Archive

Archive for the ‘Iraq’ Category

>Even More Iraq Inconvenient Truth

>If you’ve never visited Michael Yon’s then you’re missing out on a valuable source of information about what’s really going on in Iraq and the progress being made. Yon is an embedded freelance journalist that gives a warts and all, unbiased view of things.

From his latest post comes the following:

The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic…

I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently.

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

As they say – read the whole thing.

Categories: Iraq, War On Terror

>Iraq The Model sees more clearly than the ‘war is lost’ crowd

>It shouldn’t surprise anyone that a couple of bloggers in Baghdad have greater moral clarity than the anti-war brigade in the West. They’ve lived their entire lives in Iraq, mostly under the terror of Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime, and are much more able to comment on how things are going. What’s also impressive is that when the US gets it wrong they comment on that as honestly as when things go well.

I had said it over and over again that some of us in Iraq and America are sending wrong messages to the terrorists and the dictators behind them; in fact I wasn’t surprised when I saw Zawahiri appear on al-Jazeera to announce America’s defeat, not long after Reid did.

Anyone who thinks that this is not a propaganda war against the weak-minded in Australia, the US, the UK etc is denying reality. The tactics of blowing up women and children in marketplaces have no hope of achieving any territorial advantage other than in the whimsical psyche of those whose moral compasses need to go back to their manufacturer for resetting.

Zawahiri claims al-Qaeda has won and Reid claims America has lost but I see only a war that’s still ongoing and I see no victory for al-Qaeda or any other entity. On the contrary I see that al-Qaeda has the shortest stick.

That’s exactly correct. Here’s another rhetorical thought experiment. If there was unlimited time to fight in Iraq then A) would Al-Qaeda and its supporters win or B) would the US and its supporters win? Once the US entered WW2 in December 1941 and the Soviet Union turned against Germany in 1942 the result of the war was never in doubt. Did people look at the unbelievable slaughter that was taking place and decide to pull up stumps and go home because it was all too hard? No. They prosecuted the war to its inevitable conclusion – which took another three years and millions
of lives.

We are going through a fierce war and sending more wrong messages could only further complicate an already complicated situation and create more mess that would be exploited by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia for their own purposes—more iron-fist control on the peoples and treasures of the region and pushing the middle east to crises and confrontations with the world not forgetting spreading their dark, backward ideologies.

It’s to their eternal shame that the cultural relativists that infest our society and make up a large part of those saying that the war is lost cannot say that those we are fighting are evil and culturally backward.

The American forces should stay in Iraq and yes, reinforcements should be sent if the situation required. Not only that, these forces should be prepared to expand their operations whenever and wherever necessary in the region to strike hard on the nests of evil that not only threaten the middle east but seeking to blackmail the whole world in the ugliest way through pursuing nuclear weapons in a feverish desire to destroy themselves along with everyone else. It’s a delusional obsession with power derived from the false belief that only they possess absolute justice while denying the right to exist to anyone who disagrees with them.

Hellooooooooooo. Is anyone listening?

We must keep fighting those criminals and tyrants until they realize that the freedom-loving peoples of the region are not alone. Freedom and living in dignity are the aspirations of all mankind and that’s what unites us; not death and suicide. When freedom-lovers in other countries reach out for us they are working for the future of everyone tyrants and murderers like Ahmedinejad, Nesrallah, Assad and Qaddafi must realize that we are not their possessions to pass on to their sons or henchmen. We belong to the human civilization and that was the day we gave what we gave to our land and other civilizations. They can’t take out our humanity with their ugly crimes and they can’t force us to back off. The world should ask them to leave our land before asking the soldiers of freedom to do so.

“Freedom and living in dignity are the aspirations of all mankind” – what a great line. Apparently, though, to those on the Left one of the reasons that we should leave Iraq is that these people are not culturally able to adapt to democracy.

