Monday, June 16, 2014

Hey John Kerry, Iran's EFPs (Explosively Formed Penetrators) Killed Hundreds of U.S. Troops in #Iraq!

A number of outlets are reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry is opening talks on security cooperation with Iran, which is world's biggest state-sponsor of international terrorism.

For Example, at the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. may join Iran in effort to resolve crisis in Iraq"; at Politico, "John Kerry: U.S. open to talks with Iran over Iraq"; and the Wall Street Journal, "Iraq Loses Key City, as U.S. 'Open' to Iran Talks on Crisis."

It boggles the mind that the Obama administration would be seeking an entente with our greatest enemy in the region, or perhaps not, since the president and his treasonous cronies have been scheming to reduce U.S. global power from their first day in office.

Here's National Journal's report from 2011, "Record Number of U.S. Troops Killed by Iranian Weapons":
U.S. military commanders in Iraq say Iranian-made weaponry is killing American troops there at an unprecedented pace, posing new dangers to the remaining forces and highlighting Tehran’s intensifying push to gain influence over post-U.S. Iraq.

June was the deadliest month in more than two years for U.S. troops, with 14 killed. In May, the U.S. death toll was two. In April, it was 11. Senior U.S. commanders say the three primary Iranian-backed militias, Kataib Hezbollah, the Promise Day Brigade, and Asaib al Haq, and their rockets were behind 12 of the deaths in June.

A detailed U.S. military breakdown of June’s casualties illustrates the growing threat posed by Iranian munitions.

Military officials said six of the 14 dead troops were killed by so-called “explosively formed penetrators,” or EFPs, a sophisticated roadside bomb capable of piercing through even the best-protected U.S. vehicles. Five other troops were killed earlier in the month when a barrage of rockets slammed into their base in Baghdad. It was the largest single-day U.S. loss of life since April 2009, when a truck bomb killed five soldiers. The remaining three troops killed in June died after a rocket known as an “improvised rocket-assisted mortar,” or IRAM, landed in a remote U.S. outpost in southern Iraq.

U.S. officials say the EFPs, rockets, and IRAMs all come from neighboring Iran. Tehran denies providing the weaponry to Shia militias operating in Iraq.

“We’re seeing a sharp increase in the amount of munitions coming across the border, some manufactured as recently as 2010,” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, the top U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said in an interview. “These are highly lethal weapons, and their sheer volume is a major concern.”

Buchanan said much of the current weaponry is passing into the country through its formal border crossings with Iran. Current and former American military officers claim that those border crossings are guarded by Iraqi security personnel whose long-standing financial relationships with their Iranian counterparts means they will accept bribes or turn a blind eye in order to allow munitions through.
Back in 2007, the Washington post called EFPs "The Deadliest IEDs." See, "'The single most effective weapon against our deployed forces'":
IEDs have caused nearly two-thirds of the 3,100 American combat deaths in Iraq, and an even higher proportion of battle wounds. This year alone, through mid-July, they have also resulted in an estimated 11,000 Iraqi civilian casualties and more than 600 deaths among Iraqi security forces. To the extent that the United States is not winning militarily in Iraq, the roadside bomb, which as of Sept. 22 had killed or wounded 21,200 Americans, is both a proximate cause and a metaphor for the miscalculation and improvisation that have characterized the war.
EFPs constituted the most serious threat the coalition forces in Iraq. Here's Toby Harnden in 2006, at Telegraph UK, "Three Iranian factories 'mass-produce bombs to kill British in Iraq'":
Three factories in Iran are mass-producing the sophisticated roadside bombs used to kill British soldiers over the border in Iraq, it has been claimed.

The lethal bombs are being made by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps at ordnance factory sites in Tehran, according to opponents of the country's theocratic regime.

Designed to penetrate heavy armour, the devices being manufactured in Iran involve the use of "explosively formed projectiles" or EFPs, also known as shaped charges, often triggered by infra-red beams.

The weapons can pierce the armour of British and American tanks and armoured personnel carriers and completely destroy armoured Land Rovers, which are used by the majority of British troops on operations in Iraq.

The Sunday Telegraph revealed in April that Iranian-made devices employing several EFPs, directed at different angles, were being used in Iraq.

And in June, this newspaper obtained the first picture of one of the Iraqi insurgent weapons - designed to fire an armour-piercing EFP - believed to have been responsible for the deaths of 17 British soldiers.

British Government scientists have already established that the mines are precision-made weapons thought to have been turned on a lathe by craftsmen trained in the manufacture of munitions.

Members of the Washington-based Iran Policy Committee have released the details about the three bomb factories gathered by the exile group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran (NCRI).
Here are graphic photos of the destruction inflicted by these devices. In your mind's eye, situate yourself behind the controls of a Humvee patrolling Baghdad in 2007. Via Pajamas Media, "How Iran Is Killing U.S. Troops in Iraq." These projectiles explode at more than 2,000 feet-per-second:

EAPs photo clip_image4_zps75958301.jpg

EAPs photo clip_image5_zpsfb6f3222.jpg

And now the U.S. is seeking to give Tehran a lead role in resolving the crisis in Iraq? That'd be like opening talks on cooperation with the German High Command as British and French forces were being evacuated at Dunkirk in 1940.

The Obama administration has sold out American interests and placed the lives of Americans and untold number of Iraqis at risk. The solution is not to let Iran gain greater influence in Iraq. We have the options to reverse the ISIS advance. And we have over a decade of on-the-ground experience in defeating the jihadi extremist. All we need is the requisite leadership to beat back this incursion and avoid an existential defeat in the Middle East.

Obama's Iraq Disaster

From Marc Thiessen, at the Washington Post:
When Obama took office he inherited a pacified Iraq, where the terrorists had been defeated both militarily and ideologically.

Militarily, thanks to Bush’s surge, coupled with the Sunni Awakening, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI, now the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) was driven from the strongholds it had established in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces. It controlled no major territory, and its top leader — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — had been killed by U.S. Special Operations forces.

Ideologically, the terrorists had suffered a popular rejection. Iraq was supposed to be a place where al-Qaeda rallied the Sunni masses to drive America out, but instead, the Sunnis joined with Americans to drive al-Qaeda out — a massive ideological defeat.  Obama took that inheritance and squandered it, with two catastrophic mistakes:

First, he withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — allowing the defeated terrorists to regroup and reconstitute themselves.

Second, he failed to support the moderate, pro-Western opposition in neighboring Syria — creating room for ISIS to fill the security vacuum. ISIS took over large swaths of Syrian territory, established a safe haven, used it to recruit and train thousands of jihadists, and prepared their current offensive in Iraq.

The result: When Obama took office, the terrorists had been driven from their safe havens; now they are on threatening to take control of a nation. Iraq is on the cusp of turning into what Afghanistan was in the 1990s — a safe haven from which to plan attacks on America and its allies.
More.

American Soccer Players Don't Fake Injuries or Exaggerate Contact as Much as Others

I posted a few soccer tweets the other day, joking about how I was waiting for the Angels game to come on (although I didn't go so far as to say soccer wasn't an American sport --- I used to enjoy playing soccer as a kid).

