Foreign fighters leaving Iraq, military says
A growing number of foreign fighters are leaving or attempting to flee Iraq as U.S. and Iraqi forces have weakened al-Qaeda and forced its members from former strongholds, U.S. military officials say.
The trend reflects a broad disenchantment among foreign fighters, particularly since al-Qaeda has lost sanctuaries in parts of Baghdad and Anbar, a Sunni province west of the capital, U.S. military intelligence officials say. …
The departure of some fighters doesn’t mean al-Qaeda is quitting the fight, said Brig. Gen. Brian Keller, the chief intelligence officer for the U.S. command in Iraq. “We’re just starting to see more and more fissures in the morale and leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq,” he said.
Hot Air has a good roundup of the latest distancing between the opinion of the American people and the Democratic Party’s pandering Presidential potentials
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
I wonder how many of these foreign fighters fleeing Iraq will sneak into the U.S. via the Mexican border and register to vote for Obama?
lol, you mean Nevada to vote for Sen Reid!
You’re absolutely correct, MA: we do to pull out of Iraq so that these foreign fighters aren’t displaced over here. I’m glad that you pointed that out: our continued presence there is going to cause domestic problems. How soon should the pullout begin?
It started six months ago Doc. Didn’t the DNC send you an email?
It started six months ago Doc. Didn’t the DNC send you an email?
A pithy reply that flies in the face of reality and says nothing. Congratulations.
“How soon should the pullout begin?”
“It started six months ago”
Seems like a situation where one person was ignorant, and the second informative.
From Doc W
Doc, it appears our domestic problems here cause problems there. Namely an increase in violence. Read the Harvard research paper just released (and evidently to be ignored by the media)…Is There an “Emboldenment” Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq
There is no difference between the short-term goals of the jihdists and the Democratic Party: weakening of America’s military, destruction if it’s economy, and an accommodating foreign policy with their state sponsors.
Good find MataHarley!
Idiots like Doc and his ilk have been enabling the enemy in Iraq, prolonging this war and causing the deaths of many more Americans and innocent Iraqis than might otherwise be the case if this country was seen to be united in pursuing VICTORY.
People like Doc daily demand accountability from others and yet, never accept any responsibility for THEIR actions.
There’s blood on their hands.
The other day I posted some charts showing the rise/fall of attacks in Iraq. It clearly showed that after Sen Kerry secured the nomination for President, violence doubled. It continued at that level until the Golden Mosque bombing (around the time of the US midterm elections) when it doubled again. Put simply…there’s a reason terrorists endorse Democrats publicly.
“Is there an “Emboldment” Effect?” Go to any Peewee league, thru major league ball game and one will see the “Enboldment Effect”.
Scott: You reminded me of:
Good ole John Kerry:
And this classic:
There’s blood on their hands.
Well, then get me indicted for war crimes. Or treason. Put your money where your mouth is.
Thanks for confirming you will NEVER accept responsibility for your actions.
Children have more sense of right and wrong and responsibility than you do.
I blogged on the “Emboldenment” study, and emailed it to yous Flopping Ace’rs a day or so ago, ya know, Mike…. Need some bigger guns than me to spread this around. Because it’s highly unlikely it will get legs on the MSM. So I believe it’s worthy of a complete post on it’s own, and not just a thread topic interjected to point out the aversion to responsibility by the withdrawal crowd.
BTW, ‘scuse the personal blog plug… just trying to make my point! LOL
Per the UPI article, “Analysis: Debate on Iraq Fuels Insurgency”, the researcher are beside themselves with worry that the pro-Iraq movement will use this study to “silence the opposition”.
What a laugh… just who is silencing whom?? As indicated by the high percentage of negative press, or complete absence of press when progress is being made, it is the pro-Iraq supporters that are being silenced and personally abused. Not to mention the media lunge when any anti-war rhetoric drips from the lips of our elected officials.
In the research, they used elected official comment stories and American poll results as the “anti-resolve” media material.
Dude. I said “indict me.”
Same reasoning:
Impeach Bush
Doc: Get a life…and then… GROW UP!!!
Mata Harley, please allow me to reprint your post in full here:
In summary, you can’t succeed if you don’t support efforts to succeed.
From the conclusion of the report:
” From these results it is not possible to determine the benefits or costs of public debate.