The cost of liberating Europe was enormous in blood and treasure and thereafter it took half a century of American military presence to protect Europe’s nations from subsequent threats—now if that made sense during a cold war, and it did, then I don’t understand why would anyone demand a pullout from Iraq (and maybe later the middle east) when the enemies are using every evil technique, from booby trapped dead animals to hijacked civilian aircrafts to kill us and destroy the human civilization.

Yes my friends, I will call for war just as powerfully the bad guys do and I must show them that I’m stronger than they are because those do not understand the language of civilization and reason. They understand only power, and with power they took over their countries and held their peoples hostages. Everything they accomplished was through absolute control over the assets of their nations through murder, torture, repression and intimidation.

The policy of the United States and her allies needs to adjust to make better use of the energy God-or nature or whatever you name it-blessed them with. We need to see a firm policy not afraid of making tough decisions replace the Byzantine debate of withdrawal. This became America’s destiny the day it became a superpower. A destiny to show responsibility toward her own people and toward the world, and running away from this responsibility won’t do any good. Otherwise those who prefer to bury their heads in the dirt today will be cursed forever for abandoning their duty when they were most capable. I don’t understand why someone who has all the tools for victory would refuse to fight the enemy that reminds us every day that it’s evil with all the daily beheadings, torture and violations of all humane laws and values.

Some will keep on blaming America and her policies and they will consider anything America did and does wrong whether America stayed or left, fought or ran away, negotiated or boycotted. There will always be those who blame America for everything that goes wrong in this world but that doesn’t mean America has to listen to them. America instead should listen to the spirit of America and what it stands for.
Reaping the fruit won’t be today, it will be in the future after patience and great fighting.

I often wonder how history will record the actions of those opposed to the War on Terror and fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq? I can’t help but think that in a few decades’ time when Islamist extremists are defeated and the history is being written that people will look at the tepid response to acts of Islamist aggression under the Clinton administration and really wonder about the character of the people involved. George W Bush will then be seen as the man who decided that evil cannot be allowed to go unpunished and his presidency will be rehabilitated in much the same way as Harry S Truman’s is currently being re-evaluated in light of the major issues he faced and the positive outcomes that time has proven he achieved.

Categories: Iraq, War On Terror

>Why hasn’t the mainstream media reported these poll findings?

April 29, 2007 3 comments

>Support for the War On Terror has been divided pretty much along political lines since it first started. The bit I can’t understand is why there’s so much support for war in Afghanistan and not Iraq given we’re fighting the same people. It may not have started out that way but that’s the situation we face now so surely the goal needs to be to defeat Al Qaeda and its supporters wherever they are?

Justification by the Left for war in Afghanistan is based on the fact that it’s where the Taliban and Al Qaeda were based, using it as a training ground for terrorists. On that basis shouldn’t we also be in Warizistan, northern Pakistan, which has effectively been annexed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda as their new base? When Germany invaded France, took over the country and fought Allied troops does it mean that we’re not allowed to take unilateral action against the German homeland?

The National Review Online has some interesting polling results in recent days. For example:

  • According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).
  • A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).
  • A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
  • POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
  • A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).
  • A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).
  • According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable”
  • Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
  • An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).

Given the results of the above polls I have a question. How does it come about that after a prolonged bombardment by the mainstream media and other major institutions – education, unions and various churches – to portray the war as illegal, going badly, unwinnable and ‘lost’ that there is still majority support in the United States for sustaining the effort, not de-funding the troops and not announcing a date for withdrawal?

If you took this poll in Western Europe you’d get exactly the opposite result including in the UK. What does that tell us about those people? It’s certainly true that there’s no such thing as balanced reporting and in the UK the conservative message is carried by only a few Fleet Street papers. I’ve posted previously on how the US has paid for world peace and continues to pay. It’s ironic that the sense of security Europe has felt for the last 50 years which has lulled it into its current intellectually sophomoric state has been entirely due to the power of the United States. Instead of having to spend money on their military they’ve chosen to build the huge social programs that are in the process of bankrupting the place.

