Abu Ayyub al-Masri Free: Some Other Guy Arrested

Abu Ayyub al-Masri wasn't captured yesterday in Mosul.

And, it looks like my notion that wishful thinking was involved may not be that far off ("Abu Ayyub al-Masri: Captured (Again), Maybe, This Time in Mosul" (May 9, 2008).

Iraqi police apparently picked up a man with a similar name, and then an Iraqi commander became "convinced that he had arrested al-Masri".

" 'Neither coalition forces nor Iraqi security forces detained or killed Abu Ayyub al-Masri. This guy had a similar name,' said Maj. Peggy Kageleiry, a U.S. military spokeswoman in northern Iraq. She said no additional details were being immediately provided.

"Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said the confusion arose because the commander of Iraqi forces in northern Ninevah province was convinced that he had arrested al-Masri — also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir." (" (International Herald Tribune (May 9, 2008))

This sort of thing happens. Remember, in the months immediately after 9/11, how bin Laden conscious people were? I remember a minor news item from that period, about someone in Europe who had stopped a shipment because the word "LADEN" was on it. My German is rusty, but I think that means "load." Not a particularly odd word to find on a load of goods from Germany: but mistakes happen.

And, I think that's something to remember here. Mistakes happen. People tend to see, hear, and read what they want to see, hear, and read. Even if it isn't so.

I'm not happy to learn that an Iraqi commander seems to have trouble sorting out facts presented to him. But, it does happen. And, maybe with Iraq in the global spotlight, Iraqi leadership will decide that it's in their interests to develop procedures for processing information - and prisoners - and stop acting like the clueless third-world leaders that were popular stereotypes decades ago, before America became sensitive to the feelings those who run alternatively-advantaged countries.

finally, a lesson for everyone:

1. Check Facts
2. Then make statement

More, at

• "US military denies Iraq report of al-Qaida arrest"
  Associated Press (May 9, 2008).
• " AP News in Brief"
  International Herald Tribune (May 9, 2008)

Abu Ayyub al-Masri: Captured (Again), Maybe, This Time in Mosul

Iraqi police captured Abu Ayyub al-Masri in Mosul Thursday.

Abu Al-Masri, is also called Abu Hamza al-Muhajer. Whatever his name is, he took control of Al Qaeda in Iraq after an American missile killed the previous Al Qaeda boss there, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in June of 2006.

Since taking control of Al Qaeda in Iraq, if my count is right, Abu Ayyub al-Masri has been captured three times, including today's arrest, mortally wounded once, and killed three times.

According to various Iraqi officials.

This time, Iraqi officials say that Abu Ayyub al-Masri is already in American custody. Maybe, but "U.S. military officials could only say on the record they had nothing to confirm the report." ("Iraqis report capture of al Qaeda in Iraq leader" (CNN (May 8, 2008))

As CNN put it, "Iraqi officials have also misreported the deaths or capture of other high-ranking insurgents, Baathists or others, including al-Zarqawi before he was killed and Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, the highest ranking former member of Saddam Hussein's regime still at large."

I could be wrong about this, but I've gotten the impression that officials in several parts of the world, including the Middle East, tend to report what they'd like to have happened as what actually happened. Iraq's leaders seem to have the same difficulty in distinguishing between desire and fact.

The Iraqi (state-run) press has already reported Abu Ayyub al-Masri capture. This time, the Iraqi officials may be right.

The American military is checking the reports out. Given how recently the arrest is supposed to have taken place, Abu Al-Masri could be in American custody, without the information having filtered up to the top brass yet.

Or, this could be another case of wishful thinking trumping hard fact.

If it's true, then Al Qaeda in Iraq is short a top leader - again. That's not good for Al Qaeda, but it would be good for Iraq - and for America, in the long run. If or when Iraq becomes a stable, prosperous, country, organizations like Al Qaeda will have lost another base of operations.

More at

• "Iraqi army says Iraqi al-Qaida leader arrested"
  Associated Press (May 8, 2008)
• " Leader of al-Qaida in Iraq arrested in Mosul, Iraqi defense ministry says"
  International Herald Tribune (May 8, 2008)

American Television Networks and the News: Impartial, Neutral, Nonpartisan, Dispassionate

How many people really believe that?

Let's take a look at one of yesterday's headlines:

"RNC demands networks yank McCain ad"
The Associated Press (April 28, 2008)

"MIAMI (AP) — The Republican National Committee demanded Monday that television networks stop running a television ad by the Democratic Party that falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq.

