Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Showing posts with label Iraq War Sept. 2007 Petraeus Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq War Sept. 2007 Petraeus Report. Show all posts

Thursday, September 13, 2007

20070912 Hatch on Move On by Don Surber


Don Surber calls to our attention: Hatch on Move On

September 12th, 2007 by donsurber


Reference: "20070910 The General Petraeus New York Times Ad"

A grownup has stood up in the Senate to denounce the “Betray Us” ad by MoveOn.org. The Democratic Party should be ashamed that it took Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah to say what has to be said — and to defend the honor of a man who was unanimously appointed by the Senate.

A taste of what he said:

“Now, anyone who has had the opportunity to meet the General, and anybody who has bothered to follow his career or his academic pursuits, knows that these are dangerous and unwarranted allegations. However, there might be a silver lining to this slander. Libel, really, because it was printed The New York Times. Now, all of America understands MoveOn.org and other groups like it are called the nutroots of our society. These people are nuts and they don’t care who they hurt, they don’t care who they smear they don’t care who they libel. Politics is more important than anything else and power is the most important anything of all.”

[…]

Support the troops? Then support the No. 1 Troop — General David Petraeus.

[…]

Read his entire post here: Hatch on Move On

And if “Don Surber” is not part of your daily reading it should be. Find it here: Don Surber

The video is here and here.

http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b372/DonSurber/?action=view&current=HatchOnMoveOn.flv



20070912 Hatch on Move On by Don Surber

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

20070910 Petraeus Doesnt Cook the Books Just the facts by Michael O’Hanlon

NRO (Michael O’Hanlon – Brookings): Petraeus Doesn’t Cook the Books Just the facts.

Petraeus Doesn’t Cook the Books

Just the facts.

By Michael O'Hanlon

(See related: 20070730 NYTimes Op-Ed: A War We Just Might Win by O’Hanlon and Pollack and 20070910 The General Petraeus New York Times Ad)

For those reading this after watching General David Petraeus’s Monday testimony, I strongly suspect that my main argument will have become apparent to many: General Petraeus is a straight shooter who does not and will not cook the books.

From what we know of his thinking already, Petraeus will talk of significant military momentum for combined U.S./Iraqi forces. But this momentum will be placed in the context of a still very lethal and dangerous battlefield. Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, will also highlight the absence of Iraqi political progress, progress without which our long-term aspirations for that country will almost surely fail. He will have enough evidence to back up this claim of military momentum, on the plus side, combined with ongoing extreme danger on the streets and political paralysis in the halls of parliament on the other side, that his argument will sound right to most who hear it. And while he will surely favor continuing the effort, he will not present the evidence about Iraq in a way that attempts to invalidate the judgment of those who would disagree. War opponents will be able to accept most of the specific evidence he presents yet retain their positions that a rapid and large-scale American withdrawal from Iraq is warranted. That is because, in the end, our decisions about Iraq must be based more on a judgment call about politics and human psychology than on hard science or data.

On the violence, in keeping with a Saturday New York Times article by Michael Gordon that reflects current DoD data on the country, Petraeus will argue that the overall situation has improved substantially this year. He will be right to do so, based on virtually any primary-source data I have seen (in my capacity as co-author of Brookings’s “Iraq Index”).

Be sure to read the entire piece here: Petraeus Doesn’t Cook the Books Just the facts.

20070910 Observing The Petraeus Crocker Report Hearings

Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker Report to Congress

September 10, 2007

I’ve been watching the Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker Report to Congress and as I keyboard at around 4 PM, it would appear that things have settled down after an enormously unfortunate series of unpleasant disruptions and technical glitches.

At times it would appear that the House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) had lost a degree of control over the hearings.

It looks like the circus came to town…

Code Pink removed from Petraeus hearing

Patraeus (sic) hearing glitch - Showing the Iraq War in action

This video was placed on YouTube by someone who is at odds with General Petraeus… but nevertheless, visualizes some of the trying moments… And, it does get quite interesting “around 5 minutes into the clip.

General Patraeus (sic) had some technical problems getting his message out of demanding that war continue in Iraq.

Interesting commentary happens at around 5 minutes into the clip. […]

And a blast from the past, this video from January 23, 2007 gives some background to the number of months that have transpired since January 2007.

This clip features Senator Hillary Clinton lecturing General Petraeus… Yes, it is cringe worthy and at times difficult to watch, but nevertheless gives one insight into the arrogance and condescension of a Democratic leader who is well documented as detesting the Unites States military. (read “Unlimited Access” by Gary Aldrich, from 1996.)

Sen. Clinton Questions Gen. David Petraeus at Senate Hearing

And finally, a much longer video of the testimony of General Petraeus:

IRAQ COMMANDER PETRAEUS: Report to Congress

Current U.S. commander in Iraq gives his opening statement and summary report to the U.S House of Representatives during a joint committee session today. September 10, 2007.

