What better welcome to Baghdad could anyone possibly ask for?

Just curious, but are the golden toilets still there?

;-)

Man, what an experience. Stay safe.

Good job!

Pictures?

Great story so far, Michael. I'll never complain about travel in the US ever again. Looking forward to the next installment.

Good story Michael. I should have warned you to take any seat other than the back right seat in a Blackhawk. It's always the worst with regard to wind. Am sure you will be on one again soon enough though. Stay safe out there and remember you are NOT a hero. So don't do anything foolish.

Also you wont see any bugs for at least another 2 months. It's too hot for them to survive.

So we eventually expect there to be a civilian economy in Iraq, right? What does someone who wants to fly into Baghdad on business do? Is there civilian air service at all? Did you take this route in because of your imbed status, or what?

Also, is there any significant economic activity other than exporting oil and supplying the U.S. forces? I read in an article recently that unemployment is 70%. Any idea if that's true?

Johnny:I should have warned you to take any seat other than the back right seat in a Blackhawk.

Ha, that's exactly where I sat.

Michael: Is there civilian air service at all?

You can get to BIAP on Flying Carpet Airlines from Beirut, but don't you dare come here without having someone to pick you up arranged in advance.

I read in an article recently that unemployment is 70%. Any idea if that's true?

I don't know. It's 40-50 percent where I am right now, which is the Adhamiyah district in Northern Baghdad.

Great stuff Michael! I can't possibly imagine whilst sat here in my air-con'ed office what it must be like for you and those soldiers wearing full body kit in 120 degree heat. Another world.........

Stay safe, Mr. Totten.

I just wanted to comment on your point about the comparison of this war zone in Baghdad to that of last summer's Lebanon War. I don't know anyone who has compared the violence of the two. Last summer's war was a hot war with both sides lobbing what they could at the other. Iraq is a low-grade insurgency where one side is forced to do spirals of death to get to the airport safely.

What you have described to this point is what I expected of Baghdad. Very little progress at all in creating a city of stability. In over four years the Green Zone has NOT been expanded to cover larger portions of Baghdad. In fact, insurgents have been able to not only infiltrate the Green Zone but strike with impunity in the Green Zone.

Stay safe out there. The kind of perspective you bring will do much to shed more light on how things are on the ground.

"Very little progress at all in creating a city of stability." How can you say that, its the first time Michaels been there, what do you have to compare to.
Any way good luck Michael.

I wonder how Brian Williams gets to Iraq? The same way? Or are you getting the D-List treatment, Mike?

If this is how everyone deals with Iraq, it just reinforces how unfair people are to the press about their reporting, and how impossible it is to report well in these kinds of circumstances. I mean, when it takes you a full day and a military helicopter to go anywhere, how are you supposed to verify stories you hear independently? You can either run exactly what the military tells you, or run whatever you hear from whoever, or run stories about whether the toilets are golden in your hotel...

Very little progress at all in creating a city of stability.

A “city of stability”?

Suicide bombings and car bombings are occurring all over the world, including places like London, Madrid, Bali, Tel Aviv, Jordan -- the list is enormous. There is no defense against attackers willing to give their lives (or surrender their freedom) for purposes of killing others.

In the United States, since 9/11 we have seen 10 separate instances of Muslims committing or attempting to commit mass murder. This includes incidents like the Muslim-convert “Beltway shooters” who murdered 13 people in what they themselves called a "prolonged terror campaign against America", the Muslim teenager who this past February opened fire in a Salt Lake City shopping mall and murdered five people, and the 22 year old Muslim who deliberately rammed his SUV into a crowd at the University of North Carolina to "punish the government of the United States".

I’ll be happy to post the complete list if anyone wants to see it, but the point is that there is no effective defense against determined killers willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of killing. Israel has had some success stopping such attacks by building a wall around their country -- but that strategy is impractical for larger countries and does nothing to stop the so-called home-grown terrorists.

So what are we to expect when Al Qaeda declares Iraq to be the primary front in their war against the west and sends in hundreds of suicide bombers and car bombers to terrorize us into leaving?

There is also evidence that Iran is manufacturing advanced IEDs for use by the insurgents and terrorists. In addition, Iran is a natural route to get from the tribal areas of Pakistan -- where Al Qaeda has supposedly regrouped and is concentrated -- into Iraq.

Syria is allegedly allowing numerous suicide bombers and car bombers to cross into Iraq from their side of the border.

If Syria, Iran and the tribal areas of Pakistan are off-limits to military action on our part, if they are permitted to support Al Qaeda’s and the insurgent’s actions in Iraq, what are the prospects for ever creating a “city of stability”? The only hope is that Al Qaeda will run out of suicide bombers.

So here are the choices:

- America can quit and go home. Al Qaeda will no doubt declare victory and tell the Muslim world that terrorism works even against the world’s only superpower.

- America can stay and continue to fight Al Qaeda the way we are now, hoping that they will run out of suicide bombers or otherwise give up.

- Or we can go after the sources of these bombers as well as those who are helping them.

I know that liberals advocate the first choice. What I want to know from them is what they propose to do next to stop Al Qaeda and the international jihad. If we are not going to fight them in Iraq, where, when and how are we going to stop them? What do you advocate? International diplomacy? Appeasement? UN sanctions? Increased foreign aid to “eliminate their poverty”? We’ve tried these things for decades since the 1979 Iranian revolution launched the jihad. These things did nothing to stop the jihad. The jihad simply grew and the attacks increased.

Liberals will argue that going after the sources of suicide bombers will only “alienate” more Muslims and increase the numbers of suicide bombers. Attacking Iran, bombing the tribal areas of Pakistan where Al Qaeda is said to be “concentrated”, punishing Syria with military strikes for allowing suicide bombers to go into Iraq -- all of these things will be opposed on the grounds that all such action simply “radicalizes” the civilian populations, makes them support their leaders even more and generally will increase support for the jihad and make things worse. If you truly believe that, then you’re essentially declaring defeat. You’ve defined the problem such that it has no solution except for us to give in and let the Islamic totalitarians take over and impose Islamic law. Is that what you advocate? If not, what do you want us to do?

glasnost: I wonder how Brian Williams gets to Iraq? The same way?

Yep. Same way.

Michael, great job, stay safe! Keep the reports coming.

Wish I was there.

Sort of.

I'm a veteran, 1966-1970, my father was a WW II veteran, MY grandfather was a WWI vetran. My son is currently being housed somewhere in Iraq compliments of the US ARMY.

My comment is many Americans don't have the stomach for a fight anymore, because the politicians started running the Military in the 60's. Most of the gutless wonders in Washington wouldn't defend their mother's reputation let alone some soldier they don't know.

We kill 6000 kids on the highways every year, where are they when it comes to this? President Johnson put 500,000 pairs of Boots on the Ground in Vietnam and wouldn't let the Generals run the show. Don't these Washington nicompoops read history.

Good Luck on you project Michael, stay safe and G-d Bless, please give us some REAL unbiased news, not the network junk.

Lee

Michael Smith,

Suicide bombings and car bombings are occurring all over the world, including places like London, Madrid, Bali, Tel Aviv, Jordan -- the list is enormous.

Really? How frequent? Are the occurrences of suicide bombings around the world anywhere near as frequent as they are in Baghdad? Is there any other place in the world where each and every plane that comes in to the main airport has to do a killer nosedive in order to ensure a safe landing? Is there any other city in the world that has a massively barricaded section that is not even safe, that still gets mortars lobbed its way?

Please. Baghdad is not like any other city that has had to deal with car bombs and suicide bombers. There is no comparison. This is most definitely not a city of stability. And the fault is ours. Truly, after four years if we cannot take control of a city like Baghdad, we really should give up.

Michael Smith,

- Or we can go after the sources of these bombers as well as those who are helping them.

I know you mean well, but your list is not accurate. In fact, it seems that most foreign fighters come from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. I believe those are our "allies." Are you willing to go after them?

I know conservatives would love to find any excuse to attack Iran or Syria. Conservatives are still upset that Iran would dare overthrow their puppet regime back in 1979. See, Americans forget that Iranians democratically elected their own government back in the 1950s, and that the CIA in Operation Ajax overthrew that government and reinstalled the monarchy. This puppet government, a favorite of conservatives, was overthrown in 1979, and conservatives just simply have not gotten over the audacity of Iranians wishing to rule their own nation on their terms! How dare they! Of course the revolution of 1979 brought in extremists, but that is the natural course when you oppress people. They go to extremes. No surprise there. Just look at the Saudis. Oppressed population going extreme. No surprise. Saudis are the biggest supporters of the Sunni insurgency, yet the Bush administration and its allies do not wish to speak of the massive elephant in the room, that Saudis, including members of the Royal family are funding the Sunni insurgency.