Obviously, it’s morally correct to stay in Iraq and ensure that the place is stabilised lest the lesson of Vietnam is repeated and millions are slaughtered. Why one side of politics can be so blind to this obvious truth is beyond reason.

Categories: Iraq, Media

>CNN Flying Pig Moment on Iraq

April 27, 2007 1 comment

>CNN is pretty much in lock-step with the rest of the left wing mainstream media and, therefore, it’s always a surprise when they put something to air that’s against what the Democrats are saying in Washington.

Michael Ware and Kyra Phillips, who both report from Iraq, talked to American Morning co-host Kiran Chetry.

As reported by Newsbusters in their article: CNN’s Ware: Troop Pullout Debate Is ‘Delusional,’ Would Hand Iraq to al Qaeda:

Left-wing blogs loved it when CNN’s Michael Ware rebuked Senator John McCain a few weeks ago, after McCain suggested he could safely walk through areas of Baghdad. But this morning on CNN, Ware took dead aim at Democratic schemes for pulling out of Iraq, saying that debating a U.S. troop withdrawal was “delusional” and such a step would amount to “giving Iraq to Iran…and al Qaeda. That’s who would own it.”

Ware also provided an interesting insight into how the battle in Iraq has shifted from Anbar province and Baghdad, areas where the U.S. has built up troop levels, to Diyala province, which he described as “the new frontline against al Qaeda.”

Apparently Ware has no doubt that al Qaeda has made Iraq a central front in their battle against the U.S., and that the U.S. pulling out would hand al Qaeda a huge victory.

Baghdad correspondent Ware was joined on Thursday’s CNN’s American Morning with Kyra Phillips, who has also been reporting from Iraq for the past several months. Both were in New York and talked to co-host Kiran Chetry during the program’s 8am EDT hour.

After Phillips talked about how U.S. General David Petraeus is “a straight shooter” who has admitted difficulty in some provinces in Iraq, Ware focused on the fighting northeast of Baghdad:

“Diyala is now the new frontline against al-Qaeda. I mean, to be honest, it’s a tragically bloody affair. The brigade that was there last year lost 19 troops in 12 months. The brigade there now has lost 50 in six months.

“And you listen very carefully to what General Petraeus says, he says ‘This is what we would like to see, a representative government.’ When I was in Diyala province, I interviewed a two-star general on camera for CNN, and he admitted for the first time from anyone in the military that they’re now prepared to accept options other than democracy.

“Now this is what this war was sold to the American public on, yet they’re now saying democracy isn’t mandatory, it’s an option, and that they’re prepared to see a government that can protect itself, give services to its people, and it doesn’t have to be democratic. In fact, the general said, most of our allies in this region are not democratic. So that fundamentally addresses the root cause of why America says it went to war, and now the military is saying, well, we may not get there.”

Then, after talking about the difficulty of daily life in Iraq, Chetry asked the pair “would all of us, all the American troops pulling out, help the situation?”

Phillips and Ware both loudly protested: “Oh, no! No. No way!”

Phillips zeroed in on the problems a U.S. withdrawal would cause for the Iraqis: “It would be a disaster. I mean, I had a chance to sit down with the Minister of Defense, to General Petraeus, to Admiral Fallon, head of CENTCOM. I asked them all the question whether Iraqi or U.S. military — there is no way U.S. troops could pull out. It would be a disaster. They’re doing too much training, they’re helping the Iraqis not only with security, but trying to get the government up and running. I mean, this is a country of ‘Let’s Make a Deal,’ there’s so much corruption still. If the U.S. military left — they have rules of engagement, they have an idea, a focus. It would be a disaster.”

Ware agreed, but argued that winning the war was in America’s best interest: “Well, even more than that, if you just wanted to look at it in terms of purely American national interest, if U.S. troops leave now, you’re giving Iraq to Iran, a member of President Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil,’ and al Qaeda. That’s who will own it. And so, coming back now, I’m struck by the nature of the debate on Capitol Hill, how delusional it is. Whether you’re for this war, or against it; whether you’ve supported the way it’s been executed, or not; it doesn’t matter. You’ve broke it, you’ve got to fix it now. You can’t leave, or it’s going to come and blow back on America.”