_____

Iraq War Sept. 2007 Petraeus Report:

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

NRO (Michael O’Hanlon – Brookings): Petraeus Doesn’t Cook the Books Just the facts.

Video of the Code Pinkos’ removal

“The Hill”: Cindy Sheehan arrested at Petraeus hearing

MAIN REPORT PAGE

Petraeus Reports to Congress on Iraq

Will War Report Change Kansas City Opinions?

Iraqis Respond to Report, War Developments

Sep. 8, 2007

Lawmakers Weigh Iraq Data, Upcoming Report

Sep. 8, 2007

Petraeus' Letter to Troops About Surge Mixed

####

Monday, September 10, 2007

20070910 Cindy Sheehan arrested at Petraeus hearing

Cindy Sheehan arrested at Petraeus hearing

Iraq War Sept. 2007 Petraeus Report:

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin – “The Showdown in the House.”

“The Hill”: Cindy Sheehan arrested at Petraeus hearing

By Klaus Marre

September 10, 2007

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday in or near the hearing room where Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are testifying on the situation in Iraq, according to the U.S. Capitol Police.

Four anti-war protesters were arrested for disorderly conduct. …

[…]

Cindy Sheehan arrested at Petraeus hearing

Also On The Hill

Dems heap praise on Petraeus, Crocker

Hagel bows out of politics

Richardson criticizes ‘English only” Univision debate

White House says bin Laden has little power

####

20070910 The General Petraeus New York Times Ad

The General Petraeus New York Times Ad

Iraq War Sept. 2007 Petraeus Report

September 10, 2007

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

Are the Democrats making a key and critical strategic mistake by appeasing to the positions of MoveOn.org?

General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House

View the ad (PDF):

http://pol.moveon.org/content/pac/pdfs/PetraeusNYTad.pdf

Maryland District 6 Congressman Roscoe Bartlett’s office wrote:

This MoveOn.org ad in today’s New York Times claims General Petraeus is not giving an objective, independent view of the situation on the ground. The ad asserts 'General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House.’”

Meanwhile, in contrast, Michael O’Hanlon of the center-left-leaning Brookings Institution who has been very critical of the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq and reported in August about the military successes of the surge asserts that General Petraeus is a straight-shooter who doesn’t cook the books.

_____

NRO (Michael O’Hanlon – Brookings): Petraeus Doesn’t Cook the Books Just the facts.

Petraeus Doesn’t Cook the Books

Just the facts.

By Michael O'Hanlon

For those reading this after watching General David Petraeus’s Monday testimony, I strongly suspect that my main argument will have become apparent to many: General Petraeus is a straight shooter who does not and will not cook the books.

Read the rest here: Petraeus Doesn’t Cook the Books Just the facts.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

19410502 Rashid Ari Rebellion and the Battle of Habbaniya

What was the Rashid Ali Rebellion and the Battle of Habbaniya and why it is important

September 4, 2007

In a brief discussion with a colleague about my Tentacle column from Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 about the upcoming Petraeus Report and the work of Dr. David Kilcullen, ("The Crocodile Dundee Factor" [1]) I mentioned that the British – and the Australians et al are all too familiar with Iraq.

What many Americans are not aware is that the British had indeed fought the Turks in Iraq in WWI - and the Iraqis at the beginning of WWII in a battle at Habbaniya - et sequentia during the Rashid Ali Rebellion.

Very simplistically:

For some contemporary context, Habbaniya is currently a U. S. base of operations called Al Taqqadum, west of Baghdad.

An historian could pick any of the major battles in the Middle East as symbolic of the complexities of the region. I just happened to have landed on the Battle at Habbaniya… However, one could pick the Arab loss to the Iranians at the Battle of the Bridge in 634 or the British loss to the Turks in the Siege of Kut, 1915 – 1916 or when the Shi'ites and Kurds fought the British for independence in 1920.

After WWI the British were given a League of Nations’ mandate on November 11, 1920, to govern portions of the former Ottoman Empire, which included what we now know as Iraq. Iraq was given independence around 1930.

This area of the Middle East was carved up, without any regard to the boundaries of the prevailing sects and religions - or ethnodemographics of the indigenous population of the region… according to the secretly negotiated Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 between Britain and France. This arbitrary drawing of the boundaries is, to a great extent, the causality of much of the current conflict in the area.

This period between 1915 and 1922 is extraordinarily complex with claims and counter claims, secret negotiations, atrocities and counter atrocities, and abrogated agreements resulting in the Arabs distrusting the West to this very day.

