The Thin Green Ratline

Our surge against the jihadis entrenched in Baghdad and the belts around the city were tremendously assisted by the cutting of the ratlines back to Syria that traversed Anbar province. Once the Awakening flipped the Anbar tribes, the jihadis in Baghdad and the surrounding region were on their own to face our offensive.

While the jihadis in Mosul are greatly weakened and under tremendous pressure from Iraqi forces with our troops in support:

Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, has been the most prominent al-Qaida in Iraq urban stronghold since the group lost control of cities in the western province of Anbar over the past year. Al-Qaida militants and other Sunni Arab insurgents have used the city to carry out major attacks in northern and central Iraq in recent months.

U.S.-backed Iraqi forces have been carrying out targeted raids on suspected militants in the city — and so far the sweep has seen almost no clashes, a sign insurgents are seeking to lay low or escape. The Defense Ministry reported the first death in the crackdown, saying raids Monday left one militant dead, along with 78 people arrested. The ministry statement gave no details on how the death occurred.

The enemy is weak enough to be in self-preservation mode rather than fighting.

Mosul is not cut off completely, however, making it more difficult to roll them up more quickly:

On Sunday, U.S-Iraqi forces increased a parallel operation in regions between Mosul and the Syrian border aimed at intercepting fleeing al-Qaida figures, an official in the Iraqi security forces' Ninevah command center said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press.

While the article speaks of some jihadis running west to escape Mosul, support from the west is undoubtedly flowing to Mosul. Al Qaeda in Iraq is going down, but Syria will extend the agony of Iraqis as long as the jihadis are willing to kill Iraqis. Fortunately, fewer and fewer jihadis are willing to fight and the ones who are willing face a shorter life span as our side chases them down.

Road Warriors

One brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division is slotted to come home 3 months earlier than planned when it first deployed for fifteen months:

Maj. Tom Earnhardt, a spokesman for the 82nd, told The Associated Press on Friday that the 1st Brigade will leave Iraq in mid-July and be replaced by the 4th Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division, based at Fort Hood, Texas.

The unit -- nicknamed "Devils in Baggy Pants" by a German officer in World War II -- is based at Talill Air Base in southern Iraq but operates all over the country protecting convoys along the roads from Kuwait and Jordan into Baghdad.

It is interesting that this unit is involved in convoy security. While we still need troops in the neighborhoods for now to cement the gains of the surge, the road network seems secure enough to draw down a brigade early. Or at least secure enough to transfer the responsibility to Iraqi units.

The Few, The Cowed, the Mahdi Army

Our press always seems to peg the Mahdi Army at 60,000 fighters when they write stories about Sadr. I've often commented that I think this number is pure fantasy. Perhaps, this refers to total supporters, but it always seemed ludicrous to me to speak of 60,000 fighters as if there were 60,000 in the streets ready to do battle.

Strategypage pegs these guys at a more reasonable number:

Eight weeks of fighting have caused the Mahdi Army over 4,000 casualties (dead, wounded, captured, deserted). For an outfit estimated to have a peak strength of 6,000, that's some pretty serious losses. The Mahdi Army can quickly recruit new gunmen. Nearly every family has at least one firearm. But the new recruits are green, and die easily in combat, if they don't run and hide when the shooting starts. So the Mahdi Army has a manpower shortage.

Having 54,000 supporters would make it easier to replace losses, of course, as any force will do. But the losses no doubt make recruiting tougher and make the recruits who do show up both less effective and less eager to die in lopsided fights with Iraqi and American troops. This mighty horde has run away in both Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City as well as points in between when confronted with Iraqi and American forces determined to win.

But as long as the Mahdi Army press spokesman can talk a mean game of jihad, with suitable eye-bulging threats and an AK-47 in hand, our press will continue to write about the mighty Mahdi "Army" even when they can't field enough men for a soccer league.

Hearts and Minds

The Long War requires us to transform the Arab Moslem world in order to end the recruiting pool that the current society fosters.

We can turn back the current wave of jihad as past waves have been blunted without this transformation. But this means that another wave will hit our shores again one day, as this wave is yet another wave in a long history of jihadi surges directed at the West. But the next wave of jihadis might have weapons of mass destruction as part of the attacks. We would be wise to make this the last jihad.

President Bush warns the Arab autocrats that business as usual is no way to run their countries:

"Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," Bush said in a speech to 1,500 global policymakers and business leaders at this Red Sea beach resort. That was a clear reference to host Egypt, where main secular opposition figure Ayman Nour has been jailed and President Hosni Mubarak has led an authoritarian government since 1981.

