The Rule Of Law In Anbar Province

Michael Yon reports.

Treason

How many more times will the media print "sensitive" national security information from ANONYMOUS "patriots," while no one suffers any consequences for the breach, except the people who will die because U.S. government secrets were blabbed to the world--because Americans have a "right to know?" ABC has given the Iranians another excuse to play the victim, while continuing defiantly to develop the nuclear capabilities that the oil rich nation claims to need for power. (They want power, all right, just not the kind that runs the refrigerator.) Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, on The Blotter at ABCNews.com print the big, bold headline "Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran." Not covert anymore:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions…

What part of secret does ABC not get? Okay, now no one is going to be shocked that the U.S. is working against the regime in Iran. The U.S. darned well better be doing something to hinder an antagonistic bully that is very visibly and vocally working toward becoming a nuclear power, has made decisive threats against its neighbors--our allies--while actively supporting terrorism, is one of the major destabilizing factors in Iraq, would love nothing more than to put a giant nuclear hole where Israel used to be, and chortles in delight at the mere thought of leaving New York, LA, London or even Paris a smoking radioactive crater. It's not a big surprise to learn that our government takes this threat seriously. However, if ABC News doesn't think that Ahmadinejad and his cohorts will use this "revelation" for all it's worth in the blame department, then they are worse than idiots. Muslim extremists riot over CARTOONS, for pity's sake.

Iran's power mongers will milk this down to the last drop in the Muslim world, and will make mental inroads with many, even in the other Muslim countries that would much rather not have a nuclear Iran in the region. This will be taken as further evidence that America is evil, what with having the desire to destabilize the Iranian government and all. Imperialist swine. Never mind the fact that the rest of the world would be insane not to work toward the downfall of a fanatical, power mad, oppressive regime that is very clear about its intentions to rule the world and kill everyone who stands to prevent that. This will be played as interference from the Great Satan in Muslim affairs, and it won't matter a bit that Iranians interfere with the affairs of the rest of the region constantly--Lebanon and Iraq being two of the countries that bear a lot of the brunt of Iran's attention. How many more Muslims will die in Iraq because another handful of suicide bombers were recruited to fight against the evil Iran-destabilizing USA? How many more times will the American media print "sensitive" information and get away with it? ABC News should be prosecuted for its own "black ops", along with the anonymous CIA sources. The only way these people are going to stop working against America is if they are held accountable for it.

Hat tip: Allah Pundit at Hot Air, who has more to say on the appeasement approach to the situation with Iran, and a look at some of the possibilities for "blowback" from Iran.

The Power Of The Pen

A fourth province in Iraq has now been handed over to the Iraqis. Michael Yon looks at media coverage of the event.

Positive Changes In Iraq

Another Sunni tribe turns against al Qaeda:

The Albu Fahd was one of the six original Anbari tribes to support al Qaeda and its Islamic State in Iraq. These six tribes are known in some military intelligence circles as the "Sinister Six". The Albu Fahd [described as the Bu-Fahed] has now joined the Anbar Salvation Council and pledged to throw its weight behind the fight against al Qaeda.

Here's the scoop.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Yon's Latest

Michael Yon has photos from Iraq. Here's Part I. Here's Part II. Read the captions. The first dispatch looks at the 1-4 Cavalry from Fort Riley, Kansas, setting up a command outpost in a mostly abandoned neighborhood in Baghdad. In the second, you'll see signs of this Iraqi neighborhood coming back to life. As usual, Yon writes what he sees, and his photos let you see it for yourself.

Update: Austin Bay has an audio interview with Michael Yon at Pajamas Media's Blog Week in Review. It's very interesting.

Iraqi "Neighborhood Watch"

I'm not taking much time to write today, but I wanted to share this post from JD Johannes, writing from the Al Anbar province in Iraq, at Outside The Wire. He's got some encouraging local developments for those Americans who fear/believe we've already lost the war in Iraq. To the contrary, judging from the evidence in Al Anbar (one of the major insurgent strongholds of the last few years), Johannes says that it may be we've already won--but just don't realize it. The tribes and local Sheikhs have "flipped," and this place that used to be a haven for insurgent forces has become a home to neighborhood watches and volunteer check points--all working against the insurgency. Have a look.