I later got a kick when I saw Althouse hilarious dissing the soccer sensationalism over the World Cup. See, "Why I'm not clicking on Google doodles for a while." And the comments are a riot:
Finally Althouse gets something right. One of the few remaining reasons to be proud of being an American is that we are the only people who realize that soccer is shit. It's the only sport that bans the use of the hands, and using our hands is what makes us human. Thus, by definition, soccer is a game for sub-humans, and, boy, do the fans show it. To be fair to them, though, the games themselves are so boring that the only way to stay awake is to start a riot or a war, or at least turn to the guy next to you and head-butt his face in.
In any case, I guess we're not so great at the sport's cheating culture either. At the New York Times, "On Soccer: Where Dishonesty Is Best Policy, U.S. Soccer Falls Short":
NATAL, Brazil — The list of improvements that the United States men’s soccer team needs to make is considerable. Coach Jurgen Klinsmann would like to see a more consistent back line, better touch from his midfielders and plenty more production from the attackers.  
Yet as Klinsmann and his players begin their World Cup here Monday against Ghana, trickier questions of soccer acumen have come into focus:

Are the Americans bad at playacting? And if so, should they try to get better?

The first part seems easy enough. For better or worse, gamesmanship and embellishment — or, depending on your sensibilities, cheating — are part of high-level soccer. Players exaggerate contact. They amplify the mundane. They turn niggling knocks into something closer to grim death.

They do all this to force the referee to make decisions, with the hope that if he is confronted by imagined bloodshed often enough, he will ultimately determine he has seen some. Applying this sort of pressure on the official is a skill that, by their own admission, United States players generally perform poorly, if they perform it at all...
More.

#Obama Faces Fresh Questions on 'How Wars End'

From Julie Pace, at AP, "For Obama, Fresh Questions About How Wars End":

From the Rose Garden, President Barack Obama outlined a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of the last U.S. troops in Afghanistan and said confidently, "This is how wars end in the 21st century."

But less than three weeks after his May 27 announcement, there is a sudden burst of uncertainty surrounding the way Obama has moved to bring the two conflicts he inherited to a close.

In Iraq, a fast-moving Islamic insurgency is pressing toward Baghdad, raising the possibility of fresh American military action more than two years after the last U.S. troops withdrew. The chaos in Iraq also raises questions about whether Obama's plans to keep a small military presence in Afghanistan until the end of 2016 can prevent a similar backslide there or whether extremists are simply lying in wait until the U.S. withdrawal deadline passes.

"Could all of this have been avoided? The answer is absolutely yes," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said of the deteriorating situation in Iraq. McCain, one of the White House's chief foreign policy critics and Obama's 2008 presidential rival, added that Obama is "about to make the same mistake in Afghanistan he made in Iraq."

That criticism strikes at the heart of Obama's clearest foreign policy pledge: a commitment to ending the conflicts started by his predecessor, George W. Bush, and keeping the U.S. out of further military entanglements.

The turmoil in Iraq presents a particularly troubling dilemma for the White House. Obama's early opposition to the Iraq war was a defining factor in his 2008 presidential campaign and he cast the withdrawal of all American troops in late 2011 as a promise fulfilled. The president and his top advisers have since cited the end of the war as one of Obama's top achievements in office.

But the vacuum left by American forces has been filled by waves of resurgent violence and burgeoning Sunni extremism. Still, Obama resisted calls for the U.S. to get involved, saying it was now Iraq's sovereign government's responsibility to ensure the country's security.

The current situation in Iraq appears to have made that stance untenable.

Obama, who once called Iraq a "dumb war," now says it is clear the government in Baghdad needs more help from the U.S. in order to contain a violent al-Qaida inspired group that, he said, could pose a threat to American security interests.

While the White House is still evaluating a range of options, administration officials say the president is considering strikes with manned aircrafts, but only if Iraqi leaders were to outline a political plan for easing sectarian tensions.

Even limited and targeted U.S. airstrikes in Iraq would mark an almost unimaginable turn of events for many of the war-weary Americans who twice elected Obama president.
Continue reading.

Laura Ingraham on Sunday's News Shows

Ingraham played a huge hand in the Dave Brat win last week.

Watch, from "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," with Jonathan Karl moderating, "'This Week': Powerhouse Roundtable I."


And on Howard Kurtz's show, on Fox News, "Radio Host Helped Sink Cantor - Ingraham Campaigned With David Brat."

#ISIS Leader Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri al-Samarrai Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Looks to Gain Ground in #Iraq

At WSJ, "Top Militant Carves New Identity for Group: Leader of al Qaeda Offshoot ISIS, Emphasizing Practical Gains and Patriotism Over Ideology, Distinguishes His Mission":
As a master's-degree student at a university in Baghdad in 1997, Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri al-Samarrai was so poor he took cash handouts every month from a kindly professor, said a former classmate.

Now flush with cash, armed to the teeth and backed by an army known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, he is within striking distance of attacking the city where spent his humble youth.  The rise of the militant Islamist leader, who changed his name to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi in 2010, is a rags-to-riches story that mirrors the rise of the ISIS militia he now leads.

By emphasizing practical gains over ideology and placing a premium on battlefield victories rather than lofty principals, Mr. Baghdadi's ISIS has become one of the most powerful militant Islamist groups, said experts on militant Islamism.  For the West, ISIS's strength and identity have created a new sort of enemy that has a reputation for brutality and in many ways looks and acts like the army of a state seeking to expand its territory.

ISIS is "actualizing the idea of the Islamic state. On the jihadi side of things, there's appeal in that," said Aaron Zelin, an expert on Islamist groups at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  "You have guys just talking about it and al Qaeda and Jabhat Al Nusra saying they'll get there, whereas ISIS is just doing it," he said, referring to ISIS's rivals in Syria and throughout the world.

While ISIS shares much of the same ideology and jihadist vocabulary as al Qaeda, it differs on methodology. Whereas al Qaeda, which got its start during the resistance against the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s, behaves as a terrorist organization advancing a global ideology, ISIS in many ways acts like the army of a sovereign nation with defined borders and a semi-legitimate system of governance...
Keep reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi."

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Obama-Addled Democrat Slurs Iraq Vet J.R. Saltzman: 'You got your arm blown off cause of #BushCheneyLies...'

Man, this dude is overdosing on the leftist Obama-laced Kool-aid.

At Twitchy, "‘Beneath contempt’: Iraq vet J.R. Salzman told he lost arm because of Bush and not doing his job":


Total asshole:



Obama Sneakily Releases 12 Jihadis from Parwan Detention Center in #Afghanistan

Obama's sending the terrorists back to the battlefield, very quietly and secretly.

At Jihad Watch, "U.S. quietly releases 12 jihadis from U.S. military prison in Afghanistan":

Parwan Detention Center in Afghanistan photo bagram132way_wide-5e1e30a42022da2eea2b808148af37e5829de01e-s6-c30_zps1ebe4d68.jpg
Just in case the five jihadis traded for Bowe Bergdahl weren’t enough, Barack Obama has released twelve more. What could possibly go wrong? Ten of them are Pakistanis, and “Pakistani officials have said that returned detainees would be kept under surveillance to make sure they had no militant links.” We all know that Pakistani authorities are completely honest and indefatigably anti-jihad!
Keep reading.


IDF Soldiers Arrest Top Hamas Terrorist Hassan Yousef

Via Blazing Cat Fur, who's got a complete report, "Things heat up in Israel over kidnapped teens: Shots fired at soldiers near Jerusalem, rockets at Ashkelon."