"America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled," Bush said.

"I call on all nations in this region to release their prisoners of conscience, open up their political debate and trust their people to chart their future," Bush said.

I know that many here just want us to deal with the autocrats as long as they can provide stability. But with the jihadi impulse still strong enough to inspire recruits for bin Laden, that option is gone. That option is gone because bin Laden won't let the autocrats carry on with business as usual:

Bin Laden said Muslims should ignore the Islamic prohibition against raising arms against fellow Muslims, claiming it was legitimate to rise up against leaders who are not governing according to Islamic law. Those leaders, he said, came to power "either by a military coup or with backing from foreign forces."

American critics of our foreign policy are 180 degrees wrong when they charge that President Bush insists that countries are either with us or against us. In truth, it is bin Laden who insists Arab people must be either with him and his jihad or against him. He kills Sunni Arabs who fail to enlist enthusiastically as readily as he kills Westerners. Arab rulers are happy to work with this logic, arguing that they will keep the jihadis at bay but at the price of total control of the societies and governments of the Arab world.

We, by contrast, accept help freely given against the terrorists, and offer Arab people an alternative to a constant fight with jihadis battling over the allegiance of these citizens unhappy with their leaders and the societies they live in that keep them in poverty while much of the rest of the world marches forward.

Given this battle going on, explain to me again how unimportant it is to plant democracy in Iraq and provide the Arab people with an example of how to escape the poor choices that the autocrats and bin Laden give them. And if we can break the grip of despair that these choices inspire, maybe we can end the cycles of jihad before nuclear weapons become simple enough for private entities to build and use--on us.

UPDATE: Wretchard writes about the waves of jihad and how fashion decisions may demonstrate our coming victory over the current wave. This is good. But this doesn't mean the war is over.

Strategypage writes about the problems in the Arab Moslem world that show why we can't just rest our laurels on a mere tactical victory over the current wave. Given time, these problems left unsolved will generate a new wave. And what tools will our forward-looking society and economy provide another generation of jihadis that will be used to kill us in large numbers?

We are not doomed to meeting another more dangerous wave of jihadis in a couple generations once the current wave is defeated. The success of Moslems and Arabs in American society shows how the Arab Moslem world can thrive if we can break the stifling hold that Middle Eastern Moslem society has on the talented individuals who emerge despite the handicaps.

The Retreat from Baghdad

Bin Laden has made it official, he's cutting his losses in Iraq and calling a retreat:

In his second audio message in three days focusing on the Palestinians, the al-Qaida leader said the only way to liberate Palestine is to fight the Arab regimes that are protecting Israel. And he called on Muslim militants in Egypt to help break the blockade of Gaza.

Back when driving America from Iraq was their prime mission, you didn't hear much from al Qaeda about the need to liberate Palestine. It was all about Iraq as the first step in the path to victory.

With jihadi morale suffering with losses in Afghanistan and Iraq, bin Laden is trying to rebuild morale by focusing on the traditional enemy, the Jews.

I don't imagine the remaining jihadis inside Iraq can be too happy to know that bin Laden doesn't really think they are accomplishing much in Iraq.

The Chartered Spearhead

I remain convinced that China will attempt a speedy conquest of Taiwan should they attempt to end Taiwanese independence. And further, the longer China waits, the more difficult it will be to reconcile people used to democracy and with a national consciousness that resists absorption as a Chinese province.

There may be good reasons to do this, but this decision will make it easier for the Chinese to invade Taiwan:

Taiwan plans to sign a pact with China next month on weekend charter flights, the first move towards dropping Taipei's five-decade ban on direct flights with China, according to a newspaper report Sunday. The Economic Daily News said Taiwan plans to send Chiang Ping-kun, KMT party's vice chairman and chairman of the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF), to Beijing next month to sign the charter flight pact.

A surprise invasion would be led off by Chinese units unloading from civilian ships in Taiwanese ports and could now be supplemented by chartered flights of softball teams, and bowling teams, and chess teams from China that all seem to be made up of burly young men with short hair.

Don't be confused about a charm offensive by Peking exploiting their dead when the mainland Chinese believe they own Taiwan and the present status quo is just something to be changed.

And with this development on Taiwan, the clock is ticking for China to absorb the island democracy without too much resistance:

His wife may have been indicted for graft and his anti-China rage upset major ally the United States, but departing President Chen Shui-bian charted Taiwan's future by firming up its self-identity and cooling down Beijing.

Chen's local identity push and his pressure on China, which claims Taiwan as its own, are likely to endure, forcing incoming President Ma Ying-jeou to co-opt some of those issues if he wants to reach out to opponents, experts say.

