Ed: Wendy Chamberlin has found the formula to turning dhimmism into a crack-like smokable form, she's expected to reap in millions from sales to the ACLU alone.
Wendy J. Chamberlin, president of the Middle East Institute, is not focusing on the Israel-Palestinian conflict or the war in Iraq. Instead, she is speaking on a broader but no less challenging subject: understanding how mainstream Muslims perceive the United States.
She began by using polls and statistics to paint a picture for the audience of the mainstream Muslim community, which, according to her, admires our civil freedoms, education and entrepreneurship. OK...
The second half of Chamberlin's speech attempted to explain the contradiction, asking why the majority of Muslims share our values but don't like us. (Dhimmi overdose -ed.)
"The explanations are in our actions and foreign policy," Chamberlin said. She pointed to several contributing factors in damaging the dialogue between the US and the Middle East including:
The high presence of U.S. troops on Muslim soil (Our fault)
The treatment of Muslims at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (Our fault)
Racial profiling in the U.S. after 9/11 (Our fault)
A foreign policy that does not accept democratically elected leaders who hold certain views (Our fault)
Rhetoric such as the "War on Terror" and "You're either with us, or against us" (Our fault)
A media that focuses on the violent, extremist minority (Our fault)
#1
We can be just like the muslim animals if she wants; i.e. beat the shit out of any woman that lips off,
kill anyone who gives us any shit at all (like libs), tolerate absolutely no free speech or thought. Yeah, her future would be short and painful if she got her way.
Zogby's got a poll that says the same thing. Didn't know how to cut this one down. Sorry boys.
C'mon folks, this is ABC, next to only CBS and CNN in its disdain for McCain, conservatives, Repooblicans and GWB ...
ABC's Martha Raddatz asked American soldiers in Iraq what issues are most important to them when looking at the presidential candidates. Though the military is not supposed to engage in partisan political activity, these soldiers spoke out about their personal endorsements, and their opinions are likely to matter. In 2004, 73 percent of the U.S. military voted for a presidential candidate, and officials believe it may be even higher this time around.
PFC Jeremy Slate said he supported Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., because of his stated intention to pull out of Iraq right away. "That would be nice," Slate said, "I'd like to be home, yea."
SFC Patricia Keller also expressed support for Obama, citing his representation for change.
Spc. Patrick Nicholls from Eggawam, Mass., pointed out that many soldiers on the frontlines frequently think about their families back home. "We think about how our families are doing back home. That's a major concern, like how the economy is doing, also as well as where we're going to be in the future. Because really, truly, what we consider we're doing, we're doing a valuable job, we want to make sure that the efforts we make are appreciated."
He suggested he was too engaged in Iraq to keep up with politics back home. "I haven't really been following it too much since we've been over here, ma'am," he told Raddatz. "So, don't really know which issues are too important to me right now. ... I don't know who's running, ma'am."
Lt. Leah Wicks said that, tied into concerns about her family's welfare, were concerns about the economy, "where we're going to be in the future."
Only moments before speaking with ABC News, the troops had been listening to Vice President Dick Cheney give a rousing speech, but it didn't change their political preference.
Spc. Imus Loto said he supported Obama. "It will be something different. But he's out there and he'll probably support us a lot more." By support, Loto meant pulling out troops. "Pull me out, too." he said.
Though the military is generally a more conservative group, soldiers like Sgt. Justin Sarbaum are just as eager for a pull-out as the Democratic candidates. Sarbaum said he wondered which presidential candidate would be able to better the U.S. relationship with rogue nations, such as Iran, so that soldiers are not sent off to another war. "Iran is obviously a big issue," Sarbaum said, "Here in Iraq for my third time; starting another war right now is it really necessary?"
Sgt. Cory Messingham from Lewisville, Texas, said he wasn't following the race, but he was concerned about candidates' paying attention to the emotional toll that the war has taken on soldiers. "My biggest issue is support for the military, military funding and our deployments, not having long deployments anymore. Because [the] majority of us are doing ...15-month deployments. So, it's tough on the soldiers and tough on the soldiers' families. Those are really my biggest issues."
1st Sgt. David Logan said, "I am leaning toward Hillary. I think that we should have a gradual drawdown."
Though the soldiers have been living in Iraq, they listen closely to the candidates on issues far beyond the wars they are fighting.