For further research, it involves T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), The Balfour Agreement of 1917, the 1915 and 1916 Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, the 1917 Russian Revolution, the April 1920 San Remo conference, the League of Nations, the 1920 et sequentia rebellions in which the Shi'ites and Kurds fought the British for independence, and finally the 1922 Winston Churchill protocols. The discovery of a large amount of oil in Kirkuk in 1927 raised the stakes considerably.

Once some working knowledge of this era is achieved, folks will gain a greater understanding of the mess that is today, the Middle East, and why the various factions in Iraq are extremely sensitive about anyone “occupying” their country “for their own good.”

I do not know whether or not American men and women in uniform are given a primer in the complex history of the region before they are deployed. Hopefully they are. Nevertheless, any study of the region’s history exacerbates why a working understanding of Dr. Kilcullen’s work would be quite helpful as a methodology of approach in having the tools to engage, adapt and overcome.[2][3]

To which D9000 responds:

September 5th, 2007

A reply to your hopes, no soldiers are not given the historical background of why Iraq is carved up with so many different religious, ethnic, and political factions.

Most don’t know that the Kurds actually reside in Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria.

The Turks like to mass their troops on the northern border of Iraq and threaten the Peshmurga (Kurdish freedom fighters/militant wing of the PUK/PDK) on a regular basis.

You could probably set your watch to this event just like the overthrow of a regime in Haiti. However like i said, good junior officers and senior NCO's are reading about these things and passing the knowledge down to lower levels.


As for the Battle of Habbaniya, during the Anglo-Iraqi War - the Rashīd `Alī al-Gaylānī Rebellion (April 18 to May 30, 1941) Habbaniya was the site of a battle between the British and German supported Iraqi forces, in which by the end of hostilities, the German Luftwaffe (and to a lesser degree, the Italian air force) got involved.

The short-lived Rashid Ali rebellion was a coup d'etat which brought to power a pro-German (anti-British to be exact) former prime minister by the name of Rashīd `Alī al-Gaylānī on April 2, 1941.

A series of disagreements between the subsequent pro-German Iraqi government and the British forces at the large RAF base at Lake Habbaniya deteriorated into open hostilities on May 2, 1941.

The British prevailed and a series of quick British victories led the British to occupy Fallujah by May 19th and Baghdad days later. The Rashid government quickly fell and by the end of May 1941, the British militarily controlled the country.

Iraq was then used as a base of operations to invade Syria and then Iran with a joint Russian-British effort. The Allied military occupation of Iraq lasted until October 26, 1947.

One account of the “Iraqi Revolt” can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/acrawford0/revolt.html

Also q.v.: the RAF Habbaniya Association.

According to “Hitting Metal with a Hammer:”

“The Commonwealth War Cemetery of Habbaniyah, Iraq, is the final resting place of 289 Commonwealth Servicemen and civilians, including women and children. 257 of them are from WWII.”

“During the intervening years, unlike most other War Cemeteries, Habbaniyah was both neglected and deliberately vandalised. A group of Ghurkas and US servicemen under former Sgt Maj Terry Pearson QO Highlanders, have been restoring Habbaniyah Cemetery.”

Also see some additional commentary and a series of photographs of the Commonwealth War Cemetery of Habbaniyah on Michael Yon’s web site here: “The Ghosts of Anbar, Part 1.”

**Photo credit: the RAF Habbaniya Association.

####
[1] "The Crocodile Dundee Factor":

September 15 is fast approaching. That’s when Gen. David H. Petraeus will give his report to Congress on the progress in the war in Iraq.

General Petraeus has become a household name in America as the military mind tapped to head-up President George W. Bush’s new way forward – or “surge” initiative announced January 10, 2007.

Even though most folks are well aware of General Petraeus, one wonders how many are aware of the work of Dr. David Kilcullen?

Any definitive discourse as to why the current military efforts in Iraq are successful must include some knowledge of Dr. Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency expert.


[2] In reference to Dr. Kilcullen’s work, a colleague – a war in Iraq veteran said:

Kilcullen is absolutely right by D9000

August 27, 2007

This is a fight that cannot be won at brigade or battalion level. This is a fight that junior officers and their supporting NCOs have to win. I am glad they are finally encouraging these concepts are learned down to the lowest levels.

Fortunately for myself, my company commander overseas believed in these practices and we implemented them daily.

By using all of these 28 articles (not that we knew anything about this essay at the time) we reduced the crime rate in our area of operations, reduced roadside bombing and helped build trust through security and building of infrastructure to give them a physical acknowledgement of our dedication to make this mission and their country a success.

The fact of the matter however, is that our basic training and officers training schools are still behind the ball in training these tactics and practices. These operations are not solely the domain of special operations forces anymore and training the conventional force should now reflect that.