"The ad says President Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years, then plays a clip of McCain saying, 'Maybe 100. That'd be fine with me.' "

Wait a minute! That's a tiff over an advertisement, not news.

True. However, that ad isn't all that different from news coverage of McCain's 'well-known' willingness to fight a 100 year war in Iraq:

• "Behind the Scenes: Watch for political fallout from pope's visit"
  CNN April 16, (2008.)
  "Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, appeals to many Catholics because he's pro-life and has a moderate stance on immigration. Yet his willingness to remain in Iraq for '100 years' is at odds with the church's opposition to the war."
• "McCain, Iraq, And 100 Years"
  CBS News (April 29, 2008)
  "...And in 2008, McCain reversed course yet again, deciding that we should be prepared to leave troops in Iraq, even if it means 100 years or more."
• "THE '100-YEAR' WAR CONTINUES..."
  msnbc (April 8, 2008)
  "From NBC's Mark Murray
  "Once again, the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee are making it crystal clear that they will pounce on any kind of "100-year" iteration by Obama that they think distorts what the Arizona senator originally said. The latest example comes after Obama's appearance on TODAY this morning." ¹
• "McCain's '100 Year' Remark Hands Ammo to War Critics"
  ABC News (March 31, 2008)
  "... Back and forth it went until the man started to ask another question. 'President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years --'
  "Handing Ammo to War Critics
  "McCain interrupted with words that have haunted him ever since.
  "He said either "Maybe a 100," or "Make it 100.'
  "McCain continued: 'We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.' "
  (Kudos to ABC, for including the context of McCain's remark.)

There's a range of opinion here, and I'm not going to make a claim like Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" assertions (yes, she really said that, several times).

'Everyone Knows' Isn't Always True

However, I do think I see a preference for believing what 'everyone knows,' rather than going to the trouble of finding and reporting facts.

As the ABC News item indicates (almost), McCain's "100 year war" was a recognition that America will probably continue to be involved in international affairs for another century. He didn't point out, as I have, that America is still 'occupying' Germany, over a half-century after the end of WWII. Does that mean that America should have pulled out, after the D-Day disaster? ²

But, by virtue of hearing it over and over on the news, my guess is that quite a few Americans, politically active or not, really believe that McCain wants a 100-year war.

Previous posts on this general topic:

• "War, Peace, Truth, and the Pope"
  (April 17, 2008)
• "An Endless War in Iraq: Reality Check"
  (April 2, 2008)

---

¹ I can't make out whether this post is on either side. I get the impression that Mark Murray views the parties involved much as Mercutio viewed the Capulets and Montagues: after receiving a pointed response to his peacemaking efforts.

² By some contemporary standards, D-Day was a disaster. An estimated 4,500 American and Allied soldiers were killed. Worse, there was an 'inexcusable' lack of record-keeping (or was it a cover-up?!) which makes an exact count impossible. To say nothing of the environmental impact!

I don't see it that way, but my attitudes aren't the same as many of the self-described best and brightest in today's America.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Iraqi Army Aids San Diego Arson Victims

"Iraqi Army Takes Up Collection For SoCal Fire Victims" - Dateline Baghdad - "Members of the Iraqi Army in Besmaya collected a donation for the San Diego, Calif., fire victims Thursday night at the Besmaya Range Complex in a moving ceremony to support Besmaya’s San Diego residents.

"Iraqi Army Col. Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1,000 to U.S. Army Col. Darel ...."

I didn't see this in the news, either.

Naturally enough: no IEDs, no pathetic victims (apart from the people in San Diego), no American brutality.

Maybe I'm getting cynical.

Nope: this should be a rather big deal in the news, and it isn't. The problem may lie in the post's subtitle: "The Truth Of Iraq And How America And Iraq Are Winning The War."

Stressed-Out by Iraq? You're Not the Only One

Different people react differently to stress, and the war on terror has stressed quite a few people, one way or another.

"Tens of thousands of anti-war demonstrators" marched in Washington D.C., and had a die-in. Their chant made their desire clear: "What do we want? Troops out. When do we want it? Now."

One of the peace movement's stars, Cindy Sheehan, addressed the multitude. "It's time to lay our bodies on the line and say we've had enough," she said. "It's time to shut this city down."

There were some U.S. veterans at the march and die-in, including 25-year-old Justin Cliburn. "We're occupying a people who do not want us there," he said about Iraq.

I saw a reporter interviewing one of the die-iners. It was like a scene one of those old 'grandson of Dracula's nephew's cousin' movies, except the blood-stained ersatz corpse was in bright sunlight. In answer to the reporter's question, she said that U.S. soldiers are dying 'for nothing, for no reason.' I wouldn't swear to those being the exact words, but it's a close paraphrase.