Without knowing the effect of changes in policy generated by this debate and the nature of
changed perception of the insurgents about US casualty sensitivity, it is not possible to determine if criticism of U.S. policy is on balance bad. Thus, the direct consideration of how to adjust political speech to address this issue is a complex and the results of this paper do not bear directly on this question. ”
Was the removal of Rummy & surge itself the result of those on the right & the left who criticized the “stay the course” mentality of the Bush administration for the first several years of the invasion?
More on the report, from Are Iraqi Insurgents Emboldened by Antiwar Reporting? – US News and World Report http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/03/12/are-iraqi-insurgents-emboldened-by-antiwar-reporting.html :
———–
“But before partisans go wild on both sides of the aisle, here are just three of the important caveats to this study:
The city of Baghdad, for a variety of reasons, was excluded from the report. The authors contend that looking at the outside provinces, where 65 percent of insurgent attacks take place, is a better way to understand the effect they have discovered. Other population centers like Mosul, Basra, Kirkuk, and Najaf were included in the study.
The study does not take into account overall cost and benefit of public debate. Past research has shown that public debate has a positive effect on military strategy, for example, and, in the case of Iraq, might be a factor in forcing the Iraqi government to more quickly accept responsibility for internal security.
It was not possible, from the data available, to determine whether insurgent groups increased the overall number of attacks against American and Iraqi targets in the wake of public dissent and debate or simply changed the timing of those attacks. This means that insurgents may not be increasing the number of attacks after all but simply changing the days on which they attack in response to media reports.”
————–
Hey Mata, didn’t know you had a blog. Putting it up on the sidebar now. Good stuff btw.
Yup… Look at the bandwidth I coulda saved with your analysis instead. LOL
Repsac3. Hard to say if Rummy/surge are a result of the venomous debate. Certainly the calls for Rumsfeld head was granted. Then again, it’s entirely possible that the Pentagon honchos and commanders on the ground may have also had a hand in the change. The Bush admin resisted those calls, and #43 generally stands his ground when he believes he’s right. So I don’t feel he was “muscled” into it.
The surge? Hard to credit that to the naysayers. They fought it tooth and nail. I think events after Golden Mosque brought it all to a head. Makes sense when you read a timeline of events for Iraq.
BTW, the report also noted that the more access to int’l news, the higher the violence percentage. This is what ultimately confirmed the relationship from “anti-resolve” news to violence. Start reading on pg 10 of the PDF. I finally just downloaded and saved the darn thing…
WOW, Curt. I’m a side bar now? Very kewl…. Many thanks.
Interesting study. I wonder what the research would show the price to be in criticizing violent sects of Islam, too. Should we not say these things have a cost-condition, too?
In any case, what’s the price of this knowledge to a nation if its political discourse is crippled by a desire to avoid encouraging terrorists? It’s not unrealistic for that to happen. Basically, what we are looking at here is the price of the First Amendment. Isn’t the military established for just such a purpose? One often hears troops say it’s these rights they fight for to insure their preservation. It seems to me that the freedom to discuss public policy falls into that category here. My concern is perhaps the term “measurable”, found at the margins, is being weighted against the value of an important common-good here?
There may be a real price we are dealing with here. I think values needs to be arranged in an according priority and a basic assumption our nation labors under is it is our right to criticize our public officials, and it may be a duty, too. In America it’s even in our “blood”.
I think our sons and daughters understood this when they signed up. They understand that they defend these rights because they must be preserved; and we need to exercise these rights, especially in a time of war.
Of course, there may be reasonable restrictions on the first amendment, but, perhaps, before waging war, one should root their decision in the publics’ liberty to criticize it; it might help limit some wars.
Gosh, you mean if one protests AGAINST Islam, it can dangerous, and if one protests AGAINST Islamic holy warriors and their acts of terror….then they get on TV, get elected to power, and are praised by head-sawer-offers?
shocking I say! Shocking!
All of us can agree that the 1st Amendment should not be compromised. Discourse and disagreement is a healthy thing… save the way it’s being conducted nowadays. Reading poster comments on oh so many sites, it’s evident that social skills, common courtesy and civility are on the decline in our new info age world.