Lara Logan: #ISIS Arms Seizures Have 'significantly changed the dynamics of what we face...'

I watched this morning, the first time I've seen her on TV since that botched "60 Minutes" segment on Benghazi some time ago. She's lucky she wasn't fired. But good thing. If you know Logan, she's really one of the few network reporters out there who truly understands the nature of the enemy and the costs to international security from an American and Iraq defeat across the region.

At Truth Revolt, "Lara Logan Explains the Disaster of Losing US Weapons to ISIS."



And flashback to 2012, "Lara Logan Speaks Truth to War on Terror."

U.S. Must Put Out the Fire in #Iraq — With Ground Troops

So far the first analysis I've read thus far expliciting calling for a ground troop deployment.

From Frederick Kagan, at the New York Daily News, "Put out this fire":

 photo vwqivm_zpsbae605a7.jpg
President Obama says that he is mulling options for providing support to Iraq, but with great reluctance. "The U.S. is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis," he said Friday.

A political plan for Iraq is vital. Everything the administration has said about the sectarianism and mis-governance of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki is true. Assistance to Iraq must include strong conditions to press Maliki to change his approach - or leave office.

But the Iraqis need vigorous and intelligent American involvement right now to prevent a stalemate that will leave ISIS in control of much of northern Iraq. That is an unacceptable outcome, one that would do far more damage to America than our retreat from Vietnam in 1975.

We face a simple choice: We can either rejoin our demoralized Iraqi partners in the fight against ISIS or we can watch as this Al Qaeda franchise solidifies its control over several million Iraqis and Syrians, completes its plundering of military bases and continues to build up, train and equip an honest-to-goodness military.

Rejoining the fight means immediately sending air support; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets; air transportation; Special Operations forces; training teams; and more military equipment back into Iraq. It does not mean re-invading Iraq.

Immediately sending air support and Special Forces to Mosul might shock ISIS and embolden the population enough to rout the jihadis from the city. But if it does not, the Iraqi Security Forces may well prove unable to regain Mosul on their own.
In that case, a small contingent of U.S. ground forces would be required...
Keep reading.

RELATED: At the Wall Street Journal, "Militants Claim Photos Show Mass Execution in Iraq: Twitter Account Associated With ISIS Appears to Dozens of Captured Men in Civilian Clothes," and "Iraq Militants Claim Soldier Massacre: Photos of Alleged Killings Posted Online as U.S., Iran Near Talks on Cooperation to Counter Insurgents."

Also at Long War Journal, "ISIS photographs detail execution of Iraqi soldiers."

Beware the Islamic #Caliphate in the Middle East

From political scientist Michael Curtis, at American Thinker, "Beware the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East":
The Obama administration confronts a difficult problem of what role to play in the context of the success of ISIS, civil war in both Iraq and Syria, and sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. The administration was wrong when the chief of staff, Denis McDonough, declared in 2011 that the U.S. had helped bring about a secure, stable, self-reliant Iraq. No one is presently calling for American troops to fight on Iraqi soil. But should the U.S. now supply drones and manned aircraft, strengthen intelligence capabilities, and aid in more training exercises? Can the administration and U.S. citizens in general forget the American sacrifices and losses in the battles for Mosul and Fallujah? The Obama belief that the tide of war was receding and therefore that the U.S. could reduce its forces abroad, and concentrate on “nation-building,” was always arguable, if popular in public opinion, and now resembles a policy of appeasement. It was unhelpful that Obama suggested to Congress that it repeal the 2001 Authorization to use military force against al-Qaeda.

American refusal or hesitation in helping to control the Islamic threat in Iraq is even more unacceptable because the objective of ISIS is clear. It is fighting to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Persian Gulf area, and to become the leader of global jihad. ISIS has declared that “we are soldiers of Islam and took on our responsibility to bring back the glory of the Islamic Caliphate."

Whatever the decisions made by President Obama on the increasingly perilous situation in Iraq, and the regional instability caused by the ambitions of ISIS, he has to take into account two other facts: the decision for total withdrawal in 2016 from Afghanistan, a country menaced by the Taliban, and the interest of some Palestinians to create another version of the Islamic caliphate surrounding or replacing the State of Israel. Will the U.S. and the European Union face with all their courage the fight against Islamic tyranny and the support for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East?
RTWT.

Father's Day #Rule5

I'm going to hold off on a big roundup today. I want to keep up with developments in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Pirate's cove has some lovely Rule 5 blogging, "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup," and "If All You See……is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle which should be banned for Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist."

Have a great day everybody!

ADDED: At First Street Journal, "Rule 5 Blogging: Back to the IDF!," and Goodstuff's, "GOODSTUFF'S BLOGGING MAGAZINE (143rd Issue)."

Bikini Hotness photo 05-Way-Enjoy_zps687dc927.jpg

U.S. Begins Evacuation of U.S. Embassy in #Iraq

At the New York Times (via Memeorandum), "U.S. to Evacuate Many Staff Members From Baghdad Embassy."

Also at Gateway Pundit, "U.S. EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD to Begin Evacuation," and Zero Hedge, "U.S. Orders Partial Evacuation of Baghdad Embassy as Aircraft Carrier Arrives in Gulf." (Added: From Robert Spencer, at Jihad Watch, "U.S. to evacuate substantial number of personnel from Baghdad embassy."

And here's this morning's report from CBS News:



Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair Calls for Western Intervention in #Iraq

At the BBC, "Tony Blair: 'We didn't cause Iraq crisis'."

And from the Office of Tony Blair, "Iraq, Syria and the Middle East – An essay by Tony Blair":

The civil war in Syria with its attendant disintegration is having its predictable and malign effect. Iraq is now in mortal danger. The whole of the Middle East is under threat.  We will have to re-think our strategy towards Syria; support the Iraqi Government in beating back the insurgency; whilst making it clear that Iraq’s politics will have to change for any resolution of the current crisis to be sustained. Then we need a comprehensive plan for the Middle East that correctly learns the lessons of the past decade. In doing so, we should listen to and work closely with our allies across the region, whose understanding of these issues is crucial and who are prepared to work with us in fighting the root causes of this extremism which goes far beyond the crisis in Iraq or Syria.

It is inevitable that events in Mosul have led to a re-run of the arguments over the decision to remove Saddam Hussein in 2003. The key question obviously is what to do now. But because some of the commentary has gone immediately to claim that but for that decision, Iraq would not be facing this challenge; or even more extraordinary, implying that but for the decision, the Middle East would be at peace right now; it is necessary that certain points are made forcefully before putting forward a solution to what is happening now.  3/4 years ago Al Qaida in Iraq was a beaten force. The country had massive challenges but had a prospect, at least, of overcoming them. It did not pose a threat to its neighbours. Indeed, since the removal of Saddam, and despite the bloodshed, Iraq had contained its own instability mostly within its own borders.

Though the challenge of terrorism was and is very real, the sectarianism of the Maliki Government snuffed out what was a genuine opportunity to build a cohesive Iraq. This, combined with the failure to use the oil money to re-build the country, and the inadequacy of the Iraqi forces have led to the alienation of the Sunni community and the inability of the Iraqi army to repulse the attack on Mosul and the earlier loss of Fallujah. And there will be debate about whether the withdrawal of US forces happened too soon.