Meanwhile, over in southern Iraq, the Migasees tribe's leader in Wasit province, Sheik Majid Tahir, has his own interests in the country. He says tribal leaders in Iraq have talked about creating an American-trained brigade of Iraqis. The brigades' purpose would be to help local security and help patrol the Iranian border.

Although Iraqi politics at the national level impress me no more than that of the American Congress, I admire the courage of Iraqis at the local and regional level.

Faced with the death of one of Iraq's leaders, Sheik Majid Tahir said that the assassination of Abu Risha increased the resolve of Shiite tribal leaders. "The death of Sheik Abu Risha will not thwart us," he said. "What matters to us is Iraq and its safety."

Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha pulled 25 Sunni Arab clans together, and organized them as the Anbar Awakening Council. The Council's purpose was to oppose Al Qaeda, and run terrorists out of sanctuaries where they had flourished after 2003 the U.S.-led invasion.

Abu Risha was killed on Thursday, September 13, 2007, when a roadside bomb near his house exploded. It was the first day of Ramadan.

Al Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq claimed credit for the assassination on Friday. Allah enabled your brothers ... to track down and assassinate the imam of infidelity and apostasy ... one of the dogs of (U.S. President George W.) Bush," the Web statement said.

It's going to be interesting, seeing who makes the most difference: Sheik Majid Tahir; Al Qaeda, or Cindy Sheehan and company.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the Independent Commission Report

First, I've got some philosophizing to get out of my system.

"Ownership or participation in ownership of a publication or broadcasting property is a sacred trust and a great privilege." ("The Standards of Ownership / Nelson Poynter's guide for the ownership of the St. Petersburg Times," August 6, 1947)

I wish that journalism lived up to such high ideals. Then, statements like, "it must be true: it's in the news," wouldn't be so grimly funny.

Even the most believable, perhaps especially the most believable, news reports should be viewed with deferred judgment.

For example: "Everybody knows" how wild and crazy rock bands are, so there's no reason to question news reports from 1981, which stated that Van Halen did thousands of dollars of damage to a New Mexico venue, just because they were given brown M&Ms, and their contract demanded a bowl of M&Ms with the brown ones removed.

According to an autobiography by one of the band members, the brown M&M restriction was there to make sure that promoters of Van Halen concerts actually read the contract. No brown M&Ms meant that a full system check of the facilities was necessary. A place in Colorado had tens of thousands of dollars of damage, because the floor wasn't strong enough to support the V.H. stage equipment.

Now, About the "The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq," that I call the General Jones report.

I had a little trouble with the report by General Jones. CBS News didn't name it, but gave this description: "The study, conducted by a 20-member panel led by retired Gen. James Jones, is one of several independent studies Congress directed in May. A copy of the 37-page report was obtained by The Associated Press."

I found a report which was

• Conducted by a 20-member panel
• Chaired by General James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.)
• Directed by Public Law 110-28, enacted May 27, 2007

It didn't have 37 pages, though. The report I found was 153 pages long, including the cover sheet.

Maybe the report "obtained by The Associated Press" was some sort of special summary. It wasn't the "Executive Summary" in the report: that wasn't anywhere near 37 pages long.

Maybe retired General Jones was working with another 20-person panel, on a nearly identical project.

That's not likely.

My working assumption is that the "37-page" part of the CBS News report is one of those little slips that happen now and again, like the Van Halen M&Ms.

As with the GAO report, the report shows that Iraq has problems. Lots of problems.

My original plan, when I thought I'd have 37 pages to deal with, was to look over the whole report, and discuss it.

153 pages is too much for that: I don't have the time, and I doubt that you'd want to sit still, reading what I think about it.

So, after a quick skim, I picked one topic: Corruption.

On page 123, I found "Corruption" as a heading. "Corruption is a serious problem at many land prots of entry. This fact has not yet been adequately addressed," the report said.

Reading on, I think "not yet been adequately addressed" was an understatement. The problem is that the central Iraqi government can't collect tariffs, stop contraband, or expect their Department of Border Enforcement to work properly.

One of the issues seems to be that several Iraqi ministries bump into each other at land ports of entry: and try to out-maneuver each other for a piece of the action.

Then, there's the matter of kickbacks. The Ministry of Interior (MOI) isn't always as helpful as it should be, to put it mildly.

Iraqi and Coalition officials told members of the Commission that "personnel at the border crossings are often discouraged from doing their jobs 'too well,' lest they disrupt lucrative smuggling operations that benefit senior-level officers in the MOI."