Update: General Petraeus, the man now in charge of our forces in Iraq, spoke with Congress Wednesday (closed door, because of classified information) about how the surge is going thus far, and later gave a public briefing, minus the classified, closed-door stuff. He seems to share Johannes' encouragement about Al Anbar and what a difference the allegiance of the local sheikhs and tribesmen is making in the fight against Al Qaeda. He also spoke frankly of the challenges both the Coalition and the Iraqis are facing, and where he sees signs of progress. The Mudville Gazette has excerpts from the public briefing as well as the Democratic and Republican assessments of what they learned from the General. It's really interesting how two groups of people can hear the same words and draw vastly different conclusions. Fortunately, thanks to our friend the Internet, you can read the excerpts for yourself and draw your own.

Hat tip: Instapundit for the Mudville Gazette link.

Holey Ridiculous Stories, Batman

The trench has been dug (aren't we fast?), and Ked is at Home Depot buying the pipe to run from the gutters to the giant hole. I took a minute to check my email, which sent me to this Scrappleface post about the "confession" of Faye Turney, a female British soldier being held captive by the Iranian government. Scrappleface "reveals" that not only had the group of fifteen sailors and marines, taken captive by Iran on March 23rd, strayed into Iranian waters, but they were bent on invasion--on a direct course for Tehran--to take over the country and plant the Union Jack. A fifteen man invasion--sounds like a solid plan to me. Mind you, Scrappleface is satire, but the satire doesn't push much beyond the ridiculousness of the charges by Iran. GPS readings clearly place the Brits in Iraqi waters, and even if they had crossed the line, under international law, the most Iran was allowed to do was warn them away, certainly not take them captive and hold them for what's going on a week, all the while changing their story to try and keep themselves in "the right." (For some reason, the coordinates for exactly where those sailors were supposed to have been keep shifting. Guess they didn't figure on the GPS records.) Does Iran actually think they're fooling anybody? Looks to me like they're digging themselves a bigger hole than Ked and I did.

Secular Islam

There's been some discussion in the comments lately about whether Islam is capable of democratic government. I believe the pertinent question is less about democracy than it is about freedom and secularism. Democracy in an Islamic country would not ensure freedom, if the majority of the population thought that oppressing people of different beliefs or races was the right thing to do. What is necessary is secularism in government, and a commitment to respecting people's differences. I got some encouragement on that front today, from a statement released by delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, an event to be held in St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007. Here is what they have to say:

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to

reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;

eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;

and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves.

Those are great words, and I take heart in them. Now I know that there are some who will say that this Summit is happening in Florida, and not the Middle East, therefor it says nothing about the potential of that region for secular democracy or any other form of secular government, because the region/religion has a totalitarian mindset. However, I would respond that many of the signatories to the above statement are still practicing Muslims, which shows that it is possible for people to believe in Islam and also believe in freedom. It is my prayer that this understanding will spread throughout the Muslim world, and that the power of these ideas will defeat the opposing ideas of oppression and intolerance by sheer numbers and force of will. I don't know what the answer to that prayer will be, but events like the Secular Islam Summit keep me hoping.

Hat tip: Instapundit

The Numbers Explained

Here's something interesting. Frederick W. Kagan, one of the authors of the plan given to the Bush administration by the American Enterprise Institute's Iraq Planning Group (IPG), which recently led to President Bush's announcement that he will be sending 21,500 more troops into Iraq to pacify Baghdad, writes at The Weekly Standard about the discrepancies between the IPG's proposed troop numbers and those set by the President. He explains, briefly, how the IPG, composed of "a team of military planning and regional experts," came to the conclusions it did, and what the differences are between their plan and the one currently going forward. Bottom line: The IPG advised more troops than the President has decided to deploy, on the order of twice as many, to completely "clear and hold all of Baghdad."