Video (1:15): Real (2 MB) or Windows (2.5 MB), plus MP3 audio (392 KB)

Michael Ware is a noted critic of the administration. For him to be getting stuck into the Democratic Party confirms that their stance on the war is miles off target. He’s in Iraq. He can see the danger. They can’t.

Categories: Iraq, War On Terror

>Virgina Tech versus Iraq

>The always interesting and informative Diogenes Lamp highlights a letter to the socialist rag, The Age (Australian equivalent of The Guardian), which beautifully demolishes the ridiculous comparisons the Left are making between the Virginia Tech tragedy and what’s going on in Iraq in a post called Age sensible letter of the week. Here’s the full post:

And a superb letter it is. The Age has attracted a number of letters comparing the death toll of the Virginia Tech shootings with deaths in Iraq. The Left do their utmost to try to put it over that it is the United States that is killing all these people in Iraq. That the killing is being done by fanatical, psychopathic Muslims is carefully never mentioned. The United States is trying to STOP the mayhem.

In this letter Bruce M. Stillman describes the situation in Iraq perfectly. The United States is the police, trying to bring order out of chaos.

A PARALLEL could be drawn between the tragedy in Iraq and the tragedy in Virginia. But only if the students had attacked the police when they arrived on the university campus to apprehend the deranged murderer and then proceeded to form into groups and attack each other.

These attacks would have been carried out in the most barbaric fashion possible, and would have targeted those students and staff who did not wish to join in the general mayhem and/or who assisted the police.

Meanwhile, the staff would have split and taken sides with whichever faculty they favoured and then provided at least tacit support for their chosen student groups, while at the same time indulging in intrigue and personal enrichment.

An endless succession of pointless meetings and discussions would have taken place at which time the main topic of conversation would be to do with the activity of the police along with calls for them to leave the campus ASAP. All this would have been exacerbated by staff and students at neighbouring universities sending weapons to selected faculties on the increasingly chaotic campus.

The non-university population, meanwhile, would blame the police, arguing that they should have stayed away from the university and left control of the situation to the staff and students presently dismembering each other. After all, it was the police intervention that converted them to cold-blooded barbarians. Otherwise they would have been nice, civilised, caring human beings.
Bruce M. Stillman, Fitzroy North

Let’s get this straight: the United States overthrew a barbaric totalitarian mass murderer, who had overseen the murder of hundreds of thousands, and very likely millions, of people.

America knew that Saddam’s dethronement would lead to chaos. But nobody could have predicted the lunacy of Islamicists using Iraq to conduct an insane religious war, and even using their own children as human bombs.

And nobody did. The Democrats in the last five and a half years have not offered one suggestion of how the war against Islamic terrorism should be fought (and it must be fought. If September 11 2001 was not a horrific act of war, then neither was the Nazi invasion of Poland, nor the attack on Pearl Harbour).

Our own whingers have done no better. Phillip Adams complains about the war in Iraq, but regarding what is to be done in response to the 2001 terrorist attack, or the 2002 Bali bombing, or the 2005 bombing of the London tube, or a thousand other acts committed by bloodthirsty Islamic fanatics, Adams and his ilk have nothing to offer.

One is reminded of the words of Cicero:

I criticise by creation, not by finding fault.

Anyway, thank you Bruce. That was one hell of a letter.

And thank you, Diogenes, for bringing that insightful letter to people’s attention. A large number of people on the Left started making Iraq comparisons with unseemly haste in a horrible display of partisan politics. While that behaviour is not the sole domain of the Left at least the Right knows they’re wrong when they do it.

Categories: Iraq, United States

>Iraq The Model asks the right questions

April 22, 2007 1 comment

>Iraq The Model is a terrific website, written by two Iraqis living in Baghdad, that provides a candid view of what’s really going on in Iraq. I refer to it often and I suggest that you bookmark it and check in as often as possible.