"Education back in the states is one of my main concerns," Spc. Matthew Durkin said.
Economy and environment were on Staff Sgt. Derek Dion's mind. "Things like gas prices, and look at the environment and what we're going to leave our children."
Spc. Joseph Lindsesdt, who is from Alaska, said he was watching for consistency of the candidates' views. "The steadiness of the candidate, whether they've changed their views, constantly, over time, or with political wind, as I like to put it." To that end, Lindsesdt's pick is Obama. "The fact that he's followed his views, regardless of what they have been [sic] and whether I've agreed with them or not, sometimes. But he's been steady the entire way."
When asked if he was concerned about criticism that Obama had less political experience than some of the other candidates, the battle-weary soldier replied, "No, I think being a decent leader doesn't have to do anything with experience much."
#1
I was just going to post this. I call extreme bullshit. I'm not doubting the quotes, but I find it hard to believe that she couldn't come up with a single McCain voter or someone who felt that winning in Iraq was important.
Posted by: Tibor ||
04/08/2008 0:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Gotta question this compared to the peopel I work and serve with. Some sort of sampling error perhaps? Zogby hasn't exactly been known for non-partisan (he's very much a Dem supporter), nor for accuracy nor solid methodology.
#3
She probably found lots of Republican supporters, but, since the quotes didn't fit the narrative she wrote before doing the story, she didn't include them.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
04/08/2008 0:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I wouldn't put it beyond the realm of possibility that the whole diatribe is simply pulled outta her sphincter.
#6
Face it Oldspook, your 'friends' are lying to you! It's hard for some to reveal their true feelings when the choice falls to a white woman and her conniving husband and a as of yet unproven black man! I may lie myself this fall!!
But I would much rather be back at home with egg on my face, than a bullet in my back in the dusty choking back gutter ways of Falluja!
Zogby may be a dem supporter, but his most biased polls deal specifically with the Middle East. It may be a family thing, what with the Arab-American Institute being run by family and all. It any case, it is clear that Zogby wants America OUT of the Middle East.
Yeah, the Military vote usually goes all democrat, which is why Gore's lawyers were all high fiving each other when they blocked the military votes in 2000.
This "report" is literally unbelievable; blatantly, transparently and nakedly so. This is right up there in dan rather territory.
#9
100% of the military folks in my family are NOT voting democratic.
Though the military is not supposed to engage in partisan political activity, ... what's that supposed to mean? They are not allowed to express their personal opinions, so this was a super-secret, straight-from-the-heart confession sort of thing?
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/08/2008 6:04 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Bobby, it is both the custom and direct orders that military limit their involvement in campaigns or public support for candidates. They are encouraged to vote for whomever they choose. But they may not wear a uniform at a rally, be a delegate or work in a campaign in any way.
The same is true, with slightly looser rules, for civilian employees of the military.
#11
"Democrats were making strong inroads with a constituency hitherto notoriously resistant to their appeal: the military. Since Gen. Wesley Clark threw his hat in the presidential ring, reporters have chased the "military vote" story, each new media report sprinkled with anecdotes about troops who questioned the Iraq war or...
... who drew trenchant comparisons between the Vietnam combat valor of John Kerry and President Bush. Surely Bush is in trouble.
This from the Washington Post in 2004. They never learn.
#12
Wow. Talk about just blatant propaganda. The liberals must really be scared of November if they are already pushing this shit out. Crap like this usually hits in August.
#13
The troops have had 6 years to vote with their feet by not reenlisting. Instead reenlistments are the highest they have ever been in the voluntary Army and Marines that are increasing in size under a barrage of outright lying defeatist "news" media and Democratic propaganda.
Posted by: ed ||
04/08/2008 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#14
the troops had been listening to Vice President Dick Cheney give a rousing speech
Any good editor would have spiked this story unless Raddatz was able to find a balance of opinions to report. Apparently she's so in the tank for Obama that she didn't realize what this story looks like, or just didn't care. I fear this is the kind of journalism that we're going to see as we get into the general-election campaign, and that it will elect Obama. We have an entire army of reporters who went into journalism to "make a difference," and this is the difference they want to make. They are not concerned about the messy issue of details.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/08/2008 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I've never heard of a l00% poll before. I call bullshit on Zogby and ABC. People who know they are going to lose always try to pull the ol Jedi Mind Trick like this shit. I'm with Darth Vader on this one, they must be scared shitless.