That is, China was put on defense to ward off formal independence moves by Taiwan rather than pressing Taiwan for absorption talks; and the people on Taiwan feel more Taiwanese than Chinese now.

For the Taiwan question, time is not on China's side, I think. But should it come to an invasion, the Chinese will make up some of that time by using civilian assets to put the first wave on the ground before the Taiwanese defenses can be alerted.

Friendly Fire

The soldier who did this must be punished and removed from the area:

A soldier used a Quran, the Islamic holy book, for target practice in a predominantly Sunni area west of Baghdad, prompting an apology from the military, a spokesman said Sunday.

We may wish that we dealt with less excitable Moslems, but that is not the case. We can't just say this was performance art and that Moslems should get over it since it involves artistic freedom.

The effect of this stunt was such that he might as well have pointed his weapon at his platoon mates and opened fire on them.

UPDATE: The soldier was removed from Iraq:

An American sniper was removed from Iraq after he used a copy of the Quran for target practice, the military said Sunday, a day after a U.S. commander held a formal ceremony apologizing to Sunni tribal leaders.

I thought we might have gotten away with moving him to another area inside Iraq--for his own protection as much as removing a source of anger from the area he was in--but perhaps that would have been insufficient to protect him.

Ultimately, we will have finally won the Long War when incidents like this are met with anger but no beheadings.

How They Sleep at Night is Beyond Me

When your goal is to stick it to George Bush's America, a brave old lady is just an obstacle to be brushed aside:

Al Gore heroically gave speeches and made documentaries exaggerating the potential problems associated with global warming. Let's see, should the peace prize go to Al Gore, who spends his cushy life promoting a left wing environmental agenda, or Irena Sendler, who saved 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazis in a Warsaw ghetto, was tortured for her efforts (and here I mean actual torture, not the rough treatment that sends many into fits of hysteria today), and then returned to saving innocent children, thereby risking further torture and death? Tough call.

Sadly, for the sainted international community as represented by our Euro friends, it wasn't a close call at all.

Irena Sendler lost out to Al Gore and those scientists on the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I hope the people who have that award on their mantle remember this fact every day.

Hobby Spies

It just seems like we should be able to harvest this kind of private effort:

Google Earth strikes again, with the revelation of a major ballistic missile launching facility in Central China. The missiles appear aimed at targets in Russia and India, and are fired from roadside launching areas.

Mass access to commercial satellite photos has been a major annoyance for police states that restrict movement, and photography, around military bases. But you can't hide from the dozens of commercial photo satellites that circle the planet, and sell their images to a growing number of mass media outlets (like Google and Microsoft.) There, thousands of people scour the photos for interesting images. This, it has been found, is often more effective than the computer assisted analysis system the military uses for their higher resolution spy satellites.

Can't we recruit these users for more direct help? Or is it a stretch to think this can be organized? I just don't know.

The Fog of Word

Mark Steyn identifies the problem with "talking" to our enemies:

Increasingly, the Western world has attitudes rather than policies. It's one thing to talk as a means to an end. But these days, for most midlevel powers, talks are the end, talks without end. Because that's what civilized nations like doing – chit-chatting, shooting the breeze, having tea and crumpets, talking talking talking. Uncivilized nations like torturing dissidents, killing civilians, bombing villages, doing doing doing. It's easier to get the doers to pass themselves off as talkers then to get the talkers to rouse themselves to do anything.

And, as the Iranians understand, talks provide a splendid cover for getting on with anything you want to do. If, say, you want to get on with your nuclear program relatively undisturbed, the easiest way to do it is to enter years of endless talks with the Europeans over said nuclear program.

President Bush understands the problem with talking with vicious enemies who will never agree to stop being vicious enemies:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

Our Left insists that talking to enemies isn't the same as appeasement. I surely agree with that statement. But when you invest so much in talking as our Left does, by the tenth conference you've lost the ability to distinguish between talking and appeasing. And by the fifteenth conference, you don't even see the Hamas guys in suits (for example) you are talking to as enemies at all, really. It gets so hazy by then, that surrendering seems like statesmanship.

I trust President Bush to talk to our enemies. I'm not sure who else I'd add to that list.

Watch Your Backs, Guys

The Taiwanese are, as decent people would be, horrified at the massive death toll of the China earthquake. The Taiwanese are expressing great sympathy for the Chinese:

The mainstream United Daily News ran a graphic, full-colour front-page photo on Friday of a writhing 10-year-old girl after her leg had been amputated in China's Sichuan province.