I don't know what led to the lower numbers coming from the White House, whether from a solid belief that the numbers they settled on would be enough, or a belief that the American political classes and public would start a protest stampede if the number was too high, or perhaps, as some have claimed, because we don't have enough troops in our military as a whole to sustain an additional 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. However, Kagan doesn't make the President's decisions seem calamitous by any measure. Kagan has some criticisms of certain aspects of the way the troop deployments are going forward, and of the amount of leadership being asked of the Iraqis, but his explanation of the Bush Administration's current plans, in comparison with the IPG's proposal, make it clear that the two plans aren't as far removed from each other as the numbers would indicate.

What I found interesting about the article was the glimpse into how all those military types make decisions about what troop deployments will be necessary to accomplish a given goal. The glimpse is very glimpsy--certainly not a detailed description of military strategy, but I still found it informative. Those experienced military decision-makers seem to have a very clear understanding about what a given number of soldiers, in a given range of time and space, can accomplish. Clearly, conditions on the ground change, and can affect outcomes, but the discussion from Kagan, while addressing troop numbers, was also focused on numbers of brigades. They are thinking in chunks of capabilities and accomplishment, which reminded me that, while individual soldiers are the core of what the military can accomplish, how they are used as a whole will really determine the effectiveness of their missions. Each individual soldier may very well be brilliant and capable (and I happen to believe that our American soldiers are the best the world has ever seen), but if they are put to the wrong tasks, or in the wrong places, they will be fighting a much harder battle because of the misuse of their abilities.

I believe Iraq is winnable, and what our soldiers are doing there is crucial to the future stability of the region and the world, and I hope (along with the saner elements in America, who aren't rooting for the plan to fail so that Bush will fail and prove them right) that our leaders will use them well. I've said before that I think this surge is the right thing to do. We cannot leave Iraq to the fate of Vietnam, and we cannot leave our own reputation in the world, and future security, in the hands of militia leaders like Moqtada al Sadr and eschatologically-driven regimes like Iran, who would declare victory and impose their particular brand of Islam on the people of Iraq before the last U.S. soldier had slunk out the back door, or at the very least start "the mother of all civil wars." These troop deployments are important, as are the decisions being made as to how to use them. I pray that God will give our leaders wisdom. He's already given us an incredibly capable military force.

Congressional Hypocrisy

How can they possibly believe, in this Internet age, that no one's going to remember what they said before? Maybe they just don't think anyone will care.

HT: Instapundit

The Numbers Game

Dean Barnett has a breakdown of what the troop surge in Iraq, which President Bush announced last night, really means on the ground, and offers some opinions as to why many of the voices in Congress and punditry are dismissing the efficacy of the change. It is funny to watch so many Senators and Congressmen who, when Bush was sticking with the force numbers already on the ground, were calling for an increase in troop strength, and criticising the President for not boosting the numbers (or pulling out altogether, which is what they really want), but now are singing a different tune and saying that a rise in troop levels won't do any good. Some of them are just going to oppose the President no matter what. It's their stock in trade. As for the rest, Barnett puts it down to ignorance of what the addition of 20,000 troops, all focused on security in Baghdad and training Iraqis, actually means in terms of capability. Ground that has been previously cleared of militias and terrorists, but then ceded back to the enemy, will now be cleared again, but this time held, with the aid of the increased forces. He explains it all pretty well. Have a look.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Victim's Rights--Or Lack Thereof

Few of us here in the West don't bristle with outrage at the mere idea of the Islamic law which finds women guilty of a crime when they have been raped. The notion that any set of laws would demand four witnesses to an act of rape to prove that the intercourse wasn't consensual, and thus that the woman wasn't guilty of fornication, is so absurd as to defy any form of reason. Who on Earth is going to stand around and watch a rape happening, and not stop it?!? Such observers would not be impartial witnesses, but voyeurs of the sickest kind, and as such would be more likely to follow the rapist to his next victim than to stand up in court and put the blankety-blank blank away. Given this standard, what woman in her right mind is going to ever admit to being raped, let alone try to prosecute the perpetrator? It would be like screaming, "Kill me, or put me in jail. I'm guilty of being a victim." So, what is a woman living under Shari'a Law supposed to do? How about fight back? One young woman in Iran, named Nazanin Fatehi, did just that. She carried a knife for protection, and when three men attacked her and her 16-year-old niece, she stabbed one of them. That men later died. Guess what the Iranian courts decided? She's guilty of murder. They sentenced her to hang.