It is okay though, they are our allies.

You’d think explosions and gunfire define Iraq if you look at this country from far away on the news. They do not. The media is a total distortion machine.

The MSM distorts the news? Shocka!!!!

Don't be a hero. Stay safe.

Michael- What an amazing story. Really amazing. It sounded like an absolutely miserable experience.
Drink fluids and be safe.
Can't wait to hear more.

Sorry for the third post in a row. I'll make all my comments here to Michael.

We’ve tried these things for decades since the 1979 Iranian revolution launched the jihad. These things did nothing to stop the jihad. The jihad simply grew and the attacks increased.

Okay, let's get a few things cleared up here, because well you're oversimplifying things. The Iranian revolution of 1979 was a Shi'ite revolution, not an Islamic revolution. With Islam being split into two main factions, when one side has a revolution it does not mean the other side follows suit. Al-Qaida is Sunni, NOT Shi'ite.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003 Iran was quite helpful in our battle against the Taliban and Al-Qaida. The Bush administration, of course, kept this quiet, because if it were shown to Americans that Iran was helpful it would fatally undermine their rationale that Iran was evil and of da devil.

Liberals will argue that going after the sources of suicide bombers will only “alienate” more Muslims and increase the numbers of suicide bombers.

This is a straw man and untrue.

Attacking Iran, bombing the tribal areas of Pakistan where Al Qaeda is said to be “concentrated”, punishing Syria with military strikes for allowing suicide bombers to go into Iraq -- all of these things will be opposed on the grounds that all such action simply “radicalizes” the civilian populations, makes them support their leaders even more and generally will increase support for the jihad and make things worse.

Well, seeing that Iran is not our enemy in Iraq, attacking them is pointless and destructive. And I frankly do not know of any liberal who says we shouldn't go after Al-Qaida in Pakistan. In fact, that should be where we should be. What the heck are we doing in Iraq when our real enemy is hiding out in Pakistan! Syria is not our enemy, so "punishing them" is pointless.

I really am surprised by those who favor military action for everything. I guess I assumed that those who favor military action at least are somewhat knowledgeable about consequences of actions. I assumed, wrongly it seems, that those who favor military action would be students of military history and have a good understanding of what actions fail to achieve the goals one sets out for. Further, I assumed wrongly that those who favor military action would have understood from Military 101 that you need clearly defined goals so that there is no confusion about your mission. There are so many ways that this has all been so badly mucked up. It is tragically sad. The worst part is that those who favor military action are too prideful to realize that what they want cannot be achieved with the tools they employ. Instead, they react with vitriol towards those who dare question them.

This will only end in tears.

You’ve defined the problem such that it has no solution except for us to give in and let the Islamic totalitarians take over and impose Islamic law. Is that what you advocate? If not, what do you want us to do?

If that is their desire, then what is wrong with that? Honestly. You wish for them to do what exactly? Be Western? What if that is not what they want? At what point do you let them choose for themselves their own choices? This is the most ironic aspect. Here war supporters argue that we're going in to establish democracy so the people can choose for themselves their own government, but when the people come back and choose Islamic fundamentalism, you don't wish for them to make that choice. That just doesn't make any sense.

I want America to let the rest of the world decide for themselves how they want to live their lives. If the whole rest of the world chooses to live under Islamic fundamentalist laws, then so be it. You cannot force your set of beliefs on them without fatally undermining your beliefs. That's not how democracy works. That is how imperialism works, Michael.

What you will find, however, is that when you let people choose for themselves, and not force a decision on them, they tend to choose the better half of life. Let the Iraqis live and choose their own destiny. Our mission is complete. It was actually complete within three weeks. The rest, the occupation and all the violence associated with it has been a completely undermining action.

Iraq will not end up in Al-Qaida's arms. They do not have the power to control Iraq. They are a significantly small force in the sphere of Iraq. Will there be violence and bloodshed if we leave. Most assuredly. That is the way of things. It is rather ironic methinks that war supporters claim on the one hand that we liberals are squeamish about "getting dirty" but then war supporters get squeamish when we liberals want the Iraqis to get dirty on their own. Heh, truly ironic.

Seriously though, what exactly are we doing in Iraq? What is our mission there? What are our objectives? To defeat Al-Qaida? We'll never achieve that goal. Not in Iraq. Not through military means. We're employing the wrong tools for this enemy. So what other missions are there?

The interesting thing about Dan and Michael Smith is that they're both driven by a morally corrupt ideology that is more focused on attacking "liberals" or "conservatives" than on achieving any sort of pragmatic peaceful outcome.

Michael doesn't give a shit how many civilians die in a war as long as he can blame someone else and advocates nuking and carpet bombing Iran.

Dan doesn't give a shit how many civilians die in Iraq as long as American troops withdraw. And he doesn't give a shit about the brutal repression imposed by bigoted Islamic fundamentalists as long as they have popular support.

Fascinating.

mertel,

and just what is the pragmatic peaceful outcome?

If that is their desire, then what is wrong with that? ...but when the people come back and choose Islamic fundamentalism, you don't wish for them to make that choice.

What if Islamic fundamentalism involves executing adulterers or apostates? Would you still ask 'what is wrong with that'? Or is there some absolute standard of human rights where certain behavior becomes unacceptable?

What you will find, however, is that when you let people choose for themselves, and not force a decision on them, they tend to choose the better half of life.

That's not what happened in 1979 Iran, was it? Mugabe was also voted in by his people. People make stupid choices just as often as they make good ones.

Dan,

Is it possible that the following is true?

Our enemies ARE in Pakistan...

and Afghanistan, and Syria, and Iran, and Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and Africa, and Europe, and etc.....

I'm glad that you think we should start fighting our enemies in Pakistan.... That seems to be the party line from the left wing now. However, the fact remains that Islamic fundamentalism exists wherever Islam exists. It does not encompass all of Islam, but it certainly is part of the package.

To leave the battlefield in Iraq seems to me to be a suicidal decision. (Not to mention highly immoral considering that the U.S. government at the behest of the vast majority of the U.S. population decided to topple Saddam Hussein).

The latest attempt to convince Americans that we should be "fighting the real enemy" in Pakistan is another way to justify surrender and capitulation to both the invading and home grown versions of Islamic fundamentalism that are tearing apart Iraq.

Dan, you don't have to justify any of your objections to our invasion of Iraq... Simply get behind our armed forces and think of ways for us to achieve victory over these maniacs wherever they might be.

and just what is the pragmatic peaceful outcome?

Unlike a lot of commentators here, I don't have an instant solution. But you're advocating a move (troop withdrawal) that you and all of it's proponents agree will result in thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Why are dead civilians so bad if they die when troops enter a country, but quite OK if they die because troops leave a country?

Personally I think the US should have sent in a forces 2-3 times as big to start with, not a surge when things got so bad... but what's done is done. I'm in favor of giving the "surge" a chance to work...

Stay safe and good luck Michael.

WOW!

Such a descriptive and unique writing skill.....how much your writing resembles the magnificent prose from the WWII writers. How strange to read this after the idiocy of the current MSM coverage of Iraq! We need this....

I loved it, and related it on my blog, and hit the Blog Patron button.......

Keep it up and help us get a "real" picture....

Duke DeLand

Nice posting, Michael, thanks! No wonder all the arab princes and rich businessmen spend so much time in Switzerland and North America! Sand, oil, heat, and fanatical religion--not much to recommend the place.

I wonder how many times Dan above has been to Baghdad, and yet he tries to hijack Totten's blog comments to soapbox his empty ideology. Sad.

Dan:

Your argue your point of view eloquently, and thank you for it. But I doubt you will persuade or be persuaded here -- because the people arguing against you do not agree with some of your basic premises.

For example, you wish to let the rest of the world's peoples decide for themselves how they wish to live. So do I, and I heartily wish that we had that luxury. But when terrorism looms large enough to bring down skyscrapers without warning, our first priority, by my lights, is not to honor the sensibilities of others -- it is to protect ourselves from them.