#17
smn, you are full of shit with that "bullet in the back" "Fallujah" line of crap straight from the shcizophrenic minds at Daily Kos.
Pick up some new talking points boy. The primary threat now are the indirect fire and IEDs as it has been for quite a while.
And the kind of people I run with, and went to war with, infantrymen, cav troopers, Marines, etc: they don't casually lie about stuff like you liberals do. They have something alien to you: Honor.
As in "Duty, Honor, Country".
Now go away troll, you've been fed - and had your minor ass kicking for the day. Don't make me get serious on you.
#18
In 2004, 73 percent of the U.S. military voted for a presidential candidate, and officials believe it may be even higher this time around.
That statistic I do believe. As I recall, in the last several elections, about 25% of military votes were for Democrats, most of the remainder were Republican, with a sprinkling of Libertarians.
As for the rest of the article, most of the troops quoted did not say who they would vote for. Of those who did, one planned to vote for Clinton, the rest for Obama. Being concerned about change, troop morale, or the economy does not mean the speaker will definitely vote Democrat -- that they have put themselves in a war zone strongly suggests they consider the war to be a higher priority, which is the McCain position. Mr. Zogby and Ms. Raddatz are either fools or manipulators.
#19
You have to consider the source. This is CBS we are talking about here, not a legitimate news source. CBS is pretty much nothing more than a Democrat party propaganda machine. Remember the recent 60 Minutes stuff?
I wouldn't worry about it. Besides, nobody in Iraq is probably ever going to see it anyway.
I am ex military, I would never vote Democrat. I was in the Army during the Carter administration and saw the dramatic improvement when Reagan came in. I worked for a defense contractor during Clinton's years. I will take a Republican any day.
#20
ABC's slogan: "The best made up news that money can buy." Ima thinkin there is a job for Hillary after this at ABC election season, that is after they pull her kicking and screaming from the dhimmicrat convention.
#22
There might be some truth to the dissatisfaction but I doubt that would translate into voting.
Thing is, the way I understand it most military people understand and support the mission in Iraq but the frequent tours are just too hard on families. Rummie really screwed up by not increasing the size of the military after Sept 11, doing whatever it took to increase the number of folks rotating in so it wasn't every other year for some of these people.
#26
If you're going to make shit up, don't go so far that it becomes completely unbelievable. A 10% shift would be a huge thing. But 100%? Even Saddam and Castro never got 100% in their rigged elections.
There isn't any group that votes 100% one way or the other. The most infamously solid block is blacks, who routinely give the Dems 90% of their vote.
#27
Maybe that's it - ABC knows the 'fix is in' for the military vote so they can just make this shit up to try to influence the civilian public that the war is hopeless and lost and they may as well vote for Obama or Clinton....
Looks to me like ABC News is still in the dark ages of Cronkite where they can say whatever the f-k they want and the public will swallow it whole.
#29
Ther's an article a few pages back stating the Army is about 98% Republican, I call Bullshit.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
04/08/2008 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#30
I rememebr the same shit four years ago. The story then was that the military would vote for a "True Hero" in JF Kerry rather than a "AWOL pilot" like Bush. I think the split was 75% Bush 25% Kerry.
#31
I'm glad this poll came out. Now, perhaps the Democrats won't try to disenfranchise the military like they did in 2000 and 2004. Though the actual election results may come as a surprise.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Naw...these ever revealing revelations by the Clinton Gang is all about nothing, why it pales in the face of Rev. Wright; the so call 'Anti-Christ' in the minds of some Rantburgers here! Lets cheer..."All for one, and One for All!!" Hail Hillary!! Hip, Hip, Hooray!
Now who's with me, to kick Obama around some more?
#2
Of course, when the New York Times wants to run a story about McCains son, Lance Corporal James McCain, USMC, 19 who by the way actually has served in Iraq unlike, say, Chelsea Clinton and the McCain family asks Pinch and Bill not to run it out of respect for the lads privacy, our side just laughs in their faces: dont you Republicans realize the personal is political! But let a poor schnook like David Shuster obliquely criticize the Clintons for pimping out their 28-year-old daughter, and theres hell to pay.
