they set me free for four years then sent me back to jail or gave me a death sentence.

MJT: Tell us about living under Saddam Hussein.

Hammer: It was crazy life, like feeling safe inside a jail. If they sent you to an actual jail nothing changed. They arrested everyone, literally everyone, for no reason and sent them to jail for two weeks just so they could see the jail.

I went there three times. The first time because I worked for a movie company. They sent all of us to jail. It had nothing to do with me.

I was given a three year sentence. My family has money, so I paid the judge 50,000 dollars. I gave it directly to the judge, plus four new tires for his car and a satellite TV. He gave me a three month sentence instead of a three year sentence. He scratched “3 years” off my sentence and wrote “3 months” in by hand.

MJT: What’s it like out there now for the average Iraqi?

Hammer: If you give average Iraqis electricity right now it will be enough. This is the most important thing. Give them power for seven days in a row and there will be no fights.

Giving them electricity would reduce violence. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself what would happen to this Army base if the power was cut off forever and the soldiers had to spend the rest of their lives in Iraq. Do you think these soldiers would still behave normally?

TV is the most interesting thing to Iraqis. They learn everything from the TV. Right now they only have one hour of electricity every day. Do you know what they watch? Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera pushes them to fight. If they got TV the whole day they would watch many things. Their minds would be influenced by something other than terrorist propaganda.

Right now they have no electricity. They have no dreams. Nothing. And Saddam messed with their minds. For more than 30 years he poisoned their minds.

MJT: Why is Iraq such a mess? Is it the Americans’ fault?

Hammer: No. You can’t blame it on the Americans. Iraqis are number one at fault for this mess.

MJT: Is there a solution to the problem in this country?

Hammer:   Ok, if you want a serious solution try this:

Charge money to the families of insurgents. Fine them huge amounts of money if anyone in their family is captured or killed and identified as an insurgent. Make them pay. You can put it into law. Within one week they won’t do anything wrong because they want money. Their familes will make them stop.

The militias pay them 100 dollars to set up IEDs. Fine them thousands of dollars if they are caught and their families will make them stop. Give them that law. Go ahead. Try it.

MJT: What will happen if the Americans leave next year?

Hammer: Rivers of blood everywhere. Syria and Iran will take pieces of Iraq. Anti-American governments will laugh. You will be a joke of a country that no one will take seriously.

I will kill myself if it happens. I am completely serious. The militias will hunt down and kill me and my family. I will beat them to it by killing myself.

I worked for the U.S. government for four years. Everyone who works as an interpreter for four years and gets a signature from a General or a Senator gets a Green Card. My hope is to get this somehow. I will do anything for this.

I am doing this for my son. Everything for my son. I don’t want my son living here getting into religion and militias and Al Qaeda. I want my son to be free, to have a girlfriend, to get married, and to be a good citizen.

MJT: How often do you get to see him?

Hammer: Two days a month. Sometimes two days every two months. I leave this base without my uniform and dress like them, wearing filthy jeans and a t-shirt, so they don’t know I work here. Then drive to my house and hug my wife and son.

MJT: Do you ever get death threats?

Hammer: Seven times. Once I had to sell my car because of it. Some come from Shia militias, others from Al Qaeda. I had two IEDs in front of my car and was shot at with an RPG when I was working in Kirkuk for Bechtel at an oil plant.

MJT: What is the worst thing you have ever seen in this country.

Hammer: 60 guys from Al Qaeda kidnapped an interpreter’s sister. She had a baby boy, six months old. They raped her, all 60 guys. Then they cut her to pieces and threw her in the river. They left the six month baby boy to sleep in her blood.

We found him on a big farm south of Baghdad. All that was left was his legs and his shoes. The dogs ate him.

I don’t want this for my family.

These people (Al Queda) are like animals who came from another planet.

MJT: What is the most beautiful thing you have ever seen in this country?

Hammer: In all my life? When I was seven years old I heard the sound of wild pigeons every morning. Then something happened and I never heard them again.

Then, on the morning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, I heard the pigeons again.

Really, I am not joking. I can see you don’t believe me, but I am not faking it.

MJT: What is the most important thing about Iraq that the Americans don’t understand?

Hammer: Don’t just open the jail after 25 years. Let people out step by step. Iraqis need rehab. Give them instant direct freedom and they are going to go crazy. That’s what the U.S. did.

MJT: Will the Americans win this war?

Hammer: I hope it’s going to happen. But it’s not going to happen if the Americans keep doing what they are doing unless they are a lot more patient.

MJT: Anything you want to say that I didn’t ask you about?