I remind you, this study used primarily statements from our elected officials, and media polls. Thus we can eliminate the stories of battles/bombing events as part of the media coverage imbalance equation, and as a measurement of impact.
The lesson learned from this study is disagreement is fine, but I see three large corrections that should be voluntarily made.
1: The media coverage does not accurately reflect this nation’s opinons. You can quote polls that say 60 percentile is against the war, or thought it was a mistake. But when asked “do you want to win, and leave a free and self-secured Iraq?”, some 70 some percent *want* to accomplish the goal in Iraq, and not abandon them. This opinion is not fairly presented in the media because of the bulk of polls focusing on opinion of the past, and not the future.
American polls are merely a reflection of the previous couple weeks of headlines. Coverage is either DNC promises of withdrawal, or battles and deaths, so the nation’s predictable opinion will be negative. Positive coverage increased of late … mostly for a lack of death and mayhem to report. But the amount of coverage has also declined overall, resulting in the issue being upstaged by the Obama/Hillary daily soap. Americans are easily distracted, and do not multitask well. The media is even worse. Same stories, all networks, 24/7. Only the speculation differs.
2: The degree of venom by elected officials should be toned down to civil discourse. The jihad movement is borne on passion. They interpret the extreme venom, plus personal assaults on the base morality of our elected officials, as equal passion in support of their cause and arguments.
Example: The percentage between Congressional members that support leaving Iraq when they are able to secure themselves vs immediate abandonment is not accurately reflected with the media coverage. If it were per media stories, the timetable resolutions would have passed both House and Senate with ease.
DNC Congressional mouthpieces such as Murtha, Pelosi and Reid make the headlines weekly as they utter another “war is lost” platitude.You do not see the press rushing to get comments from those that support the Iraq efforts. And yet the Congressional divide is darn close to split in half.
Again, with free speech comes both repercussions and responsibility. The UK media sat on Prince Harry’s Afghanistan deployment to protect both him and his mates, exercising a conscious restraint out of responsibility. The NYT’s? National security is secondary to sensational headlines and perceived scandal.
Cures? If nothing else, American media coverage should reflect the close divide of Congressional opinion over Iraq policy. Having more positive voices with air time of our officials may also affect future poll numbers – again depending upon the question structure. But fact is, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Obama and Hillary do not represent the overwhelming majority in the halls of Congress.
And Congress does speak, the personal insults and accusations of war criminal and “most corrupt” BS ought to be left out of their rhetoric. I don’t particularly want my elected officials behaving as children, hurling absurd insults and taunts at each other. They are a pure embarrassment of late. And I think the nation’s poll numbers of Congress reflect that I’m not alone there.
You may consider these suggestions clamping down on free speech. I consider them good manners and wise presentation. Besides, this is the group who has managed to make PC speech the norm of the land… save for themselves.
Excerpt from a Jan 2008 Arthur Chrenkoff article on Pajamas Media: quoting a Sacred Heart University study
Per this survey, Americans agree with the Harvard study.
“Communication and Media Strategy in the Jihadi War of Ideas”
April 2006
http://www.asu.edu/clas/communication/about/csc/publications/jihad_comm_media.pdf
Till now, this is one of the best reads I’ve seen on the subject.
“How soon should the pullout begin?”
“It started six months ago”
Seems like a situation where one person was ignorant, and the second informative.
Really? So you’re saying that the troop pullout has already begun? We’re withdrawing from Iraq? You’re saying that moving back to pre-Surge levels equals an end to our involvement in the country?
Why do you even bother posting stupid stuff like that?
The 2006 study you linked to is good, Scott… actually plays hand in hand with Harvard reserach. i.e. the import of the “communication war” strategy to both sides.
The ASU study points out how the Islamic jihad movement recognizes, and is constantly perfecting their media battle strategy. The Harvard study documents they are successful in that strategy, aided by a media with an agenda.
Uh, Doc? You left off the, no doubt, sarcastic addendum of “didn’t the DNC send you an email?” from that comment. Perhaps it a reference to their bogus campaign promises – no, let’s make that downright lies – duping voters who know nothing of civics into believing Congress had power to act as a melting pot of Commander in Chiefs.