Taiwan's four dailies and six bitterly competitive TV networks have shown images of bloodied bodies trapped under rubble and parents wailing as they discover dead children since the magnitude 7.9 quake struck on Monday.

Add to these pictures of Taiwan-registered aircraft planning to fly supplies and personnel into the quake-affected region, where more than 50,000 are believed to have been killed, and the result is a rare surge of China sympathy in Taiwan.

And the Chinese are reaching out to the Taiwanese:

Taiwan's Nationalist Party Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung was asked to come to China by President Hu Jintao and the ruling communist party's Central Committee, Xinhua News Agency reported.

"The Taiwan compatriots have been active in making donations and offering help in various forms after the devastating earthquake in Wenchuan of Sichuan Province on May 12," Chen Yunlin, director of the Taiwan Work Office of the CPC Central Committee, told Xinhua.

He did not give details of the proposed visit but said his office would consult with the Nationalist Party "as soon as possible."

A charm offensive based on the sympathy generated by the earthquake. Call me cynical, but as long as the Chinese insist they will use force if necessary to keep Taiwan from declaring independence, such warming is meaningless. As long as the Chinese keep building up missiles and modern aircraft opposite Taiwan, such a charm offensive can only be useful in lulling the Taiwanese.

The Chinese communists are smiling at the Taiwanese and shedding a small tear while they show pictures of dead Chinese earthquake victims, but nobody should be fooled by this display of so-called friendship.

I'm still worried about the Taiwan Strait Pole Vault Competition.

UPDATE: Even as the Chinese smile and look for opportunities to cooperate with Taiwan, the Chinese continue to probe and look for opportunities to gain military advantage over Taiwan:

Taiwan has accused China of increasing its military activity in the 180 kilometers straits that separate Taiwan from China. In the last ten years, China has gone from a little over 400 fighter sorties over the straits each year, to nearly 2,000. In the last three years, there have been twenty instances of Chinese spy ships moving into Taiwans territorial waters. There has been more Chinese submarine activity around Taiwan, although, the Taiwanese would not give any specifics on this. The Taiwanese believe the Chinese are testing Taiwanese defenses regularly and more intensively, as well as giving their pilots and crews vital training. This would be a necessary prelude to an attack on the island nation.

Remember that China wants Taiwan. Oh, China is perfectly willing to have Taiwan just surrender to China without war; but China will make a play for Taiwan at some point, using their arsenal to do so if necessary.

Mosul Operations

Maliki is back in Baghdad and the Iraqis continue to press the jihadis in Mosul:

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki returned to Baghdad on Saturday after spending several days in the city of Mosul and surrounding Nineveh province to supervise the crackdown.

Many gunmen from Sunni Islamist al Qaeda have regrouped in Nineveh after being pushed out of other areas. The U.S. military says Mosul is al Qaeda's last major urban stronghold in Iraq.

Lieutenant-General Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, head of the Iraqi-led offensive that began a week ago, said 1,068 suspects had been detained so far.

"This operation will last until we finish off all the terrorist remnants and outlaws," he said.

On Friday, Maliki said fighters who handed in their weapons within 10 days would be given an amnesty and unspecified cash rewards. His offer applies to gunmen who have not killed anyone.

Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Mohammed al-Askari said scores of militants had already handed over their guns.

With over a thousand suspects held, clearly most of these are sympathizers or part of the support structure and not terrorists. By picking them up the government makes sure these people know that they are on the government's list and this could persuade some to just give up and provide useful information to go after the terrorists themselves.

And much like the Baghdad surge operations, the operation has to stop the terrorists outside of Mosul who move toward Mosul:

Police and soldiers have raided some towns on the Syrian border, where many foreign al Qaeda fighters enter Iraq, as part of the operation and turned over some suspects to U.S. forces.

The story doesn't indicate whether operations in Mosul are providing the intelligence to identify the towns and locations in the towns where the raids took place. Nor does it say if the border town raids have provided information to help the Mosul operations.

The Syrians are still funneling men and material into Iraq and this supply line must be cut off to really secure Mosul.

Old But Still Good

Expressing concern that the Navy's carrier fleet will dip too low, Congress wants to see if it is feasible to put two conventional carriers into operation to fill what is hoped is a temporary decrease in numbers:

House officials want to explore the possibility of bringing the USS John F. Kennedy or USS Kitty Hawk back into service in five years to keep the Navy’s carrier fleet at full force.

Enterprise will be retired in 2012 and it would be too difficult and costly to extend this nuclear-powered carrier to fill the gap until the Ford is brough online. Other delays could drop our carrier strength by another ship before replacements are commissioned.