Hammer: Because of the few bad Iraqis who work as interpreters for the U.S., no one trusts us. But if you give me a gun I will fight harder than the Americans. You can go home. I can’t. I have to live in this country. If the Americans don’t give a Green Card to me and my family, I have to stay in this prison.

I’ll tell you what I tell my family. If I die here, wrap me in the American flag when you bury me. I don’t want to be wrapped in the flag of Iraq.

Hammer is looking for employment in and permanent relocation to the United States for himself, his wife, and his son. If you can sponsor him for a Green Card and help save his family, email him at superlink_par@yahoo.com and superlink_70@yahoo.com.

      Michael Totten

Postscript: Please support independent journalism. Traveling to and working in Iraq is expensive. I can’t publish dispatches on this Web site for free without substantial reader donations, so I'll appreciate it if you pitch in what you can. Blog Patron allows you to make recurring monthly payments, and even small donations will be extraordinarily helpful so I can continue this project.  (Go here to support Michael) 

NY Times Article in Favor of Surge in Iraq!

No, that does not mean the entire NY Times has changed it's strong stance against the Iraq War.  It is only one Op-Ed, not the whole paper.  But the co-writers are two senior people at the liberal and prestigious Brookings Institution, who just got back from Iraq.  And the Times did run it.  What is that all about?

                 (Image from thinkandask.com)

In "A War We Just Might Win" today, here, the writers say:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.

But they go on to address a broader picture than merely the military, writing  of "sustainable stability" too:

As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

These writers, Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at Brookings, and Kenneth M. Pollack, director of research at Brookings' Saban Center for Middle East Policy, just spent 8 days in Iraq.

They found that morale among the troops was better than they saw on previous trips.  Civilian death rates are down by a third.  Operations are tailored to the needs of each community.  Troops are working closely with local Sheiks, in places designed like Iraqi living rooms.  Stores and shoppers are coming back.  Iraqi troops are coming along well enough that few commanders complain about them any more.  They write:

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help...Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best...  Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Their conclusion?

...the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008. (Emphasis added.)

For the Times to publish something like this, they must be realizing that the surge is working.  Even if they are only hedging their bets, it is still a sign that the success of the surge so far is big enough that it cannot safely be ignored any longer.

But read the whole article.  It is not long. 

Why Do Islamists Hate the West?

Why are Islamists so successful in recruiting young people to commit suicide in order to kill a few of us?  Why would a young couple be willing to blow up not only themselves, but also their 6-month-old baby so that some of us would die?  What is going on here?  How much hatred does it take to go that far?  What is its source?

                  (Image from knighthospitler.files.wordpress.com)

Is it because we are rich and they are poor?  (If so, what about many jihadists who are non-poor and well-educated?)  Is it because they think that our culture is depraved and theirs is more pure?  Is it because they lost their empire in Europe when the West took it back 600 years ago?  Or because many Muslim countries were until recently colonies of the West?  Or is it simply because they consider us infidels?  Or because we fight them instead of surrendering?  Why hatred of such implacable intensity?

Steven Den Beste offered a clue (before the Iraq War) in his memorable 2002 article, here.

The problem with our enemy's culture is that in the 20th century it was revealed as being an abject failure. By any rational calculation, it could not compete, and not simply because the deck was stacked against it. The problem was more fundamental; the culture itself contained the elements of its own failure.

The only Arab nations which have prospered have done so entirely because of...mineral wealth. Using money from export of oil, they imported a high tech infrastructure. They drive western cars. They use western cell phones. They built western high-rise steel frame buildings. They created superhighways and in every way implemented the trappings of western prosperity.

Or rather, they paid westerners to create all those things for them. They didn't build or create any of it themselves. It's all parasitic. And they also buy the technical skill to keep it running...Everything they have which looks like modern culture was purchased. They themselves do not have the ability to produce, or even to operate, any of it.  (Bolding added.)

Back in 1998, Ralph Peters wrote of  7 conditions that a nation must meet to succeed in this century, here.  Den Beste explains that:

The diseased culture of our enemy suffers from all seven of the deep flaws Ralph Peters identifies as condemning nations to failure in the modern world. Peters makes a convincing case that there is a correlation approaching unity between the extent to which a nation or culture suffers from these flaws and its inability to succeed in the 21st century.

He lists them as follows:

• Restrictions on the free flow of information.
• The subjugation of women.
• Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
• The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
• Domination by a restrictive religion.
• A low valuation of education.
• Low prestige assigned to work.

And carrying all seven of these, our enemy is trying to compete in the 21st century...They are profoundly handicapped by the very values that they hold most dear and that they believe make them what they are.

The nations and the peoples within...our enemy's culture are complete failures. Their economies are disasters. They make no contribution to the advance of science or engineering. They make no contribution to art or culture. They have no important diplomatic power. They are not respected. Most of their people are impoverished and miserable and filled with resentment, and those who are not impoverished are living a lie.

They hate us. They hate us because our culture is everything theirs is not. Our culture is vibrant and fecund; our economies are successful. Our achievements are magnificent. Our engineering and science are advancing at breathtaking speed. Our people are fat and happy (relatively speaking). We are influential, we are powerful, we are wealthy. "We" are the western democracies, but in particular "we" are the United States, which is the most successful of the western democracies by a long margin. America is the most successful nation in the history of the world...(Bolding added.)

Den Beste believes our enemy has 3 choices: continue to stagnate, reform, or fight us.  And that they will fight us, because they will not tolerate the first 2 choices.  Those are not possible for them, because they live in a "face" culture, dominated by pride and shame.  It is because of their loss of "face" that they hate us.

What they want is to stay with their traditional culture and for it to be successful, and that isn't possible. We can make them rich through aid, but we can't make them successful because their failure is not caused by us, but by the deep flaws in their culture. Their culture cannot succeed. It is too deeply and fundamentally crippled.

Everything they think they know says that they should be successful. They once were successful, creating and ruling a great empire, with a rich culture. God says they will be successful; it's right there in the Qur'an. God lays on them the duty to dominate the world, but they can't even dominate their own lands any longer.

...this is the reason they're fighting back. It's not to gain revenge for some specific action in the past on our part. It isn't an attempt to influence our foreign policy. Their goal is our destruction, because they can't keep hold on what they have and still think of themselves as being successful as long as we exist and continue to outperform them.

This is why they have chosen #3: they mean to achieve..."a new Arab imperialism, an ambition in some quarters to recreate the Arab empire and by so doing to regain political greatness."

Their internal battles over what to do about their failure as a culture were over whether to change the culture (reform Islam) or to fight the West, especially the U.S. 

The fundamentalist Wahabists, heavily funded by the Saudis and supplying most of the Imams teaching in mosques and madrassas, won the argument against reform.  Their view was that the failure of the Arab Islamists was not due to their culture.  On the contrary, it was because Arabs were not sufficiently faithful to their religion.  That they needed to conform even more strictly to sharia law.  That if they fought the infidel and the infidel's culture, Allah would bless them and they would again rule their old empire, and eventually, the world. 

So the hate of our enemies became blessed and holy.  It was to be their chosen contribution to the good of their peoples, and eventually, to the good of the world, in their view.

This is why only being our rulers will satisfy them: nothing else.  Not appeasement nor money, though they may accept both.  Only by killing or dominating the infidels (us) will they establish that they are not the failures in this world.  They will no longer be outdone by anyone, and their superiority will be acknowledged by everyone who wants to go on living.  That is the world for which they are willing to die.

That is why, even if we win in Iraq and also kill Bin Laden, other jihadists will step in to continue to fight us.  That is why the war is a long, generational war.  And why it cannot avoid being a war of cultures. 

The choice of war was not ours.  What is ours is the responsibility of winning.

(Hat Tip to the always excellent Belmont Club, here.  See especially the comment by Nancee, about 17th down.)

Generals Vs. Editors

                  General Robert E. Lee

          (Image from usconstitution.com)

General Robert E. Lee, arguably the greatest general of his time, said in 1863:

     "It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers!  In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.

     "Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials - after the fact."

Robert E. Lee

(This statement, according to Urban Legends, http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/robertelee.asp, is a shortened version of a longer statement by Lee to his friend B.H. Hill, which Hill first quoted in a speech in La Grange in 1865, while the Civil War was still going on and Lee was still living.  Urban Legends therefore judges "...the evidence weighs in favor of a Lee attribution.")

(Hat Tip to Bob Bailey)

Gitmo 'Scandal' Created by Kuwait Oil Money

                                  KUWAIT, 2007

          (Image from theholidayexperience.com)

It was "Gitmo's Guerrilla Lawyers"  who turned our perception of Guantanamo from a Jihadi prisoner-of-war holding camp into a supposed scandal, according to the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

The huge U.S.-based global law firm that engineered that process was lavishly funded by Kuwaiti oil-rich families, and the Kuwaiti government.  Together with the top publicist they hired, their efforts caused the public to accept fictionalized charges against the U.S. government and sanitized the jihadi fighters into mere harmless civilians.  Their chosen method was making Guantanamo appear a scandal of cruel, inhuman and illegal treatment of prisoners of war