Than again, I could be wrong. But that’s my take…
Yes Doc. You’re the only one saying that the US is only “moving back to pre-Surge levels” because the commanders on the ground and in the WH are on record as saying that after withdrawing the Surge of forces they expect to be able to continue withdrawing forces. It’s just that they can’t predict the future far enough in advance to schedule the future actions. They can only try to impose a trend, expect that trend to continue, and hope to benefit from it. For example, they can’t predict how the enemy will react (no general in history has ever been able to do that a year or more in advance, but if you doubt that then just see what Sen Obama’s former advisor on the subject said. It matches my statement here.), and they can’t predict what the next President will do (particularly if it’s Sen Obama or Clinton who change their policy weekly).
As to why I post “stuff like that”…well, you get the answer that matches your question. By saying that US forces are only drawing down to pre-Surge levels, you’re demonstrating both an ignorance of the objective (which is to continue beyond pre-Surge levels), or demonstrating a tendency to lie since when Gen Petraeus was in DC last time and announced the plan to drawdown the very next sentence he said was that he wanted to go beyond that, but it was just too far in the future. So, was your question ignorant as I pointed out, OR were your being deceitful and ignoring the full context of the General’s statements and plans so as to somehow feed your sentiments on half truths?
So, was your question ignorant as I pointed out, OR were your being deceitful and ignoring the full context of the General’s statements and plans so as to somehow feed your sentiments on half truths?
Oh, my god–blah blah blah. “[W]hen Gen Petraeus was in DC last time and announced the plan to drawdown the very next sentence he said was that he wanted to go beyond that, but it was just too far in the future.” So there are dreams of withdrawal someday? That’s the best you’ve got? The war’s over? Then maybe everyone here can stop bitching about Obama or Clinton possibly bringing troops home?
What a ridiculously transparent rhetorical tactic!
I agree. There’s no need to complain about Obama or Clinton bringing troops home faster (as you would like). They can’t and won’t do it. Democrats have been sold the “vote for me and I’ll end the war” BS for years now, and like lemmings, as soon as a Democratic Party candidate says something like “I’m gonna end the war when I take office”…those wide-eyed DNC supporters believe em. Democrats are the ones with dreams of just driving out and somehow everything will be better or even ok. Republicans have plans and goals, and they work towards them. Think about it, Hillary and Obama say they’ll “end the war” well then why haven’t they? If they don’t have the political will to do it now, they won’t have the political will in the future when there’s accountability and responsibility.
No sir, the transparent rhetoric is the belief that Sen Obama or Sen Clinton will really take office and begin a withdrawal that’s faster and bigger than already planned and started and expected for the future.
Scott said:
I’d sure like to takek that as gospel, Scott. But I’m less sure than you. Certainly their campaign promises during midterm elections preyed on voter’s ignorance of the power of Congress. But a DNC commander in chief can actually accomplish the withdrawal at whatever pace they deem feasible.
Whether the DNC withdrawal is bigger and faster than what’s already in the plan is hard to predict. Events on the ground, and the Iraq govt attitude towards our presence, is what will dictate the actual pace under this admin. Under a DNC admin, events on the ground be damned, they are leaving ASAP just to appease a media indoctrinated constituency.
Withdrawal will be difficult, for the last boots have very few to watch their backs. And the jihad movement will make every attempt to take advantage of their isolation from support brigades.
That’s the catch 22. History and “conditions on the ground” will force 1 of 2 things:
1) a Dem Pres orders withdrawal, and there’s peace=American wins, and I don’t care about the D next to his/her name as my interest is American success first, foremost, and only
2) a Dem Pres orders a withdrawal, and as predicted the place collapses=the Dem Pres has to send US troops back in, AND he has to sell it to the American people; by “it” I mean the idea that withdrawal somehow would just magically make things better. Such a scenario would be awful militarily, but politically it’s a deathblow to any and all opposition to the war. They’re “plan” to withdraw and hope that everything magically gets better would have been proven wrong. That leaves no other plan that a 3rd invasion and a repeat of the Bush strategies. Most of all, America cannot win without the will, and to have the anti-war movement’s mantra destroyed destroys the anti-war movement=American will to succeed is slammed down hard, and America would finally be unstoppable in its objectives. As before, I don’t care if it’s a D or an R that brings about success in Iraq. I just want success.
Or option 3, Scott. American withdraws, and a DNC POTUS refuses to go back in because they pass it off as a “civil war” to the electorate.