To its credit, the Iraqi government has tried to fix the problem, even changing leadership in some areas.

One way of looking at corruption in Iraq is to decide that it's a cultural norm, something which Americans must accept as part of the rich heritage of the region: one mustn't be ethnocentric!

I don't buy that. Although parts of the Middle East have earned a reputation for corruption, they have quite a bit of competition for most-corrupt-country, globally.

A list of Transparency International's CPI, or Corruption Perception Index, is at Rediff.com.

According to the CPI, Finland is the least-corrupt country that was studied, with a score of 9.7 (out of 10). Bangladesh the most corrupt, with a score of 1.3.

Countries more-or-less in the Middle East had a pretty wide range of scores. This list is a sampling, I may have missed some:

• Israel 7.0
  
• Oman 6.3
• Bahrain 6.1
• Kuwait 5.3
• United Arab Emirates 5.2
• Jordan 4.6
• Saudi Arabia 4.5
• Syria 3.4
• Egypt 3.3
• Turkey 3.1
• Iran 3.0
• Lebanon 3.0
• Palestine 3.0
• Yemen 2.6
• Pakistan 2.5
• Kazakhstan 2.4
• Uzbekistan 2.4
• Iraq 2.2
• Kyrgyzstan 2.1
• Azerbaijan 1.8
• Tajikistan 1.8

(Syria is near the mid-point of the list, a score shared by China, Panama, and Sri Lanka.)

I said before that Iraq has many problems. That doesn't mean that I want to see America, and the other coalition countries which are still involved in Iraq, say, "good luck," and pull out before the wild collection of

• Decent, patriotic Iraqis
• Crazed religious fanatics
• My-tribe-first fossils who didn't notice the rise of nation-states
• The usual bunch of big-shot wannabes

...have a chance to thrash out a reasonable facsimile of a funcional national government.

I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating. It was 11 years before the American colonies dropped what hadn't been working, and developed the Constitution that America has now. These things take time.

Posts on this topic:

• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, Where to Find Reports
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the Independent Commission Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the GAO Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports of Iraq: Day 1
  (September 7, 2007: about 1:00am)

More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the GAO Report

The Government Accountability Office report, GAO-07-1195, is an update of an a sort of work-in-progress draft released in July, 2007.

I appreciated the table that the new GAO report put, on the third sheet. It's easier to see the overall pattern of the report that way.

The picture isn't rosy, by any means. I've copied the 18 "Benchmarks," and whether they were met or not (according to the GAO), with a GAO comment following. My comments on each are in parentheses.

1. Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and completing the constitutional review.

Not Met

Committee formed but amendments not approved by the Iraqi legislature and no referendum scheduled.

(They haven't thrashed out how much power the president will have, for one thing. I'm not surprised. That's something that's still being debated in Washington.)

2. Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba'athification.

Not Met (not quite)

(Laws drafted. Iraqi Shi'a, and Sunni Arab, and Kurdish, leaders are still working on what to do. Better this, than a quickie get-the-Ba'athists, or amneesty-for-all "solution.")

3. Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner

Not Met (not quite)

3 of 4 components drafted; none being considered by parliament.

(This one is really complicated: four interrelated points, over a high-value economic prize, involving groups that haven't gotten along very well for the last thirty years, at least.)

4. Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

Partly Met

Law enacted; implementation scheduled for 2008.

(That's less than 4 months away: And the delay in enactment was built into the law.)

5. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

Partly Met

Commission law enacted and implemented; however, supporting laws not enacted.

(Not bad, nder the circumstances.)

6. Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

Not Met

No law drafted.

("No progress" may not be a bad thing here. We're talking about amnesty for the equivalent of Nazi war criminals here, without the heavy-handed bunch of victors with righteous indignation that facilitated the Nuremburg trials.)

7. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.

Not Met

No law drafted.

(This is one that I regard as a real problem: You can't run a country, with war bands running around, killing people they don't approve of.)

8. Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad security plan.

Met

Committees established.

(Now, let's hope the committees do something besides have meetings.)

9. Providing three trained and ready brigades to support Baghdad operations.

Partly Met

Forces provided; some of limited effectiveness.

(It could be worse. Of 19 Iraqi units supporting operations in Baghdad; 5 units had performed well; 14, not so much.)

10. Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S. commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

Not Met

Political intervention continues.

(Isn't that what politicians do? I've gotten the impression that part of the job of politicos is to second-guess military leaders.)