In a shocking display of sanity, an Iranian ayatollah set aside the verdict. In any civilized country that would be the end of it, but this is Iran. She's scheduled to be retried on January 10th. Powerline has the details.

Totten Takes The Beirut Tour

Michael Totten's been wandering around Lebanon again, and is his usual articulate and informative self, relating his experiences in a way that puts you right there with him. His latest post is a continuation of his experiences in Beirut, as Hezbollah was still drawing supporters to the city center in an attempt to overturn the duly elected Lebanese government. He talked with locals, and the "Party of God" recruits. Exploring the gathering as an obvious foreigner, he couldn't blend into the crowd. (He looks much more like an Irish Catholic than an Arab Islamist.) He's had run-ins with Hezbollah before, and the testosterone tends to run pretty high when thousands of Arab men gather to overturn a government, so this time he donned a bit of Hezbollah apparel, a scarf, and found that the effect was quite remarkable. The scarf didn't completely overcome the fact he's American, but did garner him a much less hostile reception from the watchdog thuggery that had heretofore followed him with suspicion. Wearing the thing made him uncomfortable, but gave him a slightly different view into the world of Hezbollah.

I find his reports fascinating. One of the things which struck me very forcefully as I was reading this one was what Totten pointed out about the shift in Arab relations throughout the Middle East, as illustrated by regional reactions to the war this past summer between Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon. He writes of a conversation he and his friend Noah Pollak had with a couple of Hezbollah supporters:

An older fat man in a red shirt interjected himself into our conversation. He had the wide open eyes of an agitated extremist. He got into a mildly heated political argument with Noah, who remained calm and collected throughout. I was having my own conversation with the more civil and interesting young man named Jad. I did catch two telling points from the enraged man in red, however, and they bear repeating.

“Gulf Arabs give bombs to Israel to kill my people!”

This, of course, is nonsense on stilts. Israel does not receive weapons from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or any other Arab country. Don’t write off what he said as just another Middle Eastern conspiracy theory, though. He is aware that an important geopolitical shift has occurred.

Sunni Arab regimes – most notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia – took Israel’s side during the opening of the July War. And every Arab government in the world except for Syria’s supports Lebanon’s government against Hezbollah’s “resistance.”

I remember when this happened; it was like gravity had reversed itself. That any Arab regime would take Israel's side in anything shows that there have been some radical changes in the Arab political landscape. Totten goes on to note that fellow Muslims rank higher on Arab "things to worry about" lists than does the hated nation of Israel:

Six Arab governments – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, and Tunisia – say they will pursue nuclear weapons programs now because Iran’s atomic bombs need to be countered. None of these Arab countries sought nuclear weapons to offset those acquired by Israel. They fear and loathe the Shia of Lebanon and Iran (and most likely Iraq, as well) more than they worry about the Zionists regardless of what they may say.

This doesn't necessarily bode well for Israel in the short term, however:

The wider Sunni-Shia war in the Middle East, whose epicenter now is in Baghdad, may supplant the Arab-Israeli conflict some time in the future. For now, though, the Arab-Israeli conflict is used by both sides of the inter-Islamic divide to score propaganda points against the other.

Oh great. Just what Israel needs, to be the ball in a game of Arab propaganda polo. Lovely. Most of Totten's post isn't about the Arab/Israeli issue, but this part did really catch my eye. Anyway, if you'd like another look into Lebanon, read the rest of what Totten has to say. It's very interesting.