However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria.  To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war. It is true that they originate in Iraq and have shifted focus to Iraq over the past months. But, Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria.

As for how these events reflect on the original decision to remove Saddam, if we want to have this debate, we have to do something that is rarely done: put the counterfactual i.e. suppose in 2003, Saddam had been left running Iraq.  Now take each of the arguments against the decision in turn...

The reality is that the whole of the Middle East and beyond is going through a huge, agonising and protracted transition. We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven't. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not; and whether action or inaction is the best policy and there is a lot to be said on both sides. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it.

The problems of the Middle East are the product of bad systems of politics mixed with a bad abuse of religion going back over a long time. Poor governance, weak institutions, oppressive rule and a failure within parts of Islam to work out a sensible relationship between religion and Government have combined to create countries which are simply unprepared for the modern world. Put into that mix, young populations with no effective job opportunities and education systems that do not correspond to the requirements of the future economy, and you have a toxic, inherently unstable matrix of factors that was always – repeat always - going to lead to a revolution.

But because of the way these factors interrelate, the revolution was never going to be straightforward. This is the true lesson of Iraq. But it is also the lesson from the whole of the so-called Arab Spring. The fact is that as a result of the way these societies have developed and because Islamism of various descriptions became the focal point of opposition to oppression, the removal of the dictatorship is only the beginning not the end of the challenge. Once the regime changes, then out come pouring all the tensions – tribal, ethnic and of course above all religious; and the rebuilding of the country, with functioning institutions and systems of Government, becomes incredibly hard. The extremism de-stabilises the country, hinders the attempts at development, the sectarian divisions become even more acute and the result is the mess we see all over the region. And beyond it. Look at Pakistan or Afghanistan and the same elements are present.

Understanding this and analysing properly what has happened, is absolutely vital to the severe challenge of working out what we can do about it. So rather than continuing to re-run the debate over Iraq from over 11 years ago, realise that whatever we had done or not done, we would be facing a big challenge today.  Indeed we now have three examples of Western policy towards regime change in the region. In Iraq, we called for the regime to change, removed it and put in troops to try to rebuild the country. But intervention proved very tough and today the country is at risk again. In Libya, we called for the regime to change, we removed it by airpower, but refused to put in troops and now Libya is racked by instability, violence and has exported vast amounts of trouble and weapons across North Africa and down into sub- Saharan Africa. In Syria we called for the regime to change, took no action and it is in the worst state of all.

And when we do act, it is often difficult to discern the governing principles of action. Gaddafi, who in 2003 had given up his WMD and cooperated with us in the fight against terrorism, is removed by us on the basis he threatens to kill his people but Assad, who actually kills his people on a vast scale including with chemical weapons, is left in power.  So what does all this mean? How do we make sense of it? I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it. But I have also, since leaving office, spent a great deal of time in the region and have studied its dynamics carefully.

The beginning of understanding is to appreciate that resolving this situation is immensely complex. This is a generation long struggle. It is not a ‘war’ which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.

Ok, so if it is that hard, why not stay out of it all, the current default position of the West? The answer is because the outcome of this long transition impacts us profoundly. At its simplest, the jihadist groups are never going to leave us alone. 9/11 happened for a reason. That reason and the ideology behind it have not disappeared.

However more than that, in this struggle will be decided many things: the fate of individual countries, the future of the Middle East, and the direction of the relationship between politics and the religion of Islam. This last point will affect us in a large number of ways. It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations. And it will affect how Islam develops across the world. If the extremism is defeated in the Middle East it will eventually be defeated the world over, because this region is its spiritual home and from this region has been spread the extremist message.  There is no sensible policy for the West based on indifference. This is, in part, our struggle, whether we like it or not...
Continue reading.


Tunisian #ISIS Jihadist Executes 5 Captured Soldiers in #Iraq — WARNING GRAPHIC

According to Dubai journalist Jenan Moussa on Twitter (here, here, and here):



Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

More on the jihadist's Facebook page. Social media for the caliphate.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

Obama ISIS photo 149751_600_zpsf7af7095.jpg

Also at Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up...", and "Reaganite Republican, "

More at Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – Desertion," and Randy's Roundtable, "Friday Nite Funnies."

CARTOON CREDIT: Marian Kamensky.

#ISIS Jihadists Prepare for Khalifah in #Iraq

Checking the #ISIS pages on Twitter, there's lots of talk of jihadist forces quickly encroaching on Baghdad, but it's mostly in Arabic, so I can't confirm.

That said, numerous ISIS accounts are boasting of the coming Khalifah (caliphate).

Inshallah.


Miranda Kerr Flaunts Cleavage in New Photoshoot for 'The Edit' Magazine

At London's Daily Mail, "She's the ultimate biker babe! Miranda Kerr flaunts considerable cleavage in a low cut top as she straddles a motorcycle in VERY racy new photo shoot."

Sen. Lindsey Graham: 'The Next 9/11' Now Being Planted by #Iraq Chaos

I caught this interview earlier.

I don't love Sen. Grahamnesty, but as he says at the clip, he's been to Iraq more times than he can count.



VIDEO: Mitt Romney Eerily Predicted Epic # Iraq Collapse in '07

This is fantastic!

Via Independent Journal Review, "In 2007, Romney Predicted Current Events In Iraq So Accurately He Must Have Had A Time Machine."


Oh My! Leftist Wonk Rosa Brooks Shreds Obama's Foreign Policy in One Tweet!

Via Theo Spark:


Brooks is very far to the left. Indeed, seems to me O's foreign policy would be right in her wheelhouse. Chalk it up to one more political opportunist abandoning this administration faster than you can say "Election 2016."

Leftists 'Re-Litigate' the #Iraq War

I noted the other day how MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski wanted "to go back and 're-litigate' the origins of the war in 2003."

I suppose it's a standard of our time, but everything nowadays --- and I mean everything --- is evaluated through the harsh lens of political polarization.

Today's exhibit: David Atkins' piece attacking the evil "neocons" at the Washington Monthly, "The brutal neoconservative legacy in Iraq."

The funny thing about this: I don't disagree with a lot of the criticism. It's just too obviously bothersome to note that President Bush had bipartisan support for approving 2002's Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, including a majority of the Democrats (58 percent) in the Senate, and especially Hillary Clinton. (And recall President Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, authorizing regime change in Baghdad as a continuation of U.S. policy since the 1991 Persian Gulf War).



So, yeah, a lot went wrong with the war, but the deployment had the support of the American people, as well as top political leaders across the spectrum. The attacks on the war since 2003 have been the most treasonous political about-face in modern times, if not in American history. The true face of the Democrat Party was revealed for all to see at that time, and the country ultimately elected Barack Obama to the White House on a hard left antiwar platform. And how's that working out? The fruits of the antiwar movement are now seen today from the release of Bowe Bergdahl to the coming collapse of Baghdad. That's the Democrat Party legacy. And that's what's going to be remembered when people ask "Who lost Iraq"?

Hat Tip: BooMan Tribune and Memeorandum.

Nicole Kidman at 'Grace of Monaco' Press Conference at Shanghai International Film Festival on Sunday

Lovely.