11. Ensuring that Iraqi security forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.

Not Met

Iraqi security forces engaged in sectarian-based abuses.

(This is very serious. "In May 2007, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reported that Iraq's Shi'a-dominated government bears responsibility for engaging in sectarian-based human
rights violations, as well as tolerating abuses committed by Shi'a militias with ties to political factions in the governing coalition." (page 44))

12. Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said “the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

Partly Met

Militia infiltration of some security forces enables some safe havens.

(There's actually something of a breakthrough here. Sadr City is no longer protected by the Iraqi government from law enforcement and military action.)

13. Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

Not Met

Militias control some local security; unclear whether sectarian violence has decreased.

(The report seems to treat this as a subheading of Benchmark 7.)

14. Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

Met

32 of 34 stations established.

(Looking back at the report's rating of point 5, shouldn't this be a "1"? Only 94% of the security stations are in place! Seriously, this is pretty good work.)

15. Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.

Not Met

Number of independent units declined between March and July 2007.

(This is not good, but the problem seems to be a matter of finding ways to find supplies, and get them to the units. I should think this would be easier to solve than the problem of getting people to stop killing each other over tribal rivalries and religious details.)

16. Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

Met

Legislators' rights protected; minority citizens' rights unprotected.

(This is limited good news.)

17. Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

Partly Met

Funds allocated but unlikely to be fully spent.

(A government not spending money as a problem: that's an idea that takes getting used to.)

18. Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi security forces.

Not Met

Unsubstantiated accusations continue to be made.

(Fair enough. False accusations by someone in power is trouble, as the Duke Lacrosse situation showed.)

Okay, that was the GAO report.

I'd have liked to see more of those benchmarks met. On the other hand, and with due respect to the members of Congress, I wonder how well the House and Senate would score, if they an outside agency started looking at their performance?

The GAO report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071195.pdf. I'd strongly recommend getting a copy, and comparing what politicos and experts will be saying it says, to what it actually says.

I'm afraid that even the best minds are subject to wishful thinking.

Posts on this topic:

• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, Where to Find Reports
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the Independent Commission Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the GAO Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports of Iraq: Day 1
  (September 7, 2007: about 1:00am)

More Reports of Iraq: Day 1

Headline: "Study: Iraqi Security Forces Not Ready."

Lead paragraph: "WASHINGTON Iraq's security forces have made 'uneven progress' and will be unable to take over security on their own in the next 12 to 18 months, according to an independent assessment."

It's a CBS News synopsis of a 37-page report that Congress had retired Gen. James Jones, and a panel, make. It's one of several "independent studies" that Congress ordered, back in May.

I don't know if General Jones' study is quite what the people in Congress wanted. It says that the Iraqi military, especially the army, shows "clear evidence of developing the baseline infrastructures that lead to the successful formation of a national defense capability." At least, that's what CBS News reported.

On a more familiar note, the article says that "Baghdad's police force and Ministry of Interior are plagued by 'dysfunction.'" "In any event, the ISF will be unable to fulfill their essential security responsibilities independently over the next 12-18 months," which seems likely enough.

Another "independent report," this one from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), runs a hundred pages, and is presumably an update of one that the the GAO delivered back in July.

According to CBS News, the new-and-improved GAO report says that "Iraq had not met 11 of 18 political and security goals - a blunt assessment that challenges President Bush's findings on the war as he prepares to announce plans for the U.S. military campaign."

I've been a scholar, and I've handled information in a business setting. I learned long ago that it's best to listen to what people say a document says, and then read the document.

The General Jones report is available at Center Strategic and International Studies, or CIS. I'm downloading it, and the GAO report. They're available at

• http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf
• http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071195.pdf

It's almost 1 in the morning in my time zone, and recent experiences have taught me that it's unwise to try the sort of all-nighters I pulled, back in the seventies.

So, I'll have to get back to this tomorrow. Later today, actually.

In the meantime, I recommend that you read the reports. From past experience, I'd say that you'll probably find things that don't show up in the news.

Posts on this topic:

• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, Where to Find Reports
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the Independent Commission Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the GAO Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports of Iraq: Day 1
  (September 7, 2007: about 1:00am)

Peace, Hope, and Jihadists With Nuclear Bombs

The Times Online is running an article headlined "Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran" today.

Following good, journalistic, reverse-pyramid format, the gist of the article is in the first paragraph, "The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military capability in three days, according to a national security expert."

The national security expert is Alexis Debat, who spoke a meeting organized by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal.

Debat told the UK newspaper that US military planners had decided: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same." Debate added that it was a "very legitimate strategic calculus."