Now, there have been a great many arguments about whether or not the invasion of Iraq was necessary and/or advisable in the global fight against terror. I happen to believe that it was. But regardless of that, Iraq is where the terrorists are now -- and they will continue to go there to fight, so long as they are not utterly defeated.

That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. By all means, let the terrorists fight American soldiers in Iraq; it beats them fighting American civilians at home.

The terrorists are more than willing to unleash their venom against Iraqis as well, as they have repeatedly demonstrated -- and, in the manner of terrorists everywhere, they consider non-combatants to be legitimate targets, even children. How could we conceive of leaving Iraq to face such monsters alone, before they're ready? How could we look ourselves in the mirror if we did that?

Mind you, I'd swallow that bitter pill, if I had to, if I thought that leaving Iraq immediately was necessary for American security. But I believe quite the opposite to be true. We've seen it again and again -- give the terrorists what they say they want, and they will declare victory and double their attacks, because, in their eyes, generosity in war comes only from weakness.

If we leave Iraq before the job is done, I have no doubt that we will leave a bloodbath behind -- and that it will follow us to our own shores.

I have no glib solution, other than to continue the dirty, nasty, utterly essential work we've been doing. Sometimes the only alternatives to a bad situation are far worse.

- - - - -

Mr. Totten: you're doing invaluable work, that in a just world would already have won you a Pulitzer. Please keep doing what you do -- and listen to the soldiers around you; they'll show you what you need to know to survive. A thousand thanks!

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

How many Dans and Daniels are commenting here today, anyway???

How could we conceive of leaving Iraq to face such monsters alone, before they're ready?

The monsters exist because they receive local support. While there are a number of foreign fighters, the majority of the bomb throwers are Iraqis. They are the result of a culture steeped in religious hatred, blood feuding, and homicidal tribalism. There is not much the US can do to change pre-modern mores that have been around for generations. Progress will require a sea change in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people themselves.

The only solution, at this point, is to let the conflict burn itself out. Eventually people get tired of the bloodletting and come to terms.

DS,

Dan, you don't have to justify any of your objections to our invasion of Iraq... Simply get behind our armed forces and think of ways for us to achieve victory over these maniacs wherever they might be.

If the pre-war planning and execution of the war in Iraq were up to the right standards, then I wouldn't be as strongly against it as I am and have been. Pentagon war games from 1999 said that we needed at least 400,000 combat troops to take Iraq, and even then they foresaw problems. General Petraeus's own counterinsurgency field manual states that a successful counterinsurgency requires at least 50 combat troops per 1000 civilians. In Baghdad alone that is 120,000 combat troops. For the whole of Iraq that requires at least 500,000 combat troops. How many do we have in the whole of Iraq? What, maybe 110,000 combat troops and an additional 60,000 support troops. How the hell do you think you can succeed when your own general doesn't follow his own guidelines!

If you go to war, make sure you go with a plan that will bring you a successful outcome. If not, then you better not go at all!

mertel,

Personally I think the US should have sent in a forces 2-3 times as big to start with, not a surge when things got so bad... but what's done is done. I'm in favor of giving the "surge" a chance to work...

I agree with you that we should have gone in with far more troops than we did. The surge, however, I cannot support, because the good general himself is not following his own guidelines like I explained in my previous comment. Why should I support him if he is not even going to do what he says in his counterinsurgency field manual will bring success. That just doesn't make any sense.

Daniel,

I wonder how many times Dan above has been to Baghdad, and yet he tries to hijack Totten's blog comments to soapbox his empty ideology. Sad.

What's with the personal attack?

Dan,
As someone who was deeply involved in the operation of the Green Zone, your comment that "... insurgents have been able to not only infiltrate the Green Zone but strike with impunity in the Green Zone" is false. In the past 4 years, insurgents have exploded one suicide bomb in a cafe in the Green Zone in late 2004 and they were able to explode one suicide bomb in the convention center in April 2007. The convention center is not technically in the Green Zone, but journalists would consider it in the Green Zone, so I will give you that. Now, there are attacks against the checkpoints that protect the Green Zone, but they are there to defend against such attacks.
Mark

Daniel in Brookline,

But regardless of that, Iraq is where the terrorists are now -- and they will continue to go there to fight, so long as they are not utterly defeated.

No, our real enemy is not in Iraq, but in Pakistan. The enemies we are fighting in Iraq will not follow us here. They are trying to kick us out of their country. Frankly, I think that's a great idea. We don't need to be in Iraq anymore. We've served our ill-fated purpose there. In the interest of our national security, it would behoove us to depart out of Iraq and rest our soldiers.

Mind you, I'd swallow that bitter pill, if I had to, if I thought that leaving Iraq immediately was necessary for American security. But I believe quite the opposite to be true.

Indeed it is in our national security to leave Iraq. We are breaking our all-volunteer force. How many tours must they go through before they are broken, before they cannot handle a war zone anymore? How much more in debt should we put our children? We're a very rich country, but astoundingly, we're not the ones paying for this war. Our children are. We are putting this war on a credit card for our future generations to pay for it. Why would we do that and think we are not in some way handicapping them? Where is the logic in having someone else pay for the wars we wish to fight?

We are truly in a dangerous position, and the war in Iraq is at the heart of this danger.

Michael,
Good luck. Your post reminds me of many a trip back and forth between Kuwait and Baghdad. A worse experience is the drive. Maybe you can catch a ride back to Kuwait with a returning unit. It would be a good story and it would give you the whole experience.
Also, the soldiers are really pumped about going home, so it is really fun. Remember, don't drink the local Milk or eat the fish. Everything else is fine. Stay Safe. I'll be back in October if you are still around.
Mark

Dan,

Really, all that you say is true? Really? Where are you stationed? I'd love to meet up with you. We can have a cup of coffee or something and you can spread your bile-filled BS some more, tell me what it's like in Baghdad. Cause, obviously, I have no idea! Like Gen. Petraeus, I too am unaware of the realities of Baghdad.

Come on, Dan! Old Buddy!

I, for what it's worth, when I get off work, am going to the pool, then afterwards, I'm going to meet friends for coffee, and maybe some cards.

Wanna go, Dan?

Oh, yeah, and that goes for your BS military and intelligence analysis, you jumped up son of a one-legged joygirl. You make these grand conclusions, with NO.....DAMNED.....IDEA.....what you're talking about.

Go home, go somewhere that wants to hear know-nothing blowhards spout invective filled tripe adhering to a playbook provided to all the other sheep.

That would be Congress.

Idiot.

Michael - Be safe and best wishes

Dan - The people causing a problem in Iraq do not just want to make the decision how to run their lives. They want to make the decision how to run your life. Islam wants to convert the entire world and until they hit a resistence line past which they cannot go, Islam will expand, one way or another. If you are comfortable with dhimmitude, I grieve for you. I am not and refuse to subject my daughters to that sort of restricted life. We must resist. We must, in fact, roll them back. Eventually, I fear, we're going to have to eliminate the Qutbist/Wahabist/Salafist strain of Islam as permanently as the British eliminated the Thuggee form of Hinduism and for similar reasons, they simply will not stop.

TMLutas,

If you are comfortable with dhimmitude, I grieve for you. I am not and refuse to subject my daughters to that sort of restricted life.

This threat is not a real threat. They have no power over you and I. Many attempt to liken these Islamists to Hitler, but there is no way these guys have anywhere near the power someone like Hitler had.

Terrorism is the tool of the weak, not of the strong. There is not going to be a Twelfth Imam. The Twelfth Imam existed long ago. He's not coming back. He's permanently dead.

We are most definitely overhyping the danger and the threat of our enemy. If we look at them more rationally we'll find that as powerful as we fear them to be. And that is the key word: Fear. Your point about resisting them is borne out of fear. You fear that. I fear it not. Why? because I know it has no power over me.

Michael -

Stay safe and thank our brave warriors for me. You are an invaluable resource, our "eyes and ears".

Dan:

1) You really missed my point about suicide bombings and attacks in other cities. I didn't cite those attacks in an effort to prove that other cities are equally "unstable". I cited them to prove there is virtually no defense against such attacks -- that to sit back and try to play defense against these guys is, well, suicidal.

2) You advocate giving up on Iraq and "letting others decide how they want to live." "Others" were busy deciding "how they want to live" long before we went to Iraq. Some have decided that "how they want to live" involves the mass murder of Americans. And you propose to do nothing about that?
- Does this mean that you propose to let Al Qaeda continue to stage suicide attacks all around the globe?
- Al Qaeda has stated a desire to attack America again. So we are supposed to simply sit back and wait for it?
- Iran is building a nuclear weapon. They have stated repeatedly their desire to destroy both America and Israel. And we should just let them be, even if “how they wish to live” includes the incineration of an American or Israeli city?