I think I'll go looking for the article about McCain's kid....
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/08/2008 6:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Bobby, that article has been posted several times here since it was published. Look through the last few days.
The writer actually contends with a straight face that the Clintons are rich, but not the Obamas? How amusing!
#4
tw, the Clintons are much, much richer than the Obamas. The Obamas don't yet have the experience to pull in the megamillion dollar book deals and speaker's fees like Billary. Yet. Give them time.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
04/08/2008 11:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What a ludicrus article. Does the author seriously think that what s/he is accusing the clintoons of is exactly what is going on in the bama camp? Its the same dung beetle just in larvae.
And yes smn, I will kick the big 0-hole around a bit more. That SOB was in Emporia Kansas to pick up superdelegates and pictures of his grandparents and then threw them in fire. Get outside of the Blue Money areas and the rest of Kansans are Jayhawkers (wiki's half hearted attemtp to explain that here), farmers, cattlemen, hard working men and women.. What is not commonly known is that many Kansans originally came from Southern states but were abolitionists. Jay - being a slang for a black and Hawk - being a derrogitory word for someone who steals property - is what they were called so they resettled in Kansas in order to help ensure it becoming a Free State. Kansas, no saint in the border war, dealt with raids and cross-border voters to fight for the freedom of slaves. Brownback, I'm talking to you too. Emporia was built by Wildcats, who are not shy of danger. Many in the Wichita area went there to build bombers during WWII. If you have not been out on the prarie you have no clue what it must have took to literally carve you home out of soil. What I'm getting at is that we are good people out here and if Kansas was representative of 'typical white people' this world would be a lot better.
Now for other real problems with the o-hole. He is the 18 year old pitching against New York in the world series and is consistantly throwing meat over the plate and getting rocked. The problem is that every time he gets sent out of the park someone moves the foul poles. Remember Greensburg? Obama lied, thousands died? Runs off to the caribbean when the heat gets turned up? Bowls 6 frames and quits b/c he don't look good doing it? Where is all this money coming from? Him getting marks for being the most liberal minded voter in congress was like No Country for Old Men getting voted best picture before it was released. As far as I'm concerned the best thing which could happen for anyone running against this tool is the hollywood writers working on his script because they have sucked making movies for about 15 years now.
This is not full of 'red state report' and people sitting on the crapper for years - there are good Republicans and Democrats out here and that o-hole pissed us all off.
Hail hillary, piss off. If two people I don't like are in a fight outside the bar don't look to me to break it up anytime soon. The only thing she has which is better is that she has been in politics long enough that she probably owes some favors which makes her accountable for her actions and somewhat predictable, unlike the all-factory b.o. who is selling himself to the highest bidder - which makes him a tool.
By CAROLINE GLICK
The West stands by idly as its foundations are rent asunder.
Some in the West have wrecking bars in their hands ...
Last Friday the UN's Human Rights Council took a direct swipe at freedom of expression. In a 32-0 vote, the council instructed its "expert on freedom of expression" to report to the council on all instances in which individuals "abuse" their freedom of speech by giving expression to racial or religious bias.
If someone else determines when you're "abusing" it then it's not freedom. It's something you're allowed to do by your betters.
The measure was proposed by paragons of freedom Egypt and Pakistan.
Pak just shut down a couple teevee stations because they "abused" their freedom of speech by televising PPP thugs beating somebody up.
It was supported by all Arab, Muslim and African countries - founts of liberty one and all. European states abstained.
They're trying to breed all the testosterone out of an entire continent.
The US, which is not a member of the Human Rights Council, tried to oppose the measure. In a speech before the council, US Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Warren Tichenor warned that the resolution's purpose is to undermine freedom of expression because it imposes "restrictions on individuals rather than emphasiz[ing] the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights."
The UN demonstrates once again that "human rights" isn't remotely the same thing as "individual rights," and that in fact the two are in many ways mutually exclusive.
By seeking to criminalize free speech, the resolution stands in breach of the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of that document states explicitly: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
It's a difference in interpretation, I suppose. We Americans are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Being granted by God, no one of lesser stature can take them away, though there's enough nibbling around the edges to make some of us uncomfortable. Most everyone else, especially those abstaining, has had their rights granted by a gracious, if sometimes hard-pressed lord of the human sort. Those countries pushing for the ban are the ones where either the gracious lords of the manor haven't granted those "rights," or there's a really good chance of rule by holy men as God's representatives on earth, who'll do the interpreting of the Lord's will without any input from the rest of us, thankew.