Timing is Everything

Stay with me here, I'm going to write fast.

I have actually been puzzled by the Saudi refusal to increase production of oil in the face of rising prices. Sure, they like higher prices. But they also know that higher prices that endure will lead even our Left to build nuclear power plants, drill through polar bears to get to Arctic oil, drill off of Ted Kennedy's coastal property, and strip mine for oil shale out west.

But again, Saudi Arabia says no:

Saudi Arabian leaders made clear Friday they see no reason to increase oil production until their customers demand it, apparently rebuffing President Bush amid soaring U.S. gasoline prices.

And this refusal is prompting considerable anger as this move indicates:

Senate Democrats introduced a resolution that would block $1.4 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia unless Riyadh agrees to increase its oil production by 1 million barrels per day.

The Saudis know that in the long run, they need to keep their customers reliant on their oil and so prompting a search for alternative energy sources is not in their interest.

The Saudis also know they need us to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iranians who are also benefitting from the high oil prices, which helps them be a bigger threat. Angering us is no recipe for a strong alliance. Especially with that whole support for aggressive Wahabbi Islam.

Further, the Saudis know that their low cost of production means they can make money when the Iranians cannot even at substantially lower prices.

Finally, in the mid-1980s, the Saudis did increase their production in an effort to drive down oil prices to harm the Iranians and help the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq could borrow money to wage war. Iran needed to sell oil to wage war.

So this is where I make a big leap.

What if we are planning to do something about Iran this year. An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and security forces. A blockade, with a seizure of Iranian-held islands in the Gulf. Interception of Iranian gasoline imports. A revolt. Something else. It doesn't matter what, just that there will be a "what."

That "what" will mean Iran's oil exports will be shut down either from our actions or Iran's reaction to our effort, whatever it is.

With that possibility there, it would be nice to be able to make up for Iran's halt in oil exports by having Saudi Arabia's excess capacity available to dampen any panic over oil supplies. If Saudi Arabia ramps up production now, while Iran is exporting oil, we will have no psychological support of announcing a big increase during a crisis. Better $128 per barrel oil now than $500 per barrel later. People are so jittery about oil supplies that even though the end result in oil production would be the same whether Saudi Arabia increases production now or later, doing it later in the crisis would be far more reassuring to the world.

And is this related?

Congress voted to temporarily halt daily shipments of 70,000 barrels of oil to the nation's emergency reserve. Bush has refused to stop pouring oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying the stockpile was meant for emergencies and that halting the shipments would have little or no impact on gasoline or crude oil prices.

It's a move that Democrats have sought for the past year to increase supply and apply downward pressure on prices. With an eye to the November election, the Senate sent the measure to the president Wednesday night without a single GOP objection. The White House has indicated that Bush will sign the reserve measure.

I've wondered, but never found out the answer, can we start withdrawing from the SPR quickly? Do we need to stop putting oil in before we can pull oil out? Do we need time to switch over from adding oil to withdrawing oil? The SPR is nearly full anyway. So having an excuse to stop adding oil to the SPR might hide our efforts to prepare to pull oil out, if we cannot do that quickly with oil being added. I do know we need thirteen days from the order being given to get the oil moving. But does this include stopping the flow in?

Adding a maximum withdrawal from the SPR even as Saudi Arabia opens their spigots would sure be helpful in a crisis. And how much oil is out there in Europe, Asia, and private floating reserves?

And finally, I have to believe that all three presidential candidates would much rather have President Bush take the heat for this job than wait until 2009 to take command of the Iran problem. If it works, he's lame duck anyway. If it doesn't, one more thing to blame on President Bush, eh? And I believe that President Bush is willng to take the heat to defend us.

While I don't have a conspiratorial mindset, I do have a suspicious mind. And this explanation would sure explain a lot of questions I've had hanging.

Fifty Thousand Broken Eggs?

While I have tremendous sympathy for the people of China who have endured horrible tragedy and almost unimaginable loss of life from the earthquake in central China, would I be too cynical to think that the relatively open coverage the Chinese press is providing is approved by the ruling elite in order to garner sympathy from the West?

I've heard commentary that the Chinese press has been unusually forthcoming, in a way sympathetic to the government, of course--no FEMA-like complaints here. So why are they doing this?

Could it have anything to do with undermining the growing press gang-tackle going on in the pre-Olympics period over various Chinese human rights-related issues?

You'd have to be pretty cynical rulers to use 50,000 dead Chinese citizens as props to further your own agenda. Could the Chinese Communist Party really think of their dead as 50,000 broken eggs needed for their nice planned Olympic Omelet?