The kindest thing I can say about your “live and let live” notion is that it is supremely naïve, except that it strains credibility to believe that you sincerely think that simply ignoring the problem will cause it to magically disappear.

3) Recent elections in Iran, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Lebanon have shown that given the chance, many Muslims prefer to elect the most violent Islamic factions, the ones promising continued conflict with Israel. Is this an example of people “choosing the better life”? No, it isn’t.

4) You claim that most fighters come from “Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan” and ask if I am prepared to go after those countries. Yes, absolutely, I‘m prepared to demand that they stop the flow of such fighters and I’m prepared to back up that demand with military action if they don’t. And if those countries are truly our “allies” -- a dubious notion in my mind -- then they will cooperate with us in stopping this flow, including allowing us to stage attacks against the fighters on their soil.

Again, what is the alternative? And I mean, what is the alternative here in reality, where it obviously doesn’t work just to “let people decide how to live”.

5) I said, “ Liberals will argue that going after the sources of suicide bombers will only “alienate” more Muslims and increase the numbers of suicide bombers.” You call this a straw man, but I’ve heard that argument many times here. If you don’t subscribe to it, good for you, but many liberals do.

6) You claim that Iran is not our enemy in Iraq. What about the advanced IEDs being made in Iran? Is that a Bush administration fabrication to drum up support for another war?

7) You wrote, Here war supporters argue that we're going in to establish democracy so the people can choose for themselves their own government, but when the people come back and choose Islamic fundamentalism, you don't wish for them to make that choice.

I am totally opposed to the tactic of “spreading democracy” in the middle east for precisely that reason. What we should be promoting and demanding is a complete separation of church and state, and a constitutionally-limited government that protects the individual rights of all citizens, minorities included, individual rights defined in that constitution.

That, apparently, is a totally alien concept to most people in the middle east -- it appears to be an alien concept to many people here in the US for that matter. But -- assuming one believes in political freedom and equality of rights for all individual human beings, regardless of their race, color, creed, sex, national origin or religious convictions -- this or something similar is the only type of government we should settle for.

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no such thing as the right to self-determination, at least not in the sense it is conventionally claimed. Since there is no such thing as a right to violate rights, there is no right to create any kind of dictatorship or any form of government that violates rights rather than protects them. That includes theocracy.

Most of the people of Iraq (and most of the middle east), as near as I can tell, are mostly tribal, superstitious and wedded to Islam’s concept of religion as an all-encompassing ruler of one’s life. I don’t see that changing any time soon, but it will never change as long as we endorse and encourage the formation of more hostile theocracies all over the middle east.

8) You wrote, You cannot force your set of beliefs on them without fatally undermining your beliefs..

Not necessarily. We forced our set of beliefs on the Japanese and the Germans in 1945 without “fatally undermining” our own beliefs. In the 19th century, the free states of the northern United States forced their set of beliefs on the slave states of the south without “fatally undermining” their beliefs.

There is nothing inherent in the act of destroying an enemy dictatorship, then demanding that the conquered nation establish a free society, with a government dedicated to protecting individual rights, that should in any fashion “fatally undermine” the victor’s beliefs in those things. Where do you get such a notion?

9) You wrote, What are our objectives? To defeat Al-Qaida? We'll never achieve that goal. Not in Iraq. Not through military means. And you know this how? What evidence do you have to support this absolute certainty of yours?

Mertel said:

Michael doesn't give a shit how many civilians die in a war as long as he can blame someone else and advocates nuking and carpet bombing Iran.

The fact that you offer a misrepresentation of my position is your confession that you have no argument against my actual position.

Have you been shopping yet? I hear the shopping is excellent.

Dan,

Your characterization of the situation in Iran at the time of the overthrow of Mossadegh is highly misleading and amounts to little more than left-wing boilerplate. Mossadegh was elected, true, but in an oligarchical election in which fewer than 10% of Iranians voted. His overthrow was dictated by Cold War geopolitics. He was not a moderate and would likely have aligned Iran with Soviet Russia. The Soviet leader at that time was a man named Josef Stalin. Containment of Soviet power was the strategy then, and it turned out to be the correct strategy.

The return of the monarchy to Iran was not viewed with rage or anger in Iran at the time. n fact, it was virtually a nonevent. The entire coup was accomplished in an afternoon without bloodhshed, that's how fervently the Iranian people were in their support of Mossadegh.

There is also in your remarks a slippery elision between the attitudes of Iranians in general towards the overthrow of Mossadegh and the attitude of the Khomeinists then and now. Khomeini was not radicalized by the overthrow of a secularist such as Mossadegh. The very idea is ridiculous. He could not have cared less, ditto Ahmadinejad and the rest of them, whatever they might say now for propaganda purposes. Khomeini was radicalized by Western, namely, American cultural influence in Iran, which he correctly saw as leading Iranians away from the Sharia state that was his heart's desire. Moreover, very few Iranians shared his goal of a militantly Islamic state. By and large Iranians in the period 1953-1978 embraced modernity and a western outlook and were not by any stretch of the imagination fervently anti-American. The Shah turned his people against him, not because he was pro-Western or anti-Islamic and certainly not because of Mossadegh but because he ran a police state.

Also implicit in your remarks is the belief that the only human beings in the world who are self-actualized agents are Americans. Everyone else on the planet only re-acts to us because we "oppress" them. Khomeini had no positive (in the sense of actionable) goals of his own, on your view, but merely reacted to American oppression, a favorite leftist and decidedly postmodernist trope. It is also ludicrous.

Khomeini and bin Laden et al. have and had very definite ideas of their own and they do not depend on what Americ doers except insofar as they see us as an obstacle. That is plain common sense.

I think you should step back reread your posts. You migh see, and others of your ilk, how much you sound like Lord Haw Haw, broadcasting to the British or Axis Sally or Tokyo Rose attempting to persuade Americans to give up during World War II:

"Brave Americans, you fight well and courageously, but you have been mislead by your masters. You are suffering and dying for nothing. [Germany, Japan, Iran] have no quarrel with you. It's all the fault of your evil puppetmasters. We seek only our legitimate rights. You are dying in vain. Just quit and all this unpleasantness will be over. And now a song..."

Joe

attaboy, joe.

it's astounding to see the left adopt the jihadi cause, one that is completely anathema to what they profess to be: progressive. in that cause they will ignore reality and history, lie through their teeth, accuse others of imaginary sins, etc. just like they always did in their own cause before it was discarded by history; no wonder they have affinity with islamists.

this alliance with islamists demonstrate how utterly bankrupt they really are.

There are three civilian airlines flying into Baghdad from Dubai, at least two from Jordan, and you can get to Vienna from Irbil. I know that some are also flying to Kuwait from Baghdad also. However, milair from KC is free and you get to skip immigration. There are at least four different ways to get from Victory to the IZ, space A chopper, the rhino run (I think it leaves from Stryker), hire a psd, several will do it ($$$) or hire a taxi from the airport (not really recommended). Places to stay in the IZ - several of the PSD's will rent rooms on a per night basis, and will do p/u and d/o in the IZ. Driving through the middle of Korrada two weeks ago, the economy is booming, cafes, stores, goods on the sidewalk, unarmed police directing traffic (that takes guts and I salute them). Word from friends is the the economy in Kurdistan (northern Iraq) is really booming. Oh yeah, DO NOT eat the fish.

mjt,

what you describe gives the same impression that films, books and reports gave of vietnam.

no wonder.

Khomeini and bin Laden et al. have and had very definite ideas of their own and they do not depend on what Americ doers except insofar as they see us as an obstacle. That is plain common sense.

Joe this seems very sensible. The reaction of Khomeinists and Salafists to US policy isn't really relevant. We shouldn't be in a dialogue with them, or judge our actions by how it influences their deluded worldview. Which is why it's perplexing to hear what "message" the departure from Iraq might send to terrorists.

dan,

1st, the islamists have been allied to nazis, and for good reason.

2nd, they don't have YET power over us. but that's what they're working on and it's you and your ilk who would facilitate that.