Iraq Developments

Dean Barnett has an interesting analysis of the Sunni/Shia divide in Iraq--well, realistically, in Islam, and what the questionable actions of Saddam's executioners (when the tyrant went to meet his maker) show about the general state of the Islamic world:

...if you think the facts that Saddam’s executioners taunted him, behaved in an uncivilized manner and chanted the name “Moqtada” aren’t matters of concern for us, you’re deluding yourself. As the Allahpundit put it both eloquently and bluntly, “Why does this matter? Because it’s typical of these morons that even at a moment of supreme justice, they’d find some way to infect it with savagery.”

He's got his finger on the pulse of the conflict, but also has an eye for a more positive outcome in Iraq than many are expecting currently, and a realization that many Muslims in Iraq do, in fact, want peace. He reveals some promising new developments, as Iraqi government and Coalition forces are apparently now working to stamp out Moqtada al Sadr's militias. That could go a long way toward limiting some of the barbaric sectarian violence coming out of "the cradle of civilization." Have a look. It's worth the time.

HT: Instapundit

Increase The Troops, Or Not?

Robert Haddick, at TCS Daily, doesn't like the idea of a troop surge in Iraq. I disagree, but found his arguments interesting, despite not being convinced. Some of his objections concern whether it is possible to require increased troop numbers from the military as it now exists. That's a reasonable question, although one that can be addressed by increasing the size of the military, something which is under discussion in any case. There is no shortage of qualified volunteers. I read a comment recently from a military recruiter which said that they are turning away approximately 60% of their current applicants. There is also the question of troop redeployment from Europe and other global locations, so I'm not sure the troops would be stretched as dramatically as Haddick implies. The rest of Haddick's objections seem to center on the lack of support for the idea from Congress and the Joint Chiefs. The Joint Chiefs might influence me, since their motivations are much more likely to be military objective-related. Lack of support from the Democrats in Congress, however, tells me nothing about the reasonableness, rightness or feasibility of the surge plan. What it does tell me is that the Democrats see no common ground with the President; and this is hardly a revelation. They now hold the purse strings, and thus can hinder President Bush's plans, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what's the right thing to do, does it?

Checking In

Like most of you, I'm just poking my head back into the www (wonderful worldwide web, or would that be wwww?) after a busy time with family and friends. We have had a lovely holiday spell, which isn't quite over, as Kedley's on vacation this week, and we have filled his free days up appropriately. We still have music to hear, and lights to see, and friends to play with, leading to the last bash of the year, which a friend is graciously hosting, sure to be full of bountiful merry-making, music-making, and (most importantly to my husband) good food. I have a little down time right now, though, so I thought I'd nose around the Net a bit to see what I've been missing.

The thing I've found the most interesting thus far is a look at the Hezbollah "protests" in Lebanon, from a recently returned Michael Totten. He had a Lebanese blogger, Abu Kais, fill in for him at his Middle East Journal, covering the events in Lebanon during his trip (most ably I might add), while he took an "under-the-radar" trip to the Land of Cedars. He's back now, and has a first-hand report, and photos from the first day of the Beirut demonstrations--Hezbollah's latest attempt to topple the Lebanese government. He gives us a good feel for what things are like right now in that shaky democracy, and his obvious love for the country does not impair his ability to give a clear picture of her current conditions. Totten plans to share the rest of his trip with us, and, no doubt, has a great deal to say. This is just the beginning of the story, but should be enough to get you started on the road to understanding the latest machinations in Lebanon, if her fate interests you. If you're like me right now, not fully immersed in the Webberverse, but interested in getting a glimpse of what's going on in the world, have a look.

Planning For Victory

Here's a news flash that will be encouraging to those of us who still believe that victory is possible in Iraq--So does President Bush. Fred Barnes, of The Weekly Standard, reports on the President's response to the recommendations of The Iraq Study Group:

It turns out you only have to attend a White House Christmas party to find out where President Bush is headed on Iraq. One guest who shook hands with Bush in the receiving line told him, "Don't let the bastards get you down." Bush, slightly startled but cheerful, replied, "Don't worry. I'm not." The guest followed up: "I think we can win in Iraq." The president's reply was emphatic: "We're going to win." Another guest informed Bush he'd given some advice to the Iraq Study Group, and said its report should be ignored. The president chuckled and said he'd made his position clear when he appeared with British prime minister Tony Blair. The report had never mentioned the possibility of American victory. Bush's goal in Iraq, he said at the photo-op with Blair, is "victory."