Yes, I think the rulers in Peking are perfectly capable of this type of calculation.

Which doesn't mean we shouldn't help the Chinese people in this crisis. Decency requires us to help.

Besides, perhaps our help will make it obvious to the people of China that human rights criticisms are directed at the communist government and not at the people of China, contrary to the xenophobic nationalism that Peking has promoted.

Is This Good or Bad?

I know dissent is the "highest form of patriotism" according to the Left. Jefferson never said that, but no matter. It excuses horrible behavior so it will remain on the bumpers of our Left.

Still, I have to ask, can we question the patriotism of the people responsible for this act:

Two military helicopters were vandalized on the production line at a Boeing factory near Philadelphia, the Defense Department said Thursday as it offered a reward.

Does actually harming our war effort rise beyond mere "dissent"? I really want to know. Because in theory there must be a dividing line between really vigorous dissent and actual treason. Our Left hasn't seen fit to define that line but surely this crosses it, doesn't it?

Who am I kidding? The guys involved will probably get a Profile in Courage Award as well as a Nobel Peace Prize! And if they write about it, a Pulitzer, too.

Or maybe I'm too cynical. Maybe this is a good sign. Maybe those responsible have actually given up hope that our Congress will lose the war for us and decided they needed to take direct action.

Obviously High

Colonel H. R. McMaster spoke of Iran's efforts to undermine Iraqi stability:

Iran's activities are "obvious to anyone who bothers to look into it," and should no longer be "alleged," he said in response to a question. Senior American military officials said last month that the U.S. military in Iraq has compiled a briefing with detailed evidence of Iran's involvement in Iraq violence, but the briefing has yet to be made public.

McMaster, who led a successful campaign in the northern Iraqi city of Tall Afar in 2005, said Iran has trained Iraqi militia members as snipers and organized them in "assassination cells" to kill certain people opposed to Iranian influence.

Iran has also armed large numbers of militia members in Iraqi cities such as Basra, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah and Sadr City, in Baghdad, training many in the use of the "most effective" Iranian weapons, including long-range rockets and a lethal form of roadside bomb known as an explosively formed projectile, or EFP, McMaster said. Iran has denied playing such a role in Iraq.

He also said Iran has tried to "Arabize" its effort by using Lebanese Hezbollah members to conduct some of the training.

What is obvious to me is that members of our Left just won't admit that Iran is waging war on America. Our Left insists that pointing out that Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq and killing far more Iraqis is just an attempt to justify war with Iran. Our Left insists this is the case because it also persists in holding the obviously wrong premise that Iran shares with us an interest in a stable Iraq.

This is just insanity. First of all, with at least 400 American troops dead in Iraq because of Iranian support for Shia thugs (and some Sunnis, too), Iran is already at war with us.

Second, it is surely appropriate to debate what our response to this should be. If our Left thinks the answer is "nothing" or "run away from Iraq and let Iran win," let them argue that. But to simply deny that Iran is killing Americans, Iraqis, and destablizing Iraq is not exactly the way to prove you are a member of the "reality-based community."

To condemn Americans for pointing out that Iranians are killing Americans with far more outrage than they can muster for the Iranian campaign to kill Americans and Iraqis is just bizarre.

How high a form of patriotism is that Leftist thinking, anyway?

Now it Isn't News

Iraqi forces are going block by block through Mosul looking for al Qaeda terrorists:

Government troops began house-to-house searches for al-Qaida in Iraq militants in Mosul on Thursday, part of a major security operation to cleanse Iraq's third largest city from cells of the terror network.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki flew to Mosul on Wednesday to take charge of the operation by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces. Described by the U.S. military as the last major urban base of al-Qaida in Iraq, Mosul has become the site of al-Maliki's third security drive in two months as he attempts to defeat Shiite militants and Sunni extremists.

Al-Qaida, however, appears to be far from defeated.

The article goes on to tell of the enemy's latest atrocity.

But if the enemy is far from defeated, al Qaeda is much farther from victorious. Recall that a year ago, the surge was just beginning in reaction to the threat by Iranian-supported Shia thugs and Syrian-supported al Qaeda bombers to plunge Iraq into civil war. The surge of US forces was needed because the Iraqi security forces weren't strong enough to tangle with the terrorists.

But now, with US support, the Iraqis are able to take on both the Sadrists and the al Qaeda forces that still remain.

This, my friends, is progress. Counter-insurgency 101 is always about turning over the fight to locals. Unfortunately, we faced incredibly vicious, well-trained, and well-financed enemies inside Iraq that the raw Iraqi security forces could not handle.