The Europeans' decision to abstain rather than oppose the measure seems, at first glance, rather surprising.
Sad, but not surprising.
Given that the EU member states are among the UN's most emphatic champions, it would have seemed normal for them to have opposed a resolution that undermines one of the UN's foundational documents, and indeed, one of the most basic tenets of Western civilization. But then again, given the EU's stands in recent years against freedom of expression, there really is nothing to be surprised about.
Of course not. They're frightened pissless.
The EU's current bow to intellectual thuggery is of course found in its response to the Internet release of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders' film Fitna. The EU has gone out of its way to attack Wilders for daring to exercise his freedom of expression. The EU's presidency released a statement condemning the film for "inflaming hatred." Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende issued statements claiming that the film "serves no other purpose than to cause offense."
Someone posted it to the 'Burg. I saw it. It's the Religion of Peace in its own words.
Then, too, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon blasted the film as "offensively anti-Islamic."
Pontius Pilate is thoroughly washing his hands of Fitna. There is right and there is wrong. The religion depicted in Fitna is wrong. Period. There is civilization, there is barbarism. The enemy's civilization makes it into barbarism on its best days, and the participants in Fitna mostly don't make it out of savagery.
These statements follow the EU's quest to restrict freedom of speech following the 2005 publication of cartoons of Muhammed in Denmark's Jyllands Posten newspaper. They also come against the backdrop of the systematic silencing of anti-jihadist intellectuals throughout the continent. These intellectuals, such as Peter Redeker in France and Paul Cliteur in the Netherlands, are threatened into silence by European jihadists. And the governments of Europe either do nothing to defend the threatened thinkers or justify the intellectual blackmailers by sympathizing with their anger.
It must be something going around. India did the same thing with Taslima Nasreen.
IT IS axiomatic that freedom of expression is the foundation of human freedom and progress. When people are not allowed to express themselves freely, there can be no debate or inquiry. It is only due to free debate and inquiry that humanity has progressed from the Dark Age to the Digital Age.
E pur si muove.
This is why the first act of every would-be tyrant is to take control of the marketplace of ideas.
The first task of a "ministry of information" is to license journalists and newspapers, isn't it?
Yet today, the nations of Europe and indeed much of the Western world, either sit idly by and do nothing to defend that freedom or collaborate with unfree and often tyrannical Islamic states and terrorists in silencing debate and stifling dissent.
I keep coming back to the same concepts: whether you're ruled or governed. It's much more than a semantic difference.
There are two reasons why this is the case. First, the political Left, which rules supreme in the EU's bureaucracy as well as in most of the intellectual centers of the free world, has shown through its actions that it has no real commitment to democratic values. Rather than embrace democratic values, the Left increasingly adopts the parlance of democracy cynically, with the aim of undermining free discourse in the public sphere in the name of "democracy."
Writing of the leftist uproar against Wilders' film in Europe in Der Speigel, Henryk Broder noted that almost across the board, the European media has castigated Wilders as "a right-wing populist." As Broder notes, on its face this assertion is absurd, for Wilders is a radical liberal.
As Broder notes, by calling Wilders a "right-wing populist," the Left seeks to silence both him and his call for an open discourse. The underlying message of such labeling is that Wilders is somehow beyond the pale of polite company and therefore his message should be ignored by all right thinking people.
In Fitna, the outspoken legislator shows how verses of the Koran are used by jihadists to justify the most heinous acts of mass murder and hatred. His film superimposes verses from the Koran calling for the murder of non-Muslims with actual scenes of jihadist carnage. It also superimposes verses from the Koran vilifying Jews with footage of Islamic clerics repeating the verses and with a three-year-old girl saying that she learned that Jews are monkeys and pigs from her Koran classes. Fitna concludes with a challenge to Muslims to expunge these hateful, murderous religious tenets from their belief system.
While arguably, but not necessarily, inflammatory, Wilders' film serves as an invitation to Europe and to the Islamic world to hold an open debate. His film challenges viewers - both Muslim and non-Muslim - to think and to discuss whether Islam accords with the notions of human freedom and what can be done to stop jihadists from exploiting the Koran to justify their acts of murder, tyranny and hate.