End the war: Right message sent to the wrong address.

What did the last wave of terror attacks and the many crimes committed against our people all this time reveal?

If we look at how the media handles the situation we’ll find something like this almost everywhere; Dozens killed, scores wounded in attacks suggest failure of security measures…

It’s as if the speaker here wants to only emphasize the defect in security measures in a way that honestly angers and disgusts me.

There’s a pretty good reason it appears that they only what to emphasise defeat. The mainstream media is in lock step with the goals of the Democratic Party, which is heavily invested in ensuring defeat in order to improve its chances of taking the White House in 2008. A stable Iraq is bad news for the Left.

When shall they realize, if ever, that we are dealing with brutal crimes against humanity, a genocide against the people of Iraq? Why don’t people talk about the cruelty of the crimes and expose the obvious goals of the terrorists behind the crimes? Isn’t it everyone’s duty to expose the criminals, describe their sick ways and purposes and alert the world about the danger?

It is, indeed, everyone’s duty. The problem is that the majority of the population in the West are no longer allowed to make value judgements, to apply the label ‘evil’ to situations for which it is obviously appropriate or to take sides in spite of the blindingly obvious threat that presents itself on a daily basis. As for the concept of ‘duty’, well…

Where are the media when terrorists use chlorine poisonous gas, acids, and ball bearings to kill and hurt more and more civilians in utter disregard to all written and unwritten laws, ethics and values? I understand it’s the duty of the media to practice scrutiny over the work of governments but isn’t it equally their duty to expose criminals and their evil deeds?

Where are the media? At home, thinking up ways to stick it to the governments in Australia, the US and Britain; publishing national security secrets that allow terrorists to avoid future detection; giving mentally deranged mass-killers a platform to immortalise themselves; participating in completely false attacks on Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzalez and, recently, Paul Wolfowitz; perpetrating the myth of the deliberate outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent; whitewashing the brazen security breaches of Sandy Berger and the unbelievable corruption of Congressman Jefferson; promoting the most hysterically apocalyptic predictions of Global Warming; blaming the indefensible crimes of self-identified ‘victim’ groups on, basically, white males; and generally doing whatever they can to attack those exceptional people and institutions that built the West into the vibrant, decent and pluralistic society that it is today.

It’s frustrating to see the media turn a blind eye to the nature of the crimes and open fire on an honest endeavor to restore peace to a bleeding nation. I’m sure the terrorists are pleased by the coverage. Why not, when their crimes are being portrayed as successful breakthroughs against the efforts of Iraq and America it’s likely motivating them to keep up the killing.

Of course it’s motivating them to keep up the killing. If the media turned around tomorrow and started supporting the Coalition and attacking the atrocities carried out by terrorists then the tide of the war would change tomorrow. Think about that for a while…makes you wonder about the moral fibre of the media, doesn’t it?

Would it be “hate speech” to expose the terrorists for what they are? I think our hate for their crimes must not be hidden; there is no shame in hating those blood-thirsty monsters.

Yes, in today’s morally inverted world it would be “hate speech”, as you would have to identify one group and compare them negatively to another. Don’t forget that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, or so the Left will have us believe. Has there ever been a more inane statement? Perhaps “I’m already against the next war” might top it but not by far.

Even more appalling I see and hear some people who think the solution is to end the war from our end and I can’t find an argument more naïve than this — I’ve seen enough wars in my life that I can’t remember a day when there was peace and I hate wars more than they can imagine. But we didn’t start his war; it’s the terrorists who started this war against life.

Instead of telling us to stop fighting back, I’d like to see some people stand up and protest the crimes of the terrorists and tell them to stop the killing and destruction…turn the stop-the-war campaign against the terrorists, is that too much to ask for?

The Left believes that you are not able to be democratised because it’s against your culture. Apparently, you are too barbaric to accept the mantle of liberty. The Left remains blind to the arrant racism of this position. The Right believes that all people have the capability and desire to express their free will. The contrast in attitude to race could not be starker.