Now Bush is ready to gamble his presidency on a last-ditch effort to defeat the Sunni insurgency and establish a sustainable democracy in Iraq. He is prepared to defy the weary wisdom of Washington that it's too late, that the war in Iraq is lost, and that Bush's lone option is to retreat from Iraq as gracefully and with as little loss of face as possible. Bush only needed what his press secretary, Tony Snow, called a "plan for winning." Now he has one.

Barnes has what looks to be the inside scoop on what that plan for winning entails. I'm no foreign policy or military expert, but the approach Barnes suggests the administration is going to take seems reasonable and consistent with Bush's goals to me. It centers around increasing security and U.S. troop strength (by 50,000 troops) in strategic places, especially Baghdad, to limit violence and protect those who are cooperating with the Iraqi government. This has the potential of leading to more political cooperation, from people who right now are relying on sectarian violence to give them control over the country's future, when they find that alternate routes--the violent ones--are denied them. It would also enable those who are currently uncooperative out of fear of insurgent reprisals, rather than personal insurgent ambitions, to cast their lot with those who seek a peaceful and democratic Iraq.

The ISG report suggests removing many American soldiers from security duty, tasking them with training Iraqis instead, looking ultimately for a "graceful withdrawal", rather than a victory, but this approach fails to acknowledge what the fallout would be of handing things over to the Iraqis before real security is established. A violent and unstable situation would degrade even further, and people who are at this point refraining from entering into the fray would have almost no choice but to pick a faction and add to the violence to protect themselves. While training Iraqi security forces to take over their own security is the ultimate and ongoing goal, they simply are not ready for Coalition forces to dial down their security efforts. Barnes says the President's tack will be to continue the training efforts, while upping security personnel, clamping down on the instability that is hindering the political process. He says the new plan was "authored by Keane and military expert Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute":

It is based on the idea--all but indisputable at this point--that no political solution is possible in Iraq until security is established, starting in Baghdad. The reverse--a bid to forge reconciliation between majority Shia and minority Sunni--is a nonstarter in a political environment drenched in the blood of sectarian killings.

All of this doesn't seem that different from the goals, and on-the-ground realities, the President has had all along, but the addition of troops to accomplish these goals is where the plan takes a turn. The "new" approach steps up in large measure the level of U.S. activity to bring order to the chaos in Baghdad. Now one of the main questions is how Congress will react to the concept of increasing security in Iraq through temporarily increasing U.S. troop numbers, until the ever-expanding Iraqi police and military are fully trained and ready. It's uncertain how Congress will respond, since for a while now the focus of many, especially on the left, has been on withdrawing from Iraq as quickly as possible, without actually getting our tails slammed in the door of world opinion on the way out. Actually winning the war hasn't even seemed possible from the perspective of many politicians and pundits, for a long time. It is a key issue whether enough of them can be brought around to see the possibility of victory to support the President in actually increasing, rather than decreasing the troops. Barnes explains that some degree of cooperation from the new Congress is one of the President's concerns:

Before Bush announces his "new way forward" in Iraq in early January, he wants to be assured of two things. The first is that his plan can succeed. Initial evaluations of the Keane-Kagan plan at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the government have been positive. Alone among proposals for Iraq, the new Keane-Kagan strategy has a chance to succeed. Bush's second concern is to avert an explosion of opposition on Capitol Hill. Because this plan offers a credible prospect of winning in Iraq, moderate Democrats and queasy Republicans, the White House thinks, will be inclined to stand back and let Bush give it a shot.