As Broder notes, by calling Wilders a "right-wing populist," the Left seeks to silence both him and his call for an open discourse. The underlying message of such labeling is that Wilders is somehow beyond the pale of polite company and therefore his message should be ignored by all right thinking people. If you don't want to be intellectually isolated and socially ostracized like Wilders, then you mustn't watch his film or take it seriously. Doing so would be an act of "right-wing populism" - and everyone knows what that means.
This article starring:
Geert Wilders
Henryk Broder
Jan Peter Balkenende
Paul Cliteur
Peter Redeker
Warren Tichenor
Posted by: Fred ||
04/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Compare wid TOPIX > WAR IS PEACE.
Also, RENSE > US IMPERIALISM IS THE COMMUNIST LEGACY.
#2
a good example to throw in the face of those who would subjugate the Constitution to UN laws
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/08/2008 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
We pay about half the total bill for the UN every year, and I can't see where we are getting a goddamned thing for it. Unless you count supplying a platform for our enemies to congregate and lace into the free buffet.
#4
The US used to pay 50% of UN dues. Then it was cut to 25% of general dues and 1/3 of the peacekeeping bill. Now the US pays 22% (I think) of general UN dues, peacekeeping is higher. Add to that the US contribution of 33 to over 60%, depending on location, of the UN humanitarian bill.
Not much to show for it, esp compared to the 1% and 2% paid by Russia and China (higher for peacekeeping as members of the UN Security Council). I think limiting US (and Japan's) payments to the % of world population is just what that august body needs.
Posted by: ed ||
04/08/2008 8:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Give the parade of clowns 30 days notice to vacate. We're condemning the proerty and it's being demolished even if they stay camped out in it. Let the assholes decamp to Brussels where they can be truly appreciated.
#6
FREEREPUBLIC > DA ARNUUULD - claims that CA [OVER]BUDGET WOES aren't solvable wid [balanced] budget cuts alone. See also FREEPUBLIC/TOPIX > COMMUNISTS IN THE SCHOOLS + COMMUNIST PROFESSORS IN CALIFORNIA DEMAND RIGHT TO INSTRUCT/TEACH.
*ALTERNET.org > LOS ANGELES WAS ALMOST OUR GREENEST CITY.
Lest we fergit - D *** NG IT, "WASHINGTON ISN'T GIVING ENOUGH"!
From the Publisher
I HAVE NEVER BEEN PROUDER TO PUBLISH A BOOK
Michael Yon changed my mind about the war in Iraq, by making me understand it for the first time.
From the very beginning I was against the war. I thought it would be a disaster, another Vietnam. And until I had the privilege of working on this book with Michael I was always for immediate pull-out: why should one more American die for a doomed effort?
Michael--who is as close to totally non-political as anyone I know--showed me two things. First, because I judged by Vietnam, the war of my youth, I had radically underestimated what American soldiers could do. I knew they could blow away any regular opponent on any battlefield. But wage a counterinsurgency against an enemy with broad support in the population? Win the "hearts and minds," to use the Vietnam era phrase that now can be used only ironically? That was asking too much, I thought.
I was 100 percent wrong. Today's American soldiers excel at counterinsurgency, because they excel at the most important thing: winning over the people by inspiring them with their own courage and compassion, discipline and determination. Reading this book is like watching the movie Apocalypse Now, but in an alternate universe in which the opposite always happens. Every time our soldiers get into an incredibly tense situation with some Iraqis who might be friends or might be enemies or murderers, some situation in which what's needed is amazing calm and courage to keep things from blowing up and ending in a blood bath, our guys pull it off!
Just wait until you read the Chapter "High Noon" (my favorite), the story of the American soldiers who have to arrest a corrupt but politically popular Iraqi police chief we had put in office in the first place because he had been a real hero in fighting the terrorists. He had to be removed by Americans to show the Iraqis we really did believe in the rule of law. The whole thing could have blown up into a one-town civil war with hundreds dead on both sides. Won't tell you how it ends, but you will be amazed and very proud.