We need patience in the face of tough enemies to win. But we are clearly winning.

The Northern Front

Prime Minister Maliki is looking north:

"The Iraqi prime minister has arrived in Mosul to supervise the military operations, and its second phase is due to start today," Mohammed al-Askari, the spokesman of the Iraqi Defense Ministry, told The Associated Press. "The main aim of this operation is to purge and clean Ninevah province of all militants and their weapons and declare it a safe area."

Mosul is considered the last important urban staging ground for al-Qaida in Iraq after the terror group lost its strongholds in Baghdad and other areas during the U.S. troop buildup last year.

Al-Maliki has been promising a crackdown since January. But no major offensives have been mounted even as al-Qaida in Iraq tried to exert its influence through attacks and intimidation.

Operations up north have been ongoing all year so far. I have to wonder what the personal attention of the prime minister will mean. While one can make a big effort to hammer a militia-type organization that is trying to hold a city, a big effort against a terrorist organization that tries to hide in order to attack with terror attacks is not really possible.

Operations up north are slow and methodical and not kinetic like Knights' Charge.

So what does Maliki's presence signify?

UPDATE: This might be why:

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has offered members of armed groups in Mosul an amnesty in exchange for surrendering their weapons.

He says the gunmen have 10 days starting Friday to hand over medium and heavy weapons and receive unspecified monetary compensation in return.

The statement also offers amnesty to those described as "duped" into taking up arms against the government as long as they were not involved in crimes against civilians and did not "have blood on their hands."

Operations like the Mosul mission require the government to move enemies into the neutral column, neutrals into the allies column, keep allies friendly, and thus minimize the number of hard core enemies that must be killed.

With al Qaeda in Iraq moving resources to Afghanistan in recognition of their ongoing retreat, a number of the al Qaeda members in the enemy column may be ripe for neutralizing. And Maliki's presence and personal offer may make the offer more credible. On the other side, the prospect of facing Iraqi forces supported by American forces in a major effort to move through Mosul will be an added push to accept the offer of surrender.

Just One

Ahmadinejad wants Israel to be destroyed:

The Zionist (Israeli) regime is dying," said Ahmadinejad during a speech in northern Iran. "The criminals assume that by holding celebrations ... they can save the sinister Zionist regime from death and annihilation."

Ahmadinejad used an Arabic word, ismihlal, that can also be translated as destruction, death and collapse.

Destruction? Death? Collapse? Whatever. It's all good for Ahmadinejad.

And I suspect this nutball isn't just idly wishing for Allah's divine intervention:

"Nations of the region hate this criminal fabricated regime (Israel) and will uproot this fabricated regime if the smallest and shortest opportunity is given to them," Ahmadinejad said Wednesday in an address broadcast live on state television.

When you consider that even parts of our liberal community claim that even they would support direct military action against Iran should Iran deploy nuclear weapons, you have to wonder if the Iranians assume we will strike once we know they have nukes.

Sure, some on the Left think Ahmadinejad just wants nukes to deter us from attacking Iran.

Heck, some on the right assume Ahmadinejad "only" wants nukes to shield his terrorism from retaliation by America.

But what if "Iran" only wants that "smallest and shortest opportunity" to make good on Ahmadinejad's fervent wish?

What if Ahmadinejad only needs to have one nuclear-tipped missile long enough to run tests on it, roll it out of the mountain cave, aim it west, and light it up?

Are you really counting on this nutjob being rational?

Doom, I Say! Dooooommmm!

Our anti-Iraq War Left has been claiming we are losing in Afghanistan for about five years now.

Perhaps you thought the Left's latest claims couldn't possibly be wrong again. Wrong war. Wrong place. Distraction. Surely, this time for sure, right? I didn't think so, but what is my opinion compared to the depth of knowledge our anti-war side brings to the table in terms of military history and warfare? They're nuanced, dammit! Surely that counts for something!

Guess again:

Afghan and security forces waited, and waited, for the Taliban Spring Offensive, but it never came. Gun battles with the Taliban were down 50 percent so far, compared to last year. Roadside bomb attacks were about the same. But Taliban casualties were up, as more Afghan and NATO forces went looking for them. Last year, 8,000 people died in Taliban violence. So far this year, the death toll is 1,200, indicating casualties for the year will be about half what they were last year. This year, a higher proportion of the dead are Taliban and al Qaeda, and a lower proportion civilians. While some Taliban commanders have tried to develop new tactics to reduce casualties (smaller units of Taliban, and avoiding contact with police and troops), nothing has worked. The Afghan army is larger (76,000 troops) and better trained than last year, and there are more foreign troops. Worst of all, more tribal leaders have sided with the government this year, meaning tribal militias are also ready to fight Taliban moving through previously pro-Taliban territory.