What I would love to see is a few politicians setting aside their political (especially presidential) aspirations for long enough to think about what is best for the countries--ours and Iraq. Even other countries in the region (of which probably only Iran and Syria really want to see the insurgency continue) would benefit from the continued transformation of Iraq into a stable, democratic nation. Surely, if the loyal opposition here in the U.S. take off their "Bush is the enemy" hats for even a brief period, they can see that a victory in Iraq, even at a potentially higher cost, is still much to be preferred to a loss that leaves our credibility in tatters, and Iraq in ruins. (I tend to think that the costs would actually go down if we can really get control of the situation, but that's another post.) No matter whether they agreed with our entry into this war, it still must be possible for them to see a chance for honorable victory and support it, without sacrificing their principles and belief that we should never have gone there in the first place. Of course, the President hasn't actually presented this plan yet, but if Barnes is right, that day is coming, and I hope the Congressional response is supportive. It's what's best for Iraq. It's what's best for America, and if it happens to be what's best for the Bush administration too, well, then his opponents can comfort themselves with the realities of presidential term limits. This isn't about Bush. It's about doing what's right, and Congress and the media should get behind him on this one.

Update: Here's a somewhat different view.

The Y Files: Women, Islam, and the veil

Hey, here's an interesting discussion on whether liberating Muslim women from the veil, by means of illiberal bans on the burqa and the niqab, makes sense. The Y Files: Women, Islam, and the veil looks at a Weekly Standard article by Olivier Guitta, which examines the issue of the coercion in fundamentalist Islam for women to wear the full body and face coverings, and Cathy Young of The Y Files weighs in on whether the alternate form of coercion--banning the coverings--is an appropriate action in liberal societies with liberal standards, including freedom of religious expression. This issue is popping up all over the place: England, the Netherlands, France, and even in Muslim countries. So, the question is, is tolerating the veil, in the name of tolerance, truly the liberal thing to do? Young quotes herself from an article in the Boston Globe, and I think that portion is worth passing on to you here:

using the language of tolerance to justify oppressive practices is a grotesque perversion of liberalism. The veiling debate is a case in point. No amount of rhetorical sleight of hand can disguise the fact that the full-face veil makes women, literally, faceless. Some Muslim women in the West may choose this garb (which is not mandated in the Koran), but their explanations often reveal an internalized misogynistic view of women as creatures whose very existence is a sexual provocation to men. What's more, their choice helps legitimize a custom that is imposed on millions of women around the world who have no choice.

I understand the conflict of interest inherent to this question. One wonders whether banning the veil is not as much of a violation of the rights of the women who truly do want to wear it, as forcing the veil is a violation of the rights of others who are trapped behind its confines, but I tend to agree with Young on this one. So many women are either pressured, browbeaten, or literally beaten to induce their cooperation in what is basically a misogynistic tool of enslavement, that I cannot think that the rights of those who desire to cover every inch of themselves, including their faces, outweigh the concerns for those many women who adopt the practice of totally covering themselves simply to appease their oppressors. Young's post touches briefly on a point made in the Weekly Standard article, the fact that some Muslim countries have banned the veil in order to promote women's rights, and, while they have not always been "liberal" about these attempts at modernization, the results have been liberating for the women involved. Have a look at the whole post, and, if you have the time, read the comments as well. I found the discussion there quite interesting.

On the same subject, The Big Pharaoh, an Egyptian blogger to whom I have linked several times, has addressed the question of the full covering, as well as just the hair covering, often. He laments the changes that allowed his mother to stroll the streets of Cairo in a mini-skirt, forty years ago, to the state today, where uncovered, and even covered girls, are routinely accosted by prurient youths. He says the problem has increased, rather than decreased, as more and more women have covered themselves in Egyptian society, and clearly believes the illiberal teachings of religious leaders is largely to blame. His latest post is a "letter from God," addressed to those who claim to speak for him, and tell young girls that they must cover their hair. (The page is a bit out of whack, but just scroll down and the text appears lower down the page.) This post addresses some of the passages in the Koran which are commonly used to support the idea that women must hide themselves. It's a fascinating, if occasionally profane, read.