Tell the criminals to stop killing us and stop attacking the people who are risking their lives fighting for liberty and equality. We’re not asking the media and the stop-the-war crowd to carry arms and shoot the terrorists; we just want them to stop shooting at us.

The Left only attacks easy targets. Christians, white males, the United States, conservatives. In spite of the atrocities committed by the most appalling people on earth you will never get them to stop taking shots at you while you are an ally of the US. George Galloway was on Saddam’s payroll for frigsake and look how he is still lionised by the Guardian and New York Times. Democrats fall over themselves in the rush to visit Syria and Iran in order to pay homage to murderous, dangerous thugs. While ever Iraq seeks democracy and freedom you will get no help from the Left.

Categories: Iraq, Media

>When is a little bit of contact too much?

>For many years the Los Angeles Police Department battled to control the activities of the Crips, a notorious gang with roots extending back to the late 1960s. The Crips’ main activities include dealing drugs and undertaking robberies. They protect their turf by intimidating opponents and murdering those that overstep the mark. Over the years an unwritten ‘agreement’ between the Crips and the LAPD meant that as long as the Crips confined their activities to the area south of the river the police would only take action against those that went too far or strayed out of their territory. For many years this arrangement held and the majority of people tended to forgot about the Crips, especially those that didn’t live in their area.

In the late 1990s the LAPD became aware of a new gang, the Creed, led by the charismatic Tupaq Obin. The Creed was quite different to gangs that had existed previously. It was much more focused, organised and well led by a small group of talented individuals that employed a new strategy with different tactics that the LAPD had not encountered previously. Unlike the Crips, whose activities occurred on a daily basis, the Creed confined itself to large scale robberies and contracted killings, on an irregular basis. The small, secretive nature of the organisation made it impossible for the police to penetrate and gain intelligence into its activities. The public quickly became aware of the Creed due to the fact that they were much more violent than other gangs and, after one particularly egregious incident, the cry went up to do something about them.

The LAPD set out to infiltrate the Creed or any associates, no matter how tenuous the links, in order to gain the intelligence they needed. Despite minor early successes it took some years before they started to piece together a picture of the Creed and its associates – and what they saw was profoundly disturbing for it appeared that the Creed were forming links with the Crips with a view to expanding their strength and influence. Most of this intelligence came from within the Crips and indicated that while direct contact between Tupaq Obin and the Crips’ leadership hadn’t taken place – basically, they hadn’t yet built up a basis for trust – there was an increasing link between lieutenants on either side. The LAPD understood the profound consequences of a combined Crips-Creed gang and stepped up efforts to deal with the threat.

Naturally, the LAPD was under heavy pressure from politicians and the media for greater success against the increased lawlessness on the street and, on the basis of increasing activity by the Crips and their links to the Creed, chose to deal with the threat by reducing the Crips’ ability to operate. Their method was to significantly increase the number of police operating south of the river and, indeed, achieved notable success when they captured significant members of the Crips’ leadership. Upon further investigation it turned out that the LAPD had read too much in to the intelligence and, while there was certainly some contact between the two groups, there was little evidence of co-operation in any operational sense.

Of course, I made all of that up to make a point.

For the Crips substitute Iraq, for the Creed, Al Qaeda, and Tupaq Obin is Osama bin Laden.

In my construction, is it reasonable for the LAPD to have been concerned with what it saw as a significant threat due to the activities of the Creed and their contact with the Crips? Of course it is. At what point does contact between the two become concerning? Surely, any contact has to raise a red flag when you’re trying to fight organised crime?

The Washington Post of 6 April headline is Hussein’s Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted: Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited. This is based on a new Pentagon Report in which the CIA attempts to write down some of its pre-war analysis of co-operation between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda.

What does “Limited” mean? Why wouldn’t that be of concern to intelligence agencies? The CIA does not at all suggest that there was no contact between the two even though there was no long term relationship.

The CIA report proves that there was contact between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The answer that those discounting the importance of that contact is – why did it exist at all?

Categories: Iraq