3rd, only an ignorant idiot would watch what islamists are doing all around the world and what they declare openly they want to do, see the imbecillic suicidal reactions of the west -- which you would wholeheartedly support -- and would NOT be scared.

i know, it's hard to buy brains at the supermarket.

alex,

I would not US policy is not relevant. it is: it facilitates and emboldens the islamist cause.

Wow! from the writings over the past several weeks, it sure does appear to me(I have never been to Iraq, apparantly unlike Dan, who must live there from all of his "knowledge")that we are NOT losing in Iraq, like the Democrats keep telling us. I had to read this post twice as i was worried I might have missed something. If the rest of our Press wrote like Michael did/does then I wonder what the situation would be there now.

Before you "support independent journalism" as Michael suggests, why not support the troops by joining up and doing as many stints as it takes to solve the Iraqi problem? As you may have heard, our military is stretched incredibly thin, and our soldiers have so little off time that they are getting increasingly exhausted. We don't need more journalists on the scene there, we need people who are willing to put their lives on the line, rather than vaugely "supporting the war" from their lazy-boy recliners. Your local recruiters can be found in the phone book or online at the following link:
http://www.goarmy.com/contact/find_a_recruiter.jsp

"Truly, after four years if we cannot take control of a city like Baghdad, we really should give up."

Okay. Feel free to give up any time, soldier. In your case that means stop reading about Iraq, because that's the extent of your involvement in this war.

The people doing the actual fighting will stay and get the job done.

I would not US policy is not relevant. it is: it facilitates and emboldens the islamist cause.

The islamist cause doesnt need the US in order to be emboldened. And as Lebanon has shown us, even crushing military defeat "emboldens" jihadists. Is "fixing" this ass-backwards machismo a worthy use of the US military?

. In your case that means stop reading about Iraq, because that's the extent of your involvement in this war.

So much for all that counter-chickenhawk spin about "civilians needing a say in military matters." Guess that only holds when you're gung-ho.

The people doing the actual fighting will stay and get the job done.

Maybe they can do so on someone else's dime. Or must our tax dollars also stay and "get the job done?" So what is the job nowadays? Ridding Iraq of extremists? Unemboldening the jihadists?

I don't think "crushing" means what you think it means.

If you are comfortable with dhimmitude, I grieve for you.

Does anyone seriously think the forces of Islam are likely to take over and enslave the developed Western world? Is THAT why we're in Iraq? I must have missed that in the marketing materials.

Dan - good work.

Mertel: Unlike a lot of commentators here, I don't have an instant solution. But you're advocating a move (troop withdrawal) that you and all of it's proponents agree will result in thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Just because it's Washington Conventional Wisdom that withdrawal will lead to 'genocide' doesn't make it true. It can't be ruled out entirely - i.e. it's a risk. But there are good reasons to believe that it's at least possible, and maybe more likely than unlikely, that the violence will die down once we leave, not pick up.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have already died. Even if the people leading and even executing the surge have humanitarian intentions, four years of war in this country have not produced anything whatsoever like humanitarian results. Only a tiny fraction of the insurgency and violence bears relation to Al-Quieda. That 95% of non-Al-Quieda violence will go on, and on, and continue to result in the deaths of innocents, until we release our headlock on the political struggle for power occurring there, which won't ever end while we're distorting it with our explicitly temporary military advantage to Al-Maliki.

To those out there who think that because Mike hasn't seen any car bombs in two days, the media is making all this war stuff up, you might look at
the chart.

david, you should check with your average Lebanese person to see if they want a rematch. Dying in large numbers while killing few of your enemies does not a victory make, except to chest-beating jihadists and Israelophobic armchair guerrillas. I see no purpose in trying to change the mind of either species.

Daniel in Brookline: I used to post as dan, until Dan started posting. I disagree with Dan concerning the subject matter addressed here, but don't have anything against him. That being said, Dan makes me miss Hezbollah Lover in some ways. Not that I'd want HL back, and I'm sure he was a pain to moderate, but I was interested in what he would say. Dan is adept at marshalling facts in favor of withdrawal, but that is ultimately a value judgement, and I don't think the facts we quibble over on this site are likely to sway many folks.

Personally, I've pessimistically decided I hope we do more of the same for the duration of this administration, since a botched withdrawal could be just as big a disaster as our botched occupation. I don't trust our current admin to pull this off, but I don't they'll make things much worse than they already are by keeping up our unenviable position as civil-war speedbumps. Oh, and we need to stay in Kurdish Iraq for the long haul. We own that to the Kurds, and the Turks, and letting those two go at no-holds-barred would be way not-in-our-interest.

Mike -

Not that I'm a skeptic - I've heard about the heat from all kinds of people and places.

I was around the Arizona-California border recently, in the desert area (within 30 miles of Death Valley). One particular day it hit about 116. I'm not used to much over 95-100 kind of heat, but I didn't really find it terrible.

Now, I wasn't outside for more than about thirty minutes at a time. I didn't have 80 pounds of gear. And obviously, I wasn't in the high-stress situation of trying to find a safe place to sleep in Baghdad. But I'm curious. You've been in other hot environments, I'd imagine. How much worse is Baghdad than, say, the Arizona-California desert? Or, say, the Negev? Is it the humidity, or is it the war-zone circumstances of being outside all day and running around on top?

I'm afraid I don't know any average Lebanese people. Besides, I generally consider that sort of anecdotal evidence crap, the crutch of people who are wrong. Perhaps you should check with the IDF. I can arrange that here -

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2007/Winograd+Inquiry+Commission+submits+Interim+Report+30-Apr-2007.htm

I believe paragraph 10 is particularly relevant.

The sheer enormity of the place puts the almost daily car bomb attacks into perspective. The odds that you personally will be anywhere near the next car bomb or IED are microscopic.

Yes, that's why:
1) it took you 16 hours to get from the Airport to the Green Zone
2) Taxi's or buses don't run at night, even in the "relatively safe" Green Zone
3) On average, 2.48 "coalition" soldiers have died each of the 1,582 days since the war began
4) On average, 3.44 "coalition" soldiers have died in each of the 169 days since the surge "began" (unless it "actually began" yesterday as some are claiming).
5) There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of attacks per day.

Iraqi Body Count makes it clear that the majority of the 42.84 Iraqis killed each DAY on average (*minimum reported deaths* for the 1,582 days since the war began) were shot to death.

But, YOU can't hear them from the Green Zone so "it's almost a not-war."

I wonder what the odds are of personally being near a car-bomb, IED, or "terrorist" is in, say, the entire F-ing United States? But half the people in America are still practically pissing their pants.

Alex,

You write: "The reaction of Khomeinists and Salafists to US policy isn't really relevant. We shouldn't be in a dialogue with them, or judge our actions by how it influences their deluded worldview. Which is why it's perplexing to hear what 'message' the departure from Iraq might send to terrorists."

Is this a serious remark? Is it ingenuous? Sarcastic? Hmmmm. Understanding which will be valuable in composing a reply. In the interests of amicability, I'll assume that you just are too easily perplexed and urgently need to do something about it.

Your proposition, as I see it, goes something like this: If [as I claim] the Salafists have their own reasons, our withdrawal from Iraq will not affect them.

Your problem is confusing the Salafist with his reasons. Our withdrawal from Iraq will NOT affect Bin Laden's reasons, as why should it -- and when oh when has anyone ever said it would? That our withdrawal will dramatically affect the average Jihadist, however, by strengthening his beliefs, his stamina, his courage, in short, his passions, is another matter altogether.

Men are more than their reasons. Nine times out of 10, "reason is the slave of passion" (David Hume). Trivial behavior to one side, no one has ever done anything solely because by his lights it was "reasonable." What is going on in Iraq is not a "dialogue," a truly startling way of framing the matter, by the way, but one at least in which reason plays an important role. It is instead a contest of will, and the loss of this contest will be a catastrophe for one side or the other, not because he will be led to the view that his goals are irrational but rather that they are unattainable.

Joe

But, Harry, you fail to consider that every car in Iraq is not exploding every day, like the liberal MSM says, so it's really not that bad. You can literally go days in Iraq without seeing someone die violently. What kind of "war" is that?

To all you who criticize me, let me ask you a question. If you go into an action without the means and resources to fully crush your enemy and win the war, do you not in the end come out the loser?

I would be half supportive of the war if we would actually sacrifice and go in full. None of this "shock and awe" bomb from far away with a tiny force for occupying the country crap. If we truly desired a victory in Iraq, we would have flooded the country with Americans. This is the way to conquer a country. Flood it with your troops. Open every hiding place. Let there be not a single rock unturned so that possible insurgencies are snuffed out from the start.