At London's Daily Mail, "Perky Nicole Kidman covers up her ample cleavage two days after wearing a VERY low cut gown that stole the show."


VIDEO: MI-35 Helicopter Gunship Fires on #ISIS Jihadists in Iraq

Via SilverIsTheNew:


Footage released by Iraq’s defense ministry on Saturday showed a helicopter gunship targeting what Iraq says are Sunni militant targets in northern Iraq. The Mi-35 helicopter gunship fired missiles at several buildings and a vehicle in the provinces of Nineveh and Salaheddin.
More at RT.

Plus, at London's Daily Mail, "How Isis have rampaged towards the capital: A blow by blow account of how Islamist militants outnumbered 20-to-1 by the army cut through huge swathes of Iraq."

Check back for updates throughout the day.

#Angels Rally to Beat #Braves 11-6 in 13 Innings

One heckuva game.

At LAT, "It's a lucky 13th for the Angels against Atlanta."

Just read it all at the link.

Mike DiGiovanna on Twitter was going crazy himself, to say nothing of my friend lamblock!


Judge Jeanine Pirro: 'You Need to Be Worried...'

Week in and week out, Judge Jeanine broadcasts the most devastating attacks on this cowardly presidential regime. But believe it when she says even she's scared this time. The disintegration of Iraq threatens Americans. The war will come to the homeland. It's only a matter of time. This to our Nobel Prize winning president, who declared that the U.S. was leaving behind a "stable, peaceful Iraq."

Hardly.



For the U.S., a Disappointing World

From Walter Russell Mead, at WSJ (via Blazing Cat Fur), "The chaos in Iraq is just the latest evidence that history doesn't follow America's optimistic script":
It has not been a good year for the liberal world order. Not since the end of the Cold War have so many crises erupted in so many places: Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's relentless push in the East and South China seas, and the surge in jihadist violence and terror from Boko Haram in Nigeria to the religious war that now engulfs Syria and Iraq. This is not what Americans thought the world would look like in the third decade since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As we struggle to understand why the post-Cold War world has been such an unpleasant place, it is tempting to turn foreign policy into a political football. There are plenty of Democrats who think that everything would have been fine if President George W. Bush hadn't blundered into the Iraq war. There is also no shortage of Republicans who think that everything would have worked out fine if only Barack Obama hadn't made it to the White House.

While it is true that both presidents got some important things wrong, it is what unites them rather than what divides them that is the root cause of our troubles. Both Messrs. Bush and Obama, like many of their fellow citizens, radically underestimate the dangers and difficulties in the path of historical progress...
Continue reading.

#Iraq Military May Not Be Capable of Counteroffensive

From Jessica Lewis, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Terrorist Army Marching on Baghdad":
The extremists are encircling Baghdad and likely planning an offensive. But ISIS may move again to strike Samarra, 70 miles to the north and close to the ISIS front line. If these Islamists, who are Sunnis, seize Samarra's al-Askari mosque—a revered Shiite monument—the country will be thrown into another sectarian civil war. That has long been ISIS's aim. In a civil war, ISIS thinks it can emerge as the stronger military power. Then the group would have a state, would be fully armed and ready to expand westward, into Syria's northern cities beyond ISIS-held Raqqa.

The Shiite-dominated Iraqi troops would likely fight to protect Samarra and Baghdad. But the Iraqi military is not at full strength, and its forces are not combat-ready. Desertion, low morale and maintenance deficiencies are rampant. Over the past year, ISIS has thoroughly intimidated Iraqi troops in the north. Three of the four northern army divisions are defunct. The remainder are gathering now in Samarra and Taji, regrouping under other formations for the protection of Samarra and Baghdad.

Another problem: Many of Iraq's deployable units are already reinforcing Anbar province in the west against ISIS. According to 2013 estimates, the Iraqi army contains 14 maneuver divisions, roughly 200,000 soldiers in addition to 40,000 federal police and 300,000 local police. Four of the army's divisions are assigned to northern areas of Iraq that have just fallen out of state control. If Iraqi security forces try to retake the north, ISIS would be joined by Baathist elements loyal to the memory of Saddam Hussein and additional insurgent groups in trying to repel them. The Iraqi military simply may not have the capacity to launch a sufficient counteroffensive...
Continue reading.

Recall I posted Jessica Lewis yesterday, "#Iraq Analysis — The Battle for Baghdad: Scenarios."


Saturday, June 14, 2014

Iraqi PM Orders Troops to Make Stand in #Samarra; U.S. Sends Aircraft Carrier

The report from earlier today, at CNN.

The U.S.S. George H. W. Bush should be in the Northern Persian Gulf about now.


#ISIS Posts Sunni Police Chief Beheading in #WorldCup Tweet — WARNING GRAPHIC

At the New York Post, "‘This is our ball’: Iraqi jihadis cut off head for World Cup tweet."

Twitter shut down the @ANSAR_DWLA_IRAQ feed, but here's the original photo:

Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

#Iraq Analysis — The Battle for Baghdad: Scenarios

From Jessica Lewis, at the Institute for the Study of War:
Baghdad

ISIS will seek to target the seat of Iraq’s government in the Green Zone. This may be a symbolic target rather than an operational target. Strategically, ISIS does not need to overrun the Green Zone. They only need to demonstrate the ability to maneuver ground forces into the city center, past the best that the ISF can muster, and touch the flagpole. If ISIS is able to assault the Green Zone with a ground attack force, they will realize the full defeat of the Iraqi Security Forces. The command and control of Shi’a militias, police forces, and Iraqi civilians in the wake of such an attack would overwhelm the Baghdad Operations Command. The core functions of the Iraqi state would break down. Baghdad would become a ward of the Iranian government to protect the Khadimiya shrine, and Baghdad would become a buffer zone for low-level attacks across an Iranian-ISIS demarcation line...
That's at taste.

Continue reading.

Convenient: IRS Has 'Lost' Two Years of Lois Lerner's Emails

From Katie Pavlich, at Town Hall.



Also at Twitchy, "‘PHONY SCANDAL ALERT!’ Disbelief after IRS claims Lois Lerner emails have been ‘lost’," and "Rep. Jason Chaffetz: IRS testified that Lois Lerner’s emails were archived [video]."


VIDEO: Angelina Jolie — We Should Have Done More in #Syria

"It's really quite horrifying as a humanitarian ... we are lacking in leadership in the world, in general."

Yeah, well, you wouldn't want to wander too off the Hollywood-leftist reservation, heh.

Watch: "Actress Angelina Jolie: We Should Have Done More in Syria."

Neil Cavuto Interview with Mark Levin on #Iraq Disintegration

The great thing about Mark Levin is he always indicates that he's not a military or defense expert, "But when I see caravans of barbarians who're decapitating people who supported us, going down street after street after street, and our bombers and our jet-fighters just sit there getting rusty, that bothers me a lot."

Watch:



Petra Nemcova for GQ Portugal May 2014

Wow.

At Sports Illustrated, "Petra Nemcova and GQ Portugal rethink the “sideboob,” Sean Avery has some thoughts on Hilary Rhoda’s bridal look, and more news."

VIDEO: President Barack Obama #Commencement Address at University of California, Irvine

Here's the full video, "President Obama Delivers the Commencement Address at the University of California, Irvine."

Right here at home in Irvine. Turns out he threw out the "post-partisan" script.