Yes indeed, I feel doomed. Doomed to enduring another bout of defeatism next January when our Left will dust off the predictions of imminent disaster in Afghanistan.

The Root Cause is They are Nutjobs

Sixty Indians were murdered in the city of Jaipur by what were probably Islamist terrorists:

All seven blasts were within the old walls of the western city known for its pink-hued palaces, and suspicion quickly fell on Islamic militant groups blamed for a string of attacks in India in recent years. Police said an eighth bomb was found and defused by police.

"Obviously, it's a terrorist" attack, said A.S. Gill, the police chief of Rajasthan, the state where Jaipur is located. "The way it has been done, the attempt was to cause the maximum damage to human life."

Just a reminder that India has been fighting Islamo-fascists for far longer than 2001.

And remember that the Islamists fighting India probably don't consider Iraq that much of a motivatation to kill. Heck, they probably don't even think the Palestinian question is the main focus of their efforts. What simpletons, eh?

Let Me Phrase This Delicately

Burma has suffered a tragedy and we should help, regardless of the odious nature of the regime.

But the regime is not keen on our direct help, so now the Concerned American community wants America to invade Burma to ensure that aid will reach the victims of the May cyclone?

A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly. During the 2004 tsunami, some 24 U.S. ships and 16,000 troops were deployed in countries across the region; the mission cost the U.S. $5 million a day. Ultimately, the U.S. pledged nearly $900 million to tsunami relief. (By contrast, it has offered just $3.25 million to Burma.) But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government's xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view U.S. troops — or worse, foreign relief workers — as hostile forces.

Ratnesar has a lot of nerve.

First I want to see plans. Lots of 'em. With every conceivable deviation from the plan and our response. In English and French, naturally.

Second, I want allies that total more than half of the forces going in--otherwise it is just "unilateral."

Third, France has to be involved. And Germany.

Fourth, we need a UN resolution--no wait, two UN Security Council Resolutions. And don't tell me that China would veto a resolution authorizing international intervention in the internal affairs of a member state. That just means we need to keep talking about that resolution.

Fifth, what's our exit strategy? And a timetable for withdrawing our troops is a must. Otherwise, how will the Burmese learn to respond to humanitarian crises without us?

Sixth, I want Congress to declare war. And this time they have to mean it, not like that 2002 authorization to use force against Iraq that many on the left want to repeal or just forget. The declaration should specifically mention that it has no expiration date.

Seventh, we'll need to give our baby-killing and raping troops proper sensitivity and human rights training so they won't abuse the locals. Oh, and the International Criminal Court must be given jurisdiction.

Eighth, what is the total projected cost out to ten years, including interest and every possible expense resulting from the intervention?

Ninth, what guarantees do you have that the corrupt locals won't squander the aid?

Tenth, we need to give cyclone inspectors time to determine if there really is a crisis in Burma. At least a year, I'd say.

Eleventh, this can only be a last resort to other non-military solutions.

Twelfth, why Burma and not China? Or North Korea, which has a far greater humanitarian problem? Or Congo? Or Darfur? If we can't invade them all to feed them, why are we rushing to war with Burma alone? Is there oil involved? Are Jews associated with this intervention? Will any Moslems of the excitable variety be offended?

Thirteenth, we need benchmarks for the Burmese to meet otherwise we risk wasting our money on an effort that is bound to fail.

Fourteenth, we have to have a military draft so that service in Burma is shared by all.

Am I too harsh? Am I a little sensitive over the ability of our more liberal citizenry to advocate military action and then cut and run the first time we have to shoot a poor underprivileged native who understandably wants to car bomb our outposts?

Nah. I'm just capable of learning from experience.

Oh, there is one more requirement:

Advocates of military intervention to deliver aid to Burma can kiss my ass.

But once my objections have been met, full speed ahead by all means.

UPDATE: This article is a helpful counter to the usual sniping at America. I appreciate the author's sentiments. And no, I'm not ready to tell the world to take a hike and good luck. We are better than our mindless critics and we will help those in trouble. We will help because that's what Americans do. We will help in Burma. And we should help in China. And after we help, we will endure the mindless critics who condemn us for not rushing to a unilateral invasion of Burma to save Burmese cyclone victims from the neglect of their own government. And then we'll help again in the next disaster. That's what America does.