That is not the way we went unfortunately. Our nation is not making the right sacrifices to win this conflict, and as such, we will end up not only losing, but with a much weaker position vis a vis the rest of the world.

I am thinking now that it was a bad thing for Clinton to have succeeded so well with the Kosovo bombings, because it made Americans think they could win wars on the cheap.

It is really tragic, because war supporters refuse to learn this lesson. The moment you say anything critical, you are labeled a "defeatist." How dare someone speak out against the Generals!

David,

You can literally go days in Iraq without seeing someone die violently. What kind of "war" is that?

It is called a low-grade insurgency. It is not a hot war like the Lebanon bombings of last summer. Again, mischaracterizations about both the conflict and our enemies will not help us win.

oh and David, I can go all my life here in America without seeing someone die violently. What does that say about Baghdad where in mere days you will most likely see many people die violently?

Okay, history lesson time:

Both Sun Tzu and Clausewitz define terrorism as a form of warfare. (And , oh yes, our enemies have read both of them.) As such they mention that:

1. A proxy guerilla force financed, trained, equipped, and operating in areas that allow them to attack you and your allies (read Hizbollah and Hamas attacking US in Iraq, Hizbollah attacking Lebanese in Lebanon, Hizbollah and Hamas attacking Israelis in Israel) that is a form of active war against whomever they are sent to attack (read Syria and Iran at war with the above mentioned countries, among others, attacking by the proxy forces).

2. A force of special forces sent to attack someone in a foreign country (read QUDS from Iran sent into Lebanon via Syria in support of Hizbollah and QUDS forces from Iran also captured in force in Iraq attacking US and Iraqis) is also a from of war against the ones being attacked.

Both of these methods are being used and have been used by Iran and Syria to attack their neighbors - they are a declaration and activity of war. It is just a part of Iran and Syria fighting their openly declared WAR with the West, the US, Israel, and anyone else. Nothing else.

To call this anything else but WAR is irrational since to give in to them is exactly the SAME as ultimate surrender to an invading army.

But that is what the media want us to beleive. That it is not a war but it is caused only because we are there. Then why if we were not there before 2001 did they at that time send attackers all the way to the US?

Yes, financiers in the Middle East, Iran and Syria, and Saudi Arabia in particular, ought to be held accountable.

A quick suggestion - if their money comes from oil shipments, then if we destroy only their oil infrastructure they will have no money for war, cannot export war as above, ... cannot, well, do anything.

Dan,

You are welcome to post here, but my comments section is not about you. Please limit your posts to a reasonable number and stop hogging.

Thanks.

Dan, not get it, much?

Ollie, you're a frickin' loon. I hope they put you on TV.

Mr. Totten,

My apologies. I've said my peace on this post.

"well-rounded individuals with Red State tastes and political views and a worldliness and cosmopolitanism that surpasses that of most people who live in the Blue States"

Oooooooohh.

Define cosmopolitan, willya?

Great site!

Would you consider a link exchange to the Internet Radio Network. At the IRN you can listen to over 27 of America's top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO!

http://netradionetwork.com

Dan raises some legitimate points. And I say that as somebody who was a supporter of the war.

At this point, I don't know what we should do. I realise pulling out right now would open an entire other can of worms and may not be prudent. But to continue doing what we've been doing doesn't seem to be working, either. Even if we kick the al-Qaeda problem in Iraq and marshal support of many Sunni Arabs, we still have to deal with the al-Sadrists.

I don't see how we can pacify Iraq so long as the countries bordering Iraq do not want it pacified. The surrounding Arab countries (and Iran) have done everything they can to destroy the Iraq democracy project, yet they never fail to blame the failure on America (just like they bitch about why there is no peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians as they go about supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad).

The Arab world is sick and I'm not sure there is much we can do to make it healthy.

I'm not saying pull out; I'm not saying stay in. I JUST DON'T KNOW what is best, and I am not ashamed to admit it.

Damn 100s of thousands per year NO taxes and plenty of vacation time ??? OK sign me up and I will support the war in Iraq also

Fascinating story, thank you!

Do you have to pay in order to hop on the military flight to BIAP? Or for the Blackhawk ride?

As others have said, I can't even imagine what it must be like... Keep up the good work.

I would like to recommend BlogPatron as a means of supporting Michael Totten. This first post from Baghdad was worth every cent and more of my first month's contrib. Congratulations, Michael, and keep safe out there.

Zak said:

I don't see how we can pacify Iraq so long as the countries bordering Iraq do not want it pacified.

I don't either. The question is, why allow those bordering countries to get away with what they are doing?

tom,

WHAT exactly is our job in iraq? can you enlighten us?

Thank you for posting this.
I believe you were possibly in the company of my boyfriend sometime that day! He was just shipped out from Ft. Benning GA on July 8th. They were supposed to spend some time in Tikrit then move on to Iraq w/ the 104th Transportation Company.

Thank you for posting this.

Even knowing what it's like over there helps me to cope. I applaud you.

Thank you for making my weekend and making me feel safer.

alex,

why is it that you chose to respond to 'embolden', and not to facilitate?

smart and effective policies of a unified west would make it hard for islamist to achieve their objectives. ignorant, stupid policies of a divided west facilitate and embolden islamists beyond their dreams.

getting bogged down in iraq and eu capitulating to islamists are not smart policies, but imbecillic.

i am watching on tv the previous ambassador to iraq say that bush now wants the UN -- you know, that anti-american, anti-israel org -- to do more in iraq (do i smell a prep for getting out?). now, why do you think that is, because of huge success?

that's a result of huge blundering which helps rather than defeats the islamists. it validates their claim that the west is weak and decadent and easy to defeat.

dan,

i am with you on failing the war. but that's a separate and different argument that defending the islamists.

we shouldn't have gone there not just because we were going to lose, but because this served the objectives of the islamists.

zak,

i would pull out into the kurdish area and let the shia and sunni do their work. let iran, aq and the saudis get involved. their being at each other's throat keeps them busy and is in the interest of the west.

that's what will happen anyway, but the later it happens, the worse the price to be paid by the us.

and the reason you dk is because the us has put itself exactly in the situation in which it would not know what to do.

Dan said:

"General Petraeus's own counterinsurgency field manual states that a successful counterinsurgency requires at least 50 combat troops per 1000 civilians. In Baghdad alone that is 120,000 combat troops. For the whole of Iraq that requires at least 500,000 combat troops."

I 100% agree with your points regarding the planning and preparation of the war. Petraeus is being forced to run a counterinsurgency war without sufficient U.S. combat troops.

In addition to what you said, General Shinseki said that the Iraqi army needs to have approximately 400,000 to 500,000 troops in order to be able to fully defend itself.

What Petraeus is trying to do, (and in my opinion IS DOING SUCCESSFULLY) is to overcome the lack of U.S. troops by trying to integrate IA forces with our guys. Right now, the IA has approximately 157,000 combat ready troops. They should be up to about 200,000 by the end of the year.

If you add in U.S. troops, Coalition troops, and Iraqis, you've got somewhere around 320,000 troops. This is still short of where we need to be. As a result, we can carry out a lot of offensive operations, but we cannot provide immediate, widespread security.

However, I think that the recent backlash against Al Qaeda provides us with more "boots on the ground" although not in the traditional sense. The Awakening and continued tribal resistance to Al-Qaeda will hopefully help us continue to maintain operational momentum while the Iraqi Army expands and is trained up.

I firmly believe that what General Petraeus is accomplishing right now is breathtaking, and I believe he should be given the time and resources to carry out his counterinsurgency fight. I just don't see how leaving Iraq now benefits the security and long term interests of the United States in any way shape or form.

While there are a number of foreign fighters, the majority of the bomb throwers are Iraqis.

In fact I've heard quite the opposite; that although the number of foreign fighters is small in number compared to local insurgents, most of the bombing is coming from the foreigners. My source is Ralph Peters if I remember correctly.

all these military analysis are just bunk.

the issues are not military, but political. they always were and that is what the bushies failed to consider, plan for and address. americans cannot solve the religious and political problems of the ME, certainly not militarily.