At CNN, "Climate change deniers ‘serious threat’ to future, Obama says."



The Unelectable Whiteness of Scott Walker?

Seriously?

The New Republic's epic smear of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, at Althouse, "'I live in Wisconsin, and I've been following Scott Walker since the 2010 election here, and I have no idea what the 'toxic strain of racial politics' refers to. But congratulations to TNR for it's eye-catching and weird sexualization of Walker: 'Scott Walker Is So Hot Right Now' and for having the nerve to sub-head with "too bad" as you smear him with the accusation of "toxic strain of racial politics'."

TNR Walker Smear photo tnrwalker_zpse558d56f.jpg

Althouse subscribes to TNR and has the smear, "The Unelectable Whiteness of Scott Walker: A Journey Through the Poisonous World That Produced a Republican Star," on her iPad.

Obama's Rush for #Iraq Exit and Maliki's Autocratic Rule Ensured Much Hard-Won Progress Would Be Lost

From Fouad Ajami, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Men Who Sealed Iraq's Disaster With a Handshake":

Two men bear direct responsibility for the mayhem engulfing Iraq: Barack Obama and Nouri al-Maliki. The U.S. president and Iraqi prime minister stood shoulder to shoulder in a White House ceremony in December 2011 proclaiming victory. Mr. Obama was fulfilling a campaign pledge to end the Iraq war. There was a utopian tone to his pronouncement, suggesting that the conflicts that had been endemic to that region would be brought to an end. As for Mr. Maliki, there was the heady satisfaction, in his estimation, that Iraq would be sovereign and intact under his dominion.

In truth, Iraq's new Shiite prime minister was trading American tutelage for Iranian hegemony. Thus the claim that Iraq was a fully sovereign country was an idle boast. Around the Maliki regime swirled mightier, more sinister players. In addition to Iran's penetration of Iraqi strategic and political life, there was Baghdad's unholy alliance with the brutal Assad regime in Syria, whose members belong to an Alawite Shiite sect and were taking on a largely Sunni rebellion. If Bashar Assad were to fall, Mr. Maliki feared, the Sunnis of Iraq would rise up next.

Now, even as Assad clings to power in Damascus, Iraq's Sunnis have risen up and joined forces with the murderous, al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which controls much of northern Syria and the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tikrit. ISIS marauders are now marching on the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, and Baghdad itself has become a target.

In a dire sectarian development on Friday, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, called on his followers to take up arms against ISIS and other Sunni insurgents in defense of the Baghdad government. This is no ordinary cleric playing with fire. For a decade, Ayatollah Sistani stayed on the side of order and social peace. Indeed, at the height of Iraq's sectarian troubles in 2006-07, President George W. Bush gave the ayatollah credit for keeping the lid on that volcano. Now even that barrier to sectarian violence has been lifted.

This sad state of affairs was in no way preordained. In December 2011, Mr. Obama stood with Mr. Maliki and boasted that "in the coming years, it's estimated that Iraq's economy will grow even faster than China's or India's." But the negligence of these two men—most notably in their failure to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have maintained an adequate U.S. military presence in Iraq—has resulted in the current descent into sectarian civil war.
Outstanding.

Keep reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani Calls for Shia Jihad."

Iraq Veteran J.R. Salzman Slams Obama — #Iraq

Brutal.

At Twitchy, "‘Why did you throw our sacrifices away?’: Vet J.R. Salzman slams President Obama."


Wolf Blitzer Interview with John McCain on Iraq's 'Existential Threat'

Heh, he wants Susan Rice fired.

Fire 'em all for that matter!


Hundreds of British Jihadis Flooding Into #Iraq

Hoisting the black flag over Iraq.

And after they're done there, they'll head back to Britain to rain down destruction on the infidels.

At London's Daily Mail, "British fanatics heading to Iraq to join ISIS militants in their HUNDREDS amid fears 'they could bring terror to UK'."

 photo 1000px-flag_of_islamic_state_of_iraq-svg_zpsda0ee347.png


Doctors Use Forceps to Remove Cellphone Stuck Down Man's Throat

So disgusting the nurse in the background is gobsmackingly horrified. Her face says it all as a long stream of saliva drools off the phone as doctors rip the thing from deep inside the man's oral cavity.

Truly sick.

At Mirror UK.

And on YouTube, too gross to embed (and that's saying a lot), "See man with mobile phone stuck in his mouth reducing medics to laughter."

Iraqi Military Repels #ISIS Jihadis North of Baghdad

Really?

Well, we'll see how they hold up.

I expect word anytime now of Maliki fleeing to Tehran.

But see the Wall Street Journal, "Iraqi Military Makes Gains North of Baghdad in Conflict With ISIS: U.S. Moves Aircraft Carrier into Persian Gulf."

Also at Al Alam, "Iraq forces retake town north of Baghdad."

Sounds like very limited and isolated success thus far.

Check back for updates.

Obama's Appeasement Midwifes the Birth of Islamic #Caliphate In Iraq

At IBD:

From Syria to Iraq to Afghanistan to Pakistan, the jihadist dream of a caliphate stretching from the Atlantic to the Himalayas is taking shape. It's aided by a feckless foreign policy not seen since Neville Chamberlain.

As President Obama learns about it in the newspapers, the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is dismembering Iraq, adding Saddam Hussein's birthplace of Tikrit to the list of cities once liberated by the U.S. that are now flying jihadist flags. The war on terrorism is over all right, and Obama lost it.

An American official has told The Blaze that the U.S. Embassy, United Nations and other foreign organizations with a presence in Iraq are "preparing contingency plans to evacuate employees." We might soon see helicopters on the roof of our embassy in Baghdad in a scene reminiscent of the last days of Saigon as Iraq becomes Obama's Vietnam.

Unlike Vietnam, ISIS is not interested in liberating the homeland from colonial oppressors. ISIS and other radical Islamists have long proclaimed a goal of restoring a pan-Islamic state, a caliphate that extends from the Mediterranean coast to the Iranian border. One such Islamic empire, in the seventh century, spanned the Middle East, spread to Southwest Asia, North Africa and Spain, ending with the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258.

The largest and most powerful rebel force in Syria is Jabhat al-Nusra, with 7,000 fighters. It's a branch of al-Qaida in Iraq, from which it has received regular payments.

"It's now time to declare in front of the people of the Levant and (the) world that the al-Nusra Front is but an extension of the Islamic State in Iraq and part of it," Iraqi al-Qaida leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is quoted as saying recently in a piece on AlArabiya.net.

"This (ISIS' rise in Iraq) is of great significance," according to an assessment released Wednesday by the Soufan Group, a private security company. A restored caliphate will attract "many more disaffected young people ... from all over the Muslim world, especially the Middle East, lured by nostalgia for al-Khulafa al-Islamiya (the Islamic caliphate), which remains a potent motivator for Sunni extremists."

Restoring the caliphate was the stated goal of Osama bin Laden in creating al-Qaida, but the terrorist group was never designed to take and hold territory as is ISIS, now flush with captured cash and weaponry.

"It's ISIS that will build the caliphate, not al-Qaida," says Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, who monitors jihadist activity for the Middle East Forum...

Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani Calls for Shia Jihad

Following-up from yesterday, "Thousands Heed Call to Arms in #Iraq: Top Shiite Cleric Urges Defense Against Fast-Moving Sunni Insurgents, Fanning Sectarian Conflict."