Update: I thought I ought to explain what I meant by the veil being "basically a misogynistic tool of enslavement." My point is simply this. Requiring women to hide everything that a man might find titillating (is that even possible?) is making her responsible for his behavior, and excusing his lack of self control, thus making her a slave to his libido. The claim is that it's about protecting women. Bunk. It's about recognizing that these men lack character, but refusing to address the root of that issue. If the Imams who preach that women need to be covered from head to toe to keep boys' hands out of the cookie jar spent half as much time preaching to the boys themselves about keeping their hands in their pockets, the men might take a little more responsibility for their own actions. Her bearing the consequences for his lack of self control=misogynistic enslavement.

Hat tip: Instapundit, for the Cathy Young link

More Iranian Correspondence

The Washington Times has an analysis, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, of a letter Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent last Wednesday to "the American people." You will recall that earlier this year Ahmadinejad sent an 18 page missive to President Bush "inviting" him to join Islam. Timmerman says, 'That is a well-established Islamic tradition when dealing with an enemy just prior to war. If they refuse, then the Muslims are "justified" in destroying them.' Timmerman says the warning has now been extended to America's entire population in a letter that:

...sets out the terms of the traditional Muslim warning to the enemies of Allah. "And never will your Lord destroy the towns until He sends to their mother town a Messenger reciting to them Our Verses." This is precisely what Mr. Ahmadinejad does in his letter. Dump George W. Bush, allow the Muslims to destroy Israel, and adopt Islam -- or else you will be destroyed. This is Mr. Ahmadinejad's message.

Timmerman's commentary is pretty interesting, especially given how close the evil overlords in Iran are to having their very own nuclear weapons.

Iraq News

There's a very interesting, really long, and rather encouraging update of the situation in Ramadi, by Michael Fumento, at The Weekly Standard. Fumento reports from his embed with the 1st Brigade Combat Team in Ramadi, where he arrived in October, returning to the region after half a year away. He had previously visited both Ramadi and Fallujah--this is his third embed in the Anbar Province--and wanted to see what changes had occurred since he last saw the city of 400,000. Ramadi has been an enemy stronghold in Iraq for a long time, more so since the insurgents lost nearby Fallujah. It's a highly contentious and dangerous part of Iraq. However, Fumento outlines the real progress that is being made to root out terrorists and insurgents as both the Iraqi security forces and the Coalition are receiving ever increasing cooperation from the local Sunni tribes. The Weekly Standard article will take some time to read, but in keeping with this week's theme of Thanksgiving, I offer it to you as something for which to be thankful. Excerpt:

...Ramadi is both a litmus test for the counterinsurgency effort in Iraq and a laboratory. If we can defeat the insurgent and terrorist forces here, there is no place we cannot defeat them. And from what I found, we are defeating them. It's painfully slow, and our men there are still dying in inordinate numbers from a broad variety of attacks. But a multitude of factors, including tribal cooperation, the continual introduction of more Iraqi army and police, the beginning of public works projects, the building of more Forward Operating Bases (FOBs), the installation of more small operational posts (OPs), and plunking down company-sized Combat Operation Posts (COPs) smack in the middle of hostile territory are destroying both the size and the mobility of the enemy. This time the rats are dying in place.

It's clear from reading Fumento's piece that he is putting himself in substantial danger to bring us this report. What he's writing is not coming out of the relative safety of the green zone in Baghdad. It's eyewitness news, news that says we are winning in Ramadi. Read it if you have the time.

Update: (via Instapundit) More on progress in Ramadi, from Bill Roggio, who examines the growing support among the tribal leaders of Anbar for Iraqi and U.S. efforts to oust the terrorists:

The turning of the Sunni tribes is directly related to al-Qaeda in Iraq's attempts to install a Taliban like rule in the region. Al-Qaeda looks upon the tribal system with open contempt, and has killed, intimidated and humiliated tribal leaders during the past three years under the leadership of the slain Zarqawi.

This coincides with what Fumento wrote for The Weekly Standard. The Roggio post's not so long, but fills out Fumento's story a bit more. Worth a read.