Leaving aside that the US' foremost allies (SIIC) are also Islamist, Iraqi Sunnis cannot achieve their objectives (unless they're confined to bogging down the United States for a few more years, which they might achieve if we let them) Their goal is to restore the caliphate. Do you seriously imagine that's going to happen? Does anyone think they're likely to "take over" in Iraq the way the North Vietnamese did when the US left? Much less take over Washington DC or the capital of any developed nation?

fp,

you've got it assbackwards. The Bushites tried to ignore a military solution, hoping a political solution would take care of the problem. Thus the rush to have elections. It obviously didn't work out that way. Today, 3 years too late, they're trying to solve the problem militarily. Now we're in a race against time with the islamists in Iraq and the surrender monkeys here in the States.

Boy I wish my health would allow me to something like that. What an adventure!

I see that this article has been among those on the Pajamas Media News Feeds today resulting in an unusually high number of visitors to this site (sitemeter) today. I hope that those who regularly comment here will continue to maintian the civility that makes this an exceptionally informative and educational comments section, particularly since there is such increased attention.

Thank You MJT, Job well done!

alex,

are you familiar with logic?

if people want something, ara fanatic about it, kill others and themselves to get it, and instead of stopping them, we facilitate and help them, what the hell do you think will happen? or are you so ignorant of what's happening around the world that you have no clue what you're talking about?

they don't have to produce an actual caliphate. all they have to do is what khomeini did in iran. would you say it is in the west's interest to get more of that? are you pleased with iran's behavior domestically and internationally?

exactly what you say about them was said about hitler. he did not achieve his goals, but at what cost?

didn't learn much from history, did you? wanna be doomed to relive it, huh?

carlos,

sorry, don't buy.

the bushies did not have ANY plan. they thought they would shock and awe, be received with flowers, and the iraqis would produce a jeffersonian democracy overnight. after all, they're just like us, no? they want freedom.

i wouldn't have done it at all, but once they did, they should have turned it over to the iraqis and gotten out. that would have served the us interest. instead, they got tempted to stay and build the nation themselves, without any clue as to how and in complete ignorance of the culture. typical american approach.

and nobody has any idea yet of the price that is and will be paid for it by generations.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=train_of_thought_a_letter_to_sen_arlen_specter&ns=DianaWest&dt=07/20/2007&page=2

Seeing the war from a completly intellectual way
gives us nothing. It will not, no matter how
clever the ideas from the people, who consider themselves smart enough to win or lose a war from
his chair.
Do what Michael is doing, then tell us how to
win the war or not win the war.
As Obama has said, stop the war even it if means
genocide.
Easy to say, but after cutting and running on the
Iraqi people TWICE, there should be great shame
felt by Americans.
Of course, Kerry's view of very little lives lost
after Vietnam could be taken as truth, but, frankly I think, as usual, he is trying to
cover his complete lack of empathy for anything,
least of all, people like the Iraqis.

read the article i linked to.

the problem with the us is that it projects power that is unwilling to apply.

the reality is that it's the us govt who got into iraq based on intellectual theories that had nothing to do with the reality. the current circumstances and lack of good options are a direct result of that.

so instead of being concerned with us here, be concerned with those who started and are conducting the war.

I don't see how we can pacify Iraq so long as the countries bordering Iraq do not want it pacified. The surrounding Arab countries (and Iran) have done everything they can to destroy the Iraq democracy project, yet they never fail to blame the failure on America (just like they bitch about why there is no peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians as they go about supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad).
-Zak

The basic problem is that 'the countries bordering Iraq' have decided that destabilizing Iraq benefits them more than a stable Iraq would. Why wouldn't they? If Iraq breaks up, it's quite likely that they could take control of substantial chunks of the place, including the oil reserves.

How do we make it clear to those governments that destabilizing Iraq is worse for them than a stable Iraq would be?

IMO, helping unfriendly governments understand that they should confine their hostility to rhetoric is exactly the kind of thing the B-2 is well-suited for. Sponsoring insurgents and giving those governments a taste of their own medicine is appropriate, but really, insurgency is for countries not strong enough to win an overt military confrontation.

The Arab world is sick and I'm not sure there is much we can do to make it healthy.
-Zak

Basically, our options all suck.

They are-

1) ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

Not really viable, unless you're willing to accept periodic mega-casualty attacks in the US & allied countries and/or substantial weakening of privacy, civil liberties, etc (so that counterterrorist agancies can operate effectively in a domestic setting).

2) reform the middle east

Very difficult and expensive, in both blood and treasure, and it's going to take decades. Minimum. Besides the well-documented lack of democratic traditions, sectarianism, tribalism, corruption, and resentment of 'colonial occupation', you have the additional problem that governments other than the 'current project' will be quite aware that they're on the to-do list and that their only real hope of long-term survival is to make the 'current project' fail.

The best that can be said of this option is that it sucks less than the others.

3) The option that isn't an option, and no, I'm not talking about dhimmitude. I mean what will happen a few hours after al qaeda gets it's hands on a nuke and sets it off. It's best not to think about that too much, one might get some perspective and realize that things could be much worse than it is now, and maybe GWB has chosen the least-bad option.

Pretty much everything else I have seen proposed is a minor variation on those three. My general impression is that the lefties are pushing for 1) because the short-term costs are lowest, and that most on the right are (reluctantly) supporting 2) because they understand how horrible 3) would be.

You see, Dan and his like are correct- although not for the reasons they think. In the long run, the jihadis are doomed. Utterly, completely, decisively. The only real question is how many people- ours and theirs- are going to die in the process.

IMO, 2) is the option that will result in the lowest overall bodycount, so that's the approach I support.

rosignol,

you can't be serious. reforming the me is what got us into this mess in the first place.

the us should do more to protect its interest and less to reform others. it's a fool's errand.

I do think that the "least bad" option that Rosignol posits is what Bush (or whomever might be in power at any given time) would have to go with. I am trying to push my Congressional Reps & Goverment Leaders to be more aggressive against our enemies, though there are assuredly elements behind the curtain that I am not aware of.

A fools errand is wishing that FP would limit his posts to, say, less than 25% of MJT's comments section. Especially as FP's comments are basically the same ones- like listening to a record over and over and over and....

If only people, and the U.S. Government, could be as smart and wise and certain as you are FP. You could cut & paste any of your comments from any given article that MJT posts and they would be darn near identical.

Your contempt for America offends me. BTW, the U.S. did a terrible job in Japan and Germany after WWII didn't it?

I think that reforming others is protecting our interests.

ron,

i note that you provide no knowledge or reason to counter my comments, you just want me to shut up.
just because what i say offends you? some american you are.

1st, i don't repeat, i am consistent. familiarize yourself with the concept.

2nd, since my comments are always in response to others, it follows that even if i were repeating myself -- which i am not -- it would be necessary if others repeat the same nonsense.

just because america did some good things in the past, does not mean that all it ever does is good, which seems to underlie your position.
that's just the characteristic that gets america into lots of trouble.

if you think i am wrong, demonstrate it with knowledge and reason. whining about being offended won't do it.

rosignol,

i know you think that. so do others. that's one reason for the mess in iraq. and a lot of the me was reformed for the price, huh?

michael, thank you for being one of a very few journalists who i've come to consistently trust and respect.
because i hold you dear, i want to caution you from
saying things like "You’d think explosions and gunfire define Iraq if you look at this country from far away on the news. They do not. The media is a total distortion machine."
while i totally agree with you about the media, there is something unsettling about the scope of your comment and certainty when you have only just arrived, and have only seen a fraction of the country. i hate to think that your reporting will suffer from prejudices or hasty conclusions, or an eagerness to fit what you see into what you suspected.
i am sincerely grateful for your work.

Bad time to go to Iraq. They ran out of gasoline and the cars are lined up everywhere.

Somebody is going to become an overnight Millionair. He who imports vehicles that run on compressed air from India.

They are busy in Paris running as taxi cabs.
http://BendGovernment.blogspot.com

Or the entrepreneur who imports electric EV SUTs [ sport utility trucks ] from California.

http://TonyGuitar.blogspot.com

This is no flippant comment. This is exactly the situation where someone solves a problem for people and quickly becomes very wealthy.

If someone in Iraq does well with this idea and thanks me, I*ll let you know. Promise not to mention any name, but it would be interesting... = TG

here's the uk protecting its interests:

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/07/britain-almost-out-of-troops-memo.html

That Sports Utility Truck is an electric vehicle made by Phoenix Motor cars California.