Here's the clip, from Telegraph UK:



And the latest from CNN, "Iraq's leaders scramble to rally forces against militant advance."

#ISIS Claims Credit for Kidnapping Israeli Teenagers

From Algemeiner, at the link.


And from the IDF spokesman, who discounts ISIS claims.


Ukraine Army Plane Shot Down

At BCF, "Pro-Russian rebels shoot down large Ukrainian transport plane, killing dozens."

Also at AP, "Raw: Military Plane Shot Down in Ukraine."

And Russia Today (FWIW), "Ukraine military Il-76 plane downed by self-defense forces in Lugansk," and "Moment Ukraine Il-76 military transport jet shot down in Lugansk."

Bare-Faced #ISIS Executioner Shakir Wahiyib

A jihadi rock star.

Well, let's not celebrate these ghouls too much now, eh?

At Telegraph UK, "Iraq crisis: the bare faced ISIS executioner who spreads terror with his open killing":
Shakir Wahiyib is a feared enforcer for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham who does not cover up his face in videos of his killings.

In an army full of masked, black-clad figures, he is the one man who is never shy to show his face. But for those unlucky enough to cross him, the face of Shakir Wahiyib, a feared enforcer for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, is often the last they will ever see.

The star of a series of grisly jihadist videos, including one in which three men are executed after failing his "Quranic quiz", Wahiyib is one of the few publicly-identified leaders of the shadowy jihadist group that has swept through northern Iraq.

Whoa J-Lo!

Jennifer Lopez for Billboard magazine, looking fit and fabulous.

See, "Whoa, J.Lo! Jennifer Lopez Billboard Cover Shoot."



Chrissie Hynde Out With Debut Solo Album

Toby Harnden retweeted Chrissie Hynde yesterday. Amazing.

At the New York Times, "Chrissie Hynde, Minus the Pretenders."

And Sydney Morning Herald, "Hard rockin' Chrissie Hynde unleashes solo album: 'I'm way past writing my break-up album'."

The album, "Stockholm," is out in vinyl (along with digital formats, naturally).



"Ignore every 'expert' who tells you that #ISIS is not al Qaeda because their leaders don't get along..."

Yes, exactly.

People keep saying that Ayman al-Zawahiri dissed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, excoriating ISIS as "too extreme" blah, blah.

The mind boggles. You can do a million point-blank executions to the back of the head, and beheadings until Kingdom come, but don't tell me murdering nearly 3,000 people on September 11 doesn't quite match up. Taking down the Twin Towers? Seriously. It's hard to get more extreme. Or, well, come back and get me when al-Baghdadi secures his own personal nukes. An atomic al-Qaeda would be pretty extreme indeed.

But see Bare Naked Islam, down at the conclusion here, "ISIS winning in Iraq despite being greatly outnumbered by 15 to 1."

'Al Qaeda Has Been Decimated...'

At White House Dossier, "Obama During Campaign: 'Al Qaeda Has Been Decimated'."



Iraq Lost Iraq

Some food for thought, from DrewM., at AoSHQ, "America Isn't 'Losing' Iraq, Iraq Is":
Obama won the 2008 election in no small part because he promised to get the US out of Iraq. John McCain lost in no small part because he famously argued we should stay "100 years" if that's what it took. The American people made their choice. To now say that having won on getting out of Iraq Obama should have instead turned around and adopted McCain's losing policy idea is absurd.
This does not absolve Obama from his negligent inaction in the face of the imminent threat presented by the still growing ISIS invasion. That's entirely on Obama and his band of national security incompetents. But the great "loss of Iraq"? That's on the Iraqis. They were given a chance to build a decent country after Saddam's removal and they squandered it.
I think it's a little more complicated (Obama "turned around" on a lot of things in national security since 2008, for example), but the bottom line on ISIS is correct.

Planned Parenthood Counsels Underage Girl in Bondage and Sadomasochism

Go to the website, from Lila Grace Rose and Live Action, "Planned Parenthood Exposed."

And Ms. Rose is interviewed by Dana Loesch, at the Blaze, "Lila Rose and Dana Loesch on Planned Parenthood Exposé ."

More from Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, "Planned Parenthood: BDSM advocate no longer counseling teens; Update: Live Action derides “the token firing” strategy; Update: PP lied about termination?"

Leftists Long for Saddam Hussein

From Tom Wilson, at Commentary, "Liberals Longing for Saddam":
When the invasion of Iraq took place, many left-liberal commentators—particularly those in Britain and Europe—had a curious response. Of course they detested Saddam, they assured us, but might it not be the case that Saddam—a strong man—was the only person who could govern “a place like that”? This stunning suggestion that human rights and basic freedom might not be for everyone, that some human beings are just better off under despotism, was shocking then and its shocking to consider now. But for the most part these arguments faded from discussion as a jittery democratic reality got off the ground in Iraq. What good liberal would want to consign the Iraqi people back to the dark days of Saddam? Besides, one got the impression that most of these voices weren’t actually that favorable toward the Baathist regime, they just hated the thought of the use of Western power far more.

Now, however, with Iraq descending into chaos once again—arguably as much the result of the strength of Islamism as the weakness of democracy—these “liberals” are dusting off those old arguments and wheeling them back out in another attempt to bamboozle a public they’ve already spent over a decade misleading. Yet, one voice has gone much further. Chris Maume, an editor at the UK Independent, who by all accounts spent much time in Iraq during the glory days of Saddam, not only takes this opportunity to sow doubts about the wisdom of the war in Iraq, but even does so by mounting the most astonishing defense of life under Saddam.

Whitewashing the poverty suffered by most Iraqis compared to the obscene wealth enjoyed by the Saddam’s ruling clan, Maume reflects, “Baghdad was noisy and mucky and full of building sites, but it was bustling and thriving. There wasn’t a huge amount in the shops, but people had all they needed to get by.” Perhaps they did, but you can’t imagine writers for the Independent ever insisting that the underprivileged in Western countries have long “had all they needed to get by.”

Maume writes particularly glowingly about the healthcare available in Iraq, as well as the order and stability compared to today. Back in the good old days it was “a fully functioning state in which it was possible to live a fulfilled life.” Of course Maume wouldn’t be so callous as not to spare a thought for Saddam’s victims; “If you were Kurdish, or a dissident, life wasn’t like that, and I’m not suggesting for a second that we should forget their suffering. But by and large, life was OK in Saddam’s dictatorship.” And of course to the estimated 180,000 Kurds murdered by Saddam, one should also add the oppression of the marsh Arabs. But it sounds as if Maume accepts what happened to them as the price for the “benefits” that other Iraqis enjoyed under Saddam. And yet it isn’t hard to think of other despotic regimes where, provided you weren’t the wrong ethnic group, perhaps for a time life was perfectly pleasant for everyone else...
Keep reading.

Not only did leftists long for Saddam, they longed for --- and actively worked toward --- U.S. defeat in Iraq. And seeing the sheer ideological blindness of leftists blaming the Bush administration for the current crisis is almost beyond belief. It's staggering even. Erik Loomis had this yesterday, for example, "The next few days (weeks?) are going to be insane. Can we make a running list of writers to never take seriously again after they claim the U.S. should send troops to Iraq or attack Obama for withdrawing those troops?"

"Never take seriously." That would be any leftist discussing national security.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Can U.S. Embassy in #Iraq Withstand ISIS Attack?

I suppose it's a good question.

Mostly, though, I expect the helicopters will land on the roof and that'll be it. And apparently that's no easy trick, with so many personnel to evaculate.

At CNN:



U.S. Options in #Iraq

So far, Retired Army Lieutenant General James Dubik had the best analysis, "U.S. Must Act to Prevent Extremists’ Victory in #Iraq."

Something to think about in light of this report from CBS Evening News:



Thousands Heed Call to Arms in #Iraq

At the Wall Street Journal, "Top Shiite Cleric Urges Defense Against Fast-Moving Sunni Insurgents, Fanning Sectarian Conflict":

Shiite Call to Arms photo P1-BQ427_LIONDO_E_20140613224133_zps79e28ff1.jpg
Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric issued a rare call to arms to defend against attacking Sunni insurgents, portending a wider sectarian conflict as thousands of young men heeded his words.  Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who has millions of followers world-wide, called on all able men to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an al Qaeda offshoot, whose lightning offensive across a large swath of western Iraq this past week sent tremors across the region.

"Given the current threat facing Iraq, defending the land, honor and holy places is a religious duty," said a statement from Ayatollah Sistani that was read by his representative at a Friday sermon in Karbala.

The statement came as the U.S. declared a "shared interest" with Iran in subduing the Islamist insurgents and President Barack Obama said his administration would consider a range of responses in the coming days to help Iraq's defense, including airstrikes.

Ayatollah Sistani's call was quickly answered by thousands of gun-toting men, who emerged in Baghdad, Basra and other Iraqi cities to declare their readiness to join a holy war. TV images showed young men lining up behind pickup trucks and outside of military bases.

Ayatollah Sistani's call followed a chorus of statements from prominent Shiite clerics in Qom and Najaf this week seeking unity among Shiites to join the government's armed struggle against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS.

The developments underscore the inability of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to muster sufficient military force to blunt the rebel force. Four days after the insurgents captured Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, with little military resistance, the weakness of Iraq's forces was again evident on Friday during battles raging for control of the corridors leading to the capital Baghdad.

Ayatollah Sistani, whose influence across the Shiite world is unrivaled, rarely involves himself in politics and military strategy. He follows a Shiite doctrine known as "quietism," which promotes Islamic principles but shuns a political role for its clerics.

Even during the height of Iraq's civil war, the reclusive 83-year-old cleric refrained from issuing a fatwa to fight Americans or Sunni insurgents.

That he would do so now suggests that Ayatollah Sistani and the Shiite community views ISIS—and its loose alliance with disenfranchised Sunni tribes and insurgent groups—as the most significant threat Iraq's government has faced.

"Sistani wants to say he did his part under grave circumstances," said Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute and an expert in Shiite theology. "No one has been as anti-Shiite as ISIS, not the Sunnis and certainly not the Americans."
More.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on #Iraq Crisis: 'Very Good Chance Our Embassy Will Be Attacked...'

"This is going to make Benghazi look like chump change."

Listen at the second half of the clip. Peters has sources inside the military intelligence community and they are "horrified" at developments in Iraq.



The first half, also excellent, discusses Bowe Bergdahl's return to the U.S.

Peters is livid that he's receiving better medical care than our veterans. Rather than a court martial, Obama wants to give Bergdahl a "general discharge" at full benefits for life.

PREVIOUSLY: "Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: 'In the Middle East, the United States Is Now In its Weakest Position Since 1945...'"

Faces of Hate: The Extremists and Bigots Behind #BDS

At Algemeiner, "‘Who’s Behind the Hate at NYU?’ Asks New Ad Campaign":

Lisa Duggan photo tip-ad_zps5570979e.png
A new ad campaign appeared online on Wednesday, drawing attention to the New York University faculty member who heads the American Studies Association that is calling for an academic boycott of Israel.

Advocacy group The Israel Project funded the campaign.  The ad was delivered by Google AdWords on news sites and went to a landing page entitled Peace Not Hate.

The campaign asks, “Why is NYU supporting academic bigotry?”

“Last year, the American Studies Association (ASA) joined the hate-campaign against Israel by voting to boycott Israeli professors,” it said.  “NYU should have immediately pulled their funding of the group, like other universities. But NYU has continued to fund its ASA chapter.”

“By steering university funding to a group that fuels academic bigotry, NYU is betraying its students and its own commitment to academic openness.”  The webpage linked to a petition before exhorting readers, including alumni who might be worried about the school’s “good name.”

It said, “Don’t let a fringe group of haters and extremists demonize Israel and dirty the good name of NYU.”  “Tell NYU to live up to its highest principals. Add your name and email to tell NYU: Honor truth. Stop funding hate.”

While New York University’s president and provost have condemned the ASA’s boycott. the group’s new president, NYU Social and Cultural Analysis Professor Lisa Duggan, was pilloried for her stance, and muddled arguments, by Forbes Investigative Journalist Richard Behar, in a 15,000-word exposé.

The saga continued when Duggan, a lesbian, accused the veteran reporter of homophobia by noting that rather than any expertise in the Middle East, Duggan teaches ‘Queer Historiographies and Constructions of Whiteness in the United States.’
Keep reading.

The campaign's "Peace Not Hate" website is here.

And previously, "Letter Protesting Professor Lisa Duggan's Racist Anti-Israel Conference to NYU President John Sexton."

Brooke Goldstein: #ISIS Jihadis 'Are Now Coming Home...'

This was on Megyn Kelly's show last night, and it's good.

Goldstein brilliantly extrapolates from the current crisis in Iraq to the likely consequences for American security. She argues we're practically begging for a new wave of attacks on the U.S. homeland, and "god forbid," perhaps even another 9/11.



Marc Thiessen was on just before Goldstein, and that segment is here, "Brutal New Terror Group Parading Police Hostages Through Iraq Cities - The Kelly File."

Russian Fashion Model Svetlana Cluck

A needed break from Iraq war blogging, at Corridor40, "SVETLANA CLUCK BY ATTILIO D’AGOSTINO FOR POLANSKI MAGAZINE VOL. 3."

John McCain Pushes Back Against MSNBC's Cut-and-Run 'Confusion' on #Iraq

Folks may remember, back in late 2007, I was blogging all out for John McCain for the 2008 GOP primaries. McCain's lost a lot of credibility since his defeat to Obama in the general election that year --- and to this day I cringe at his treasonous McShamnesty programs --- but I'll never regret supporting his presidential campaign because I knew a President McCain would have never allowed the collapse of Iraq, the likes of which we're watching unfold in real time.

So now he's back in his element as the region goes up in flames. It's only a matter of days now, if not hours, until the fall of Baghdad, and the MSNBC hacks like Mika Brzezinski want to go back and "re-litigate" the origins of the war in 2003. That's to be expected, as McCain so ably points out at the clip.

And as we go forward, literally for the remainder of this presidency, the question of "Who lost Iraq?" is going to dominate. And with a string of other foreign policy disasters to his name, I can guarantee you that President Obama's going to come up wanting badly, and people will be pining for the leadership of former President George W. Bush.

At Politico, "McCain Iraq interview gets heated."