I thought about that (believe me), but I don’t believe it’s an option. If the US were to withdraw in the first two years, then in yr3 the carnage would be akin to Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc., but this time a large portion of the American people would be finger-pointing hard, “This is your fault! You cut and run! You didn’t finish the job! You promised blah blah blah.” That’s hard for a poll-driven waffler to roll with, and it’s even harder now that Presidential campaigns start in yr3. I don’t think a Dem Pres could bear that popular pressure, the poll pressure, the political pressure, and certainly not the economic and diplomatic pressures. They can blame Bush all they want, but the “it happened on X’s watch” bit is gonna haunt hard.
“Fleeing”?
I thought the idea that Conservatives kept telling us was that all the Jihadists in the world were going to fly into Iraq so thery could die on our “swords” there. You mean that now those Jihadists are taking everything they have learned from Iraq and are heading into the rest of the world to apply that eductation?
Isn’t that going to mean that the Bush Occupation of Iraq will make America LESS safe?
Re: “As before, I don’t care if it’s a D or an R that brings about success in Iraq. I just want success.”
I spent all of the 1990’s hearing from Conservatives that the prosperity of that era was 100% due to Saint Ronald Reagan. Not one single conservative ever gave a Democratic President any positive credit for any positive outcome that occurred duringhis watch. And no Conservative ever will.
What I am saying is that I do not believe you would live up to your “D or R” comment should any positive outcome in Iraq happen on a “D’s” watch. No more than you held George W.Bush in any way accountable for the negative event of the September 11, 2001 attacks, joining with every other Conservative in declaring it was “all Bill Clinton’s fault”.
Proof.
I can demonstrate that statement right here and now. I will make a positive, unconditional positive statement about George W. Bush, with no conditions or “but’s”. Nor will it be a “positive” that is really a “left-handed” compliment. Conservatives will not be able to make s similar comment about Bill Clinton because their fingers would drop off their hands before something like that could be typed.
President Bush has received far too little credit and attention for the efforts he has speerheaded in addressing the HIV epidemic in Africa. In an effort for which he has, and will likely never, receive his full due, George W. Bush has pushed, and funded, extensive programs that is getting drugs to people who need them and implementing preventive programs. All this effort has, and will, save thousands of lives.
Thank you, George W. Bush, for this great humanitarian effort.
See Steve, you still consider me “a conservative.” I’m a registered Democrat with a history of voting Democrat. By your definition, anyone who disagrees with the party line on the war, or holds their party accountable is a “conservative.” Ironic, using the with us or against us mantra.
I think President Clinton did a good job nailing Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters with cruise missiles in 1993. I could probably think of other things, but that’s the one on my mind right now.
Re: "See Steve, you still consider me “a conservative.” I’m a registered Democrat with a history of voting Democrat. By your definition, anyone who disagrees with the party line on the war, or holds their party accountable is a “conservative.” Ironic, using the with us or against us mantra."
Your "disagreements" with the Democratic Party take the form of defendig the Bush Administration. You also indulge int he Republican hate machine, as observed in the "Hand me my broom" thread, which was nothing but a stream of puire hate against her personally. On that thread I decried similar smears against George W. Bush, but not one single Conservative would admit to their own levels of hatred.
huh? "Hand me my broom"
Please show me a quote of mine to back up you claim…or apologize again. It’s almost Friday, and you’re about due for your weekly “I was wrong”
You are correct. I lumped you in with the other conservatives who were wallowing in hate (while, of course denying it completely). You did not deserve to be included in that group and I apologize.
.
Re: “I was wrong”
Apparently Conservatives, who are never wrong about anything, ever, consider a willingness to admit a mistake to be a sure sign of weakness. That certainly explains why they worship George W. Bush so much.
Don’t worry. I will not, in the future ever expect similar treatment from Conservatives. Being perfect human beings, Conservatives have no need to admit an error, ever (unless it is the usual sarcasm of “being to nice” to lesser human beings such as me).
It is part of Conservative arrogance, as exemplified so well by Conservative heros such as Donald Rumsfeld (“The greatest Secretary of Defense in History” – Dick Cheney), while Americaqns were dying due to his arrogant dismissal of good advice from his Military Chiefs of Staff.