See my blog site. US municipalities are buying these up now so you may have a wait. Guess they want to get around during a gas shortage too.

No profit to me though, I*m simply an enthusiast.

BTW.. forget the hybrid [2 cars in one], TDI diesels are coming to North America with 45 to 80 MPG performance for way less money.

Hybrids are just as dead in the driveway as any car when gas is cut off. Get an EV or a PEV. Hybrids sustain damage when run without gas or diesel. [Plug-in Electric Vehicle]= TG

Thanks for the wonderful story, Michael.
I've experienced the sensation of a night combat landing in a C-130 into chaos, as well, thirty one years ago. While the tarmac at Tan Son Nhut AB wasn't as hot as Baghdad, it was still mind warping.
I've also experienced first hand, the effect of a cut and run policy, and am still embarrassed of our country for abandoning the wonderful people of Viet Nam, to the not so tender mercies of the communists, and the death and displacement of millions.
The desire of so many to abandon Iraq, is equally disturbing to me. Actions have consequences, and in this case, those consequences have far too many variables in favor of disaster, for Iraq, as well as our way of life in the future. There is too much evidence that indicates that quantifiable gains have been made, in destroying AQ and their abilities in Iraq, in the training of the Iraqi Army and other ISF, as well as in the community support for the ISF and coalition forces, to suspend this operation now. I have a close friend who is Kurdish, and has been serving with the MNF since the invasion in '03 as a translator, and I trust his judgement, and his perspectives much more than anyone here, and most certainly more than any in the LameStream media. He's currently on leave, and we will be having lunch tomorrow, and I will forward this story to him tonight, so we can discuss it.
In considering the notion that we should just quit in Iraq, at this time it only serves one purpose, and that is political opportunism. For the Democrat Congress critters, quitting is winning...for them only.

I readily admit to less knowledge of the Middle East than some others on the board. But, I learn things here each time I visit, thanks to Michael and others, and will contribute to help this conversation continue.

It is unclear to me whether the "surge" strategy has a chance of working in a significant way. But is it not generally conceded that: (1) We have the right military guy calling the shots in Iraq now, (2) the surge strategy, including working together with Iraqi forces, is really just now getting in full motion, and (3) we MUST be getting smarter with each passing week about what it'll take?

I had mixed feelings about our Iraq adventure, right out of the box ... for reasons expressed by others here. But now, what mystifies me is this:

Why are we not willing, after ALL this time, to just be patient enough to wait for the several more weeks (through September?) to see how things are working out. I don't have any insights into "how it's going", but I do have enough curiosity and patience to want to see if we can make headway in the period we ALREADY, earlier, said was an acceptable interval for doing benchmarking. With dedicated troops, doing many things they are still (no doubt) learning to do well, and with a General we should be willing to give some "rope" to.

With MJT there, as one set of reliable ears and eyes, I'm for just shutting up and watching things play out. We know it's an unpopular war, so saying that over and over and over doesn't get us anywhere. Maybe the surge won't get us anywhere, either. But at least it's a newer idea; can't we just let it wither on the vine if it's a poor strategy --- and THEN do whatever we need to do to extricate, if that's the least worst thing?

Michael J Totten --

If you can check it out, the big story here is the New Republic with a pseudonymous story designed to appeal to Liberal prejudices, i.e. accounts of "atrocities" by goon-squad, degraded and debased working class military men who are subhuman and immoral louts. Weekly Standard is trying to debunk this, you might be able to get paid by investigating events/places cited in the article on the ground.

Just thought I'd mention a possible payday.

Dan --

You are quite right that Baghdad is not like London or Paris. But Zimbabwe is far worse (it has three times the weekly death toll) that Iraq and Lagos Nigeria, Mexico City, Guatemala City, Karachi, and Freetown are likely as bad if not worse.

Lagos has been described as hell on Earth. There are no IEDs but constant criminal attacks, hostage taking of Westerners, Koreans, Chinese, and so on.

Nearly all third world cities are total failures. Mexico City is not safe for Westerners, or Mexicans either for that matter who have any money at all. Crime and criminal gangs run the place and makes it a pit.

Saddam made Baghdad run by killing great mass-graves of people. Then he let out all the psychopaths from his jails. We could have made Baghdad nice and orderly like under Saddam. If we adopted his methods. Given that Iran and AQ rushed immediately and started the killing cycle we've done remarkably well. Lagos is probably worse and more dangerous. Freetown also.

Hitler never was able to strike at the heart of NYC and bring down skyscrapers. True Islamists cannot conquer us but withdrawing confirms that if they kill enough of us we will submit. It puts a giant "Nuke ME" sign on our cities. Considering AQ/Taliban are battering the Musharraf Govt into defeat that is not wise. Nor are there any "deals" we can do with the Iranians. For nearly 30 years they have opened their legislative meetings with "Death to America" and have conducted: Beirut bombings, CIA Station Chief Buckley's torture/murder, Buenos Aires, Khobar Towers, 9/11 help (not stamping the passports of the muscle hijackers re: 9/11 Commission). Not to mention their numerous threats publicly to nuke us, as well as Israel, killing our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. They mean to kill us and will unless we stop them. [My objection to Liberals: viewing hardened men who advanced by killing other men above them as middle class accountants, ready to make a "deal."]

There is no "deal" to be made, and recall that in tribal societies like Muslim societies, any one individual can restart the war if he's not happy -- it's why tribal societies are so violent with such high cumulative death rates. Nearly 40% attrition rate for men in some instances. [Most of the violence inherent in the ME IMHO is due to the family structure: polygamous, big-man dominated, which leaves most young men outside marriage or any hope, thus turning traditionally to violence. Which means that we will get more violence out of them until most young men have their own families, that's a huge societal change but possibly doable. I'd rather try it than than massive nuclear blasts -- once we get hit with cities lost to Pakistan's nukes -- Musharraf is clearly losing to Zawahari and the Taliban -- we have to respond massively or we will get hit again by everyone else. Though probably time has run out and Baghdad and Iraq are sideshows.]

Alex: Muslims threaten death and carry it out on Theo Van Gogh. Rushdie's publisher and translator. South Park is censored. No Danish Cartoons. On penalty of death. No Muslims as bad guys in movies (on threat of death). Muslims already control what we read and see. Violence works. No US paper would run the cartoons because they were afraid. They even threatened the Pope and killed priests and nuns to make their point. Already death threats made Britons stop teaching the Holocaust (Muslims are offended and kill when they get offended). Muslims already veto what you can read and see. In most European capitals and major cities with Muslim presence unveiled/un-burquad women are subject to attack.

This tripe about Iraq morphing into a terrorist state run by al-Qaeda in the absence of American troops is perhaps the most laughable of all the assertions made by the dwindling crowd of Iraq war supporters. Firstoff, some background: Al-Qaeda is a militant Sunni terrorist organization that holds Shi'ites as apostate traitors to their zealotry. The notion that a group like that could come to power in Shi'ite dominated Iraq is silly at best. Their numbers consist of a few thousand (estimated) fighters on the fringes of the overall Sunni insurgency. Recent news items note that many Sunni tribes have been receiving U.S. arms in return for promises to eliminate al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq. Those Sunni insurgents were the only domestic base of support al-Qaeda had in Iraq. With those tribes realizing that their alliance of convenience with al-Qaeda was a disaster, it's a matter of time before AQI is finished.

That said, the Iraq we see today is a state of low-grade civil war, resulting in vast numbers of fatalities in the contested, mixed sect areas (like Baghdad) as various Sunni and Shi'ite groups jockey for control. The active presence of a large U.S. military force is merely slowing the pace of the civil war, not preventing it from happening. Thus, the killings that are occurring (largely because there is no political settlement between the competing powers) will continue regardless if we stay or leave. It's a matter of the pace. Many more Iraqi's will die if we stay, or if we leave. The difference is that in the "stay" scenario far more American soldiers will die, too, in an attempt to resolve political disputes by inanely believing the warring parties wish to reconcile if only violence in Baghdad decreases. Would this point in my posting be a good time to note that the Iraqi Parliament is vacationing in the month of August while their country crumbles around them? Proof positive of how serious they are about a resolution.

The Iraq that I believe will congeal upon our exit will be a Shi'ite dominated state that has an unpleasant government friendly with Iran. The real power is going to rest with the remnants of the Mahdi Army, so I would not be at all surprised to see a Sadr-like head of state. The Sunni minority will probably be pushed back to Anbar province and a de facto partition w