The other thing Michael helped me understand is the difference between terrorists we just have to kill (often foreigners, or local criminals) and local insurgents we should have been working with all along. For almost five years I could not tell from watching the news--and certainly not from listening to the Administration--who the enemy was, what they wanted or why they were fighting. Not surprisingly it turns out that understanding the various people we were fighting--some of whom have since become great allies--was the key to winning the war, which we are now clearly doing.
I am convinced that everything I once thought about the war was wrong. The truth is we are doing a great thing in Iraq, most of the Iraqi people really do want to be a united democratic nation and already consider America their greatest friend and ally. It would be a crime to turn tail now and abandon them now.
I owe all that to Michael's book, which is why I believe publishing Moment of Truth in Iraq may be the best thing I have ever done for my country.
(emphasis added) Regardless of whre you stand on the war, if you read only one book about the Iraq War, this one is it. Yon is superlative - and he has been there done that as a soldier, and has had his boots on the ground almost continuously in Iraq, and is dead-on honest. GET THE WORD OUT. Put it on the best seller lists! Amazon pre-order is on the link in the title.
Never underestimate the American soldier. That's the moral of former Green Beret Michael Yon's brilliant battle-by-battle, block-by-block tale of how America's new `greatest generation' of soldiers is turning defeat and disaster into victory and hope in Iraq.
The American soldier is the reason General David Petraeus's brilliant strategy of moving our soldiers off isolated bases and out among the Iraqi people is working. Working to find and kill terrorists, reclaim neighborhoods, and help lead Iraq to democracy.
Yon is no cheerleader. According to the New York Times, he has logged more time in combat situations in Iraq than any other reporter. When failed American leadership was driving Iraq into chaos and civil war, nobody told the story earlier or better than Michael Yon. The top brass was so mad that twice the U.S. military denied him access to Iraq.
So Yon has supreme credibility when he says that we are finally winning, not primarily with our overwhelming technology, not with shock and awe destruction, but with the even more powerful force of American values--with the courage and leadership, strength and compassion of our soldiers.
Iraqis respect strength, says Yon. They know American soldiers are "great-hearted warriors" who vanquish the Al Qaeda terror gangs that "raped too many women and boys, cut off too many heads, brought drugs into too many neighborhoods."
But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic or a school or a neighborhood. They learned the American soldier is not only the most dangerous man in the world, but the best man too. That's what turned defeat into victory.
Here is the true, untold story of the American soldier and the courage and values that are bringing victory for America--and Iraq.
#1
Maliki has graduated from worm shit to maggot in my book. He still has a long way to go to reach the next level; scum. But at least he isn't going backwards to amphibian shit.
By Nibras Kazimi, Visiting Scholar at the Hudson Institute
Not only has Maliki not backed down, but newly emboldened with wide political backing hes begun to smash through Sadr City itself and is threatening to banish the Sadrists to a political Siberia.
Muqtada al-Sadr, the guy the media has us thinking had won, has prostrated himself at the feet of Grand Ayotallah Sistani, promising Maliki that he would indeed demobilize his militia if the wise old men of Shiism would have it so. Gone are the millenarian certainties of taking orders from the Mahdi, the messiah. Gone is all that bluster of al-Sadrs virile, confident Outspoken hawza contrasted with Sistanis supposedly feeble and retro Silent hawza.
And he sends out his plea for clemency from Iran. FROM IRAN?!! ....
Sadr surrendering his fate to Sistani and submissively muttering,
Do as you please, Sir.
Who would have imagined?
It is almost as baffling as Malikis abrupt transformation from an incompetent administrator into a wartime commander-in-chief!
And yet, the Sadrists keep sending out confusing signals signifying the confusion within their ranks. It happens, when defeat devours ones will.
We will not disarm.
We need to calm things down.
We will fight.
We will flee.
No fair!
We will march!
We will stay home.
A Sadrist?! Who me?
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
04/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
FREEREPUBLIC/TOPIX /OTHER > MULLAHS TELL SADR TO KEEP MILITIA + MEHDI ARMY/SADR MILITIA WILL NOT DISBAND.
#2
Thanks, Mike. But I think you left out a good part -
Yes, you miserable souls{of the press}: keep writing in that passive tense, that Fighting rages dodge. Never mind that Maliki and the Iraqi Army are actively picking a fight with the outlaws, a fight that the government is winning, and thats the reason why the bullets are whooshing by.