Many junior officers are facing the fact that senior officers don’t understand this fight, and don’t want "their" army to change its ways.

Killing the terrorists is a primary objective, but there is so much more that should be going into this mission. Facing this, many junior officers train themselves through self-study and analysis of the contemporary operating environment, and similar historical accounts, such as the Philippines and Algiers.

The biggest factor that will contribute to successful implementation of these 28articles is soldier autonomy. Leadership has to let soldiers make decisions and be able to communicate that information to higher at a very rapid pace.

Giving soldiers at the team level this ability will create a soldier who can think through situations for himself and not just be an order follower.


[3] For more information about my colleague – read my Tentacle column from December 20, 2006: “An Uneasy Truce” – “Christmas is within a week and my thoughts and prayers go out to the men and women in uniform who are deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq…”
Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.
www.kevindayhoff.net
E-mail him at: kdayhoff AT carr DOT org or kevindayhoff AT gmail DOT com
His columns and articles appear in The Tentacle - www.thetentacle.com; Westminster Eagle Opinion; www.thewestminstereagle.com and Winchester Report.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

20070824 Our troops have earned more time by Rep. Baird, D-Washington State 3rd Dist.

Our troops have earned more time by Rep. Baird, D-Washington State 3rd Dist.



By Brian Baird, Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, represents Washington's 3rd Congressional District.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin: “Our troops have earned more time” on August 24th, 2007

Democrat Rep. Brian Baird is one of the most liberal members of Congress. Last week, he made headlines and angered moonbats after returning from Iraq and concluding that precipitous withdrawal would be disastrous. Today, he has an op-ed in the Seattle Times elaborating on the need to stay and fight despite his initial opposition to the war:

[…]

I imagine that the the Seattle Times staffers who were cheering Karl Rove’s resignation will not be cheering Brian Baird.

[…]

A related must-read: Greyhawk responds to the NYTimes op-ed by a group of 82d Airborne NCOs.

Via Vets for Freedom, a new ad campaign from Freedom’s Watch.

And in case you missed it, here’s a reminder of upcoming events and activities in Washington, D.C. in a few weeks: The return of the Eagles.

***

Other views…

The LATimes reports:

[…]

And GOP Sen. John Warner wants pullouts by Christmas.

Charles Krauthammer boils down what he sees as the “Iraqi convergence” and the path forward:

[…]

Update: Michelle Malkin: “The Left bashes Brian Baird” on August 28th, 2007

I highlighted Democrat Rep. Brian Baird’s op-ed last week in the Seattle Times arguing against precipitous withdrawal from Iraq after he returned from a trip there on the ground. The nutroots continue to be incensed with Baird’s conclusions.

Check out the reports on Baird’s appearance at a town hall meeting in Vancouver, Wa:

[…]

Oregonlive.com has more:

[…]

Here is video of Baird in Iraq from his website.

_____

Our troops have earned more time by Rep. Baird, D-Washington State 3rd Dist.

By Brian Baird, Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, represents Washington's 3rd Congressional District.

Special to The Seattle Times

The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks possible.

As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.

[…]

… how can someone who opposed the war now call for continuing the new directions that have been taken in Iraq? The answer is that the people, strategies and facts on the ground have changed for the better and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done.

[…]

From a strategic perspective, if we leave now, Iraq is likely to break into even worse sectarian conflict. The extremist regime in Iran will expand its influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Terrorist organizations, the people who cut off the heads of civilians, stone women to death, and preach hatred and intolerance, will be emboldened by our departure. In the ensuing chaos, the courageous Iraqi civilians, soldiers and political leaders who have counted on us will be left to the slaughter. No American who cares about human rights, security and our moral standing in the world can be comfortable letting these things happen.

[…]

I do not know the details of what the September report will contain, but I trust and respect Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. I have seen firsthand the progress they have made, and I firmly believe we must give them the time and resources they need to succeed.

[…]

Progress is being made and there is real reason for hope. It would be a tragic waste and lasting strategic blunder to let the hard-fought and important gains slip away, leaving chaos behind to haunt us and our allies for many years to come.

Read the entire piece by Representative Baird here: Our troops have earned more time by Rep. Baird, D-Washington State 3rd Dist.

Thursday, August 02, 2007

20070730 NYTimes Op-Ed: A War We Just Might Win by O’Hanlon and Pollack

NYTimes Op-Ed: A War We Just Might Win by O’Hanlon and Pollack

July 30, 2007

Op-Ed Contributor

A War We Just Might Win

Related:

By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK

By Michael E. O’Hanlon And Kenneth M. Pollack

Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.

Washington

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

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

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

[…]

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that 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.

Read the entire Op-Ed here: A War We Just Might Win

20070730 NYTimes Op-Ed: A War We Just Might Win by O’Hanlon and Pollack