And tales get unspooled. And narratives implode.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/08/2008 6:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They're doing this mostly by themselves, when they can do it all by themselves we can pull most of our guys out of that toilet and get on to frying some bigger fish.
Kathy Shaidle, "Five Feet of Fury" blog A follow-up to her article "Obama's Church: A Gospel of Hate"
I wasn't able to squeeze in anything about a heretical aspect of Wright/Cone's teachings and attitudes that I haven't seen anywhere else. (Perhaps because I'm seeing a heresy where none exists...)
And Cone himself has been quoted as saying (again, somewhat snidely): "I'm sure Obama would be able to understand black liberation theology if it were explained to him."
I detect a whiff of Gnosticism in all this.
The oldest heresy, Gnositicism is (to vastly oversimplify) the very unChristian notion that Jesus' teachings are only comprensible to an enlightened elite few.
That Jesus preached to thousands of ordinary people, and interacted with people from every strata of society is something Gnostics conveniently ignore. The impulse to Gnosticism is stronger than common sense or the (mundane) facts: it is the very human desire to feel superior to "the crowd". And so it will never be completely wiped out, even at this late date.
That two men with PhD's present themselves as "men of the people" and leaders of a perpetual victim group, while preaching an elitist theology is pretty comical.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/08/2008 08:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kathy may sniff Gnosticism.
I smell a gooey rascist socialistic postmodernism defining the Bible to be just what we want it to be today.
The papers suck. Pardon the language, but for heavens sake, the papers sucked. The papers sucked hard enough to pull Jupiter out of orbit. I had gotten used to the underwhelmingly ordinary Arizona paper, but the LA Times and the San Diego paper were a new level of sucktitudinousness. The SD paper was like a slab of Sominex pounded into thin folded sheets, and I dont know if it was the lead story Sweeping Regulatory Powers Sought, or something equally deadly or the cookie-cutter design, but man, that thing was dull; when I finished I felt like Id put 50 cents into a soda machine, got nothing, and realized I didnt really want any soda anyway. On to the LA Times, which surprised me I have almost no experience with the paper, except its reputation, which surely was exaggerated. Well. I blew through it quickly, and when I was finished the only impression it left was astonishment that a market that large had such a weightless, arid, aimless paper. It has the typeface of a better paper, but thats about it. I finished both before I was halfway through my Ironed Chicken Sandwich really, it was so thin, thats probably how they cooked it and I spent the rest of my time reading the internet on my iPhone.
I wandered down the street to a coffee shop, had some ice cream, and finished my news reading on the iPhone.
If Id never had one of those you know, newspaper might be in trouble moments, that would have been it. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
04/08/2008 06:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
really whiney on the Old Town part. Old Town Mexican Cafe is a glorious place for me - fresh tortillas, great tacos and chimis and the margaritas! God, I'm making myself hungry....Oh yeah, the papers mostly suck - UT Sports isn't bad, but the rest has gone wayyyyy downhill. I've NEVER liked the LAT
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/08/2008 8:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The underwhelmingly ordinary Arizona paper = The Arizona Republic.
Frank - Consider the source. Once you've had Mexican food in Minneapolis, everything else is 'krep'...
#3
The UT is in dire straits with layoffs and declining subscriptions. No wonder. It really is a rag. I don't read it anymore. I don't feel like I'm missing much because they never reported the real news anyway and it's what they don't report that worries me. It's been clear for a long, long time now that this town is being run by developers who are some of the biggest advertisers the UT has left. They've ruined it. Hundred year old water mains break on a regular basis and flood the streets. The streets are full of potholes. The freeways are clogged with traffic. The police and fire fighters are under paid and bailing out. And then there is the pension fund for city employees...or should I say the unfunded pension obligation? The mayor was on TV a while ago crowing about a recently completed audit of FY 2006 city finances. Well, that's cool because FY 2009 is right around the corner. It used to be a nice little town. Now it's just an overgrown LA suburb with crumbling infrastructure. But you'd never know it from reading the UT.
As for the LA Times, I used to try to read it but I couldn't. They'd beat around the bush for six or seven paragraphs before getting to the point. I just didn't have time for it.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
04/08/2008 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
But Frank G is correct about the Mexican food in Old Town. It really is good.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
04/08/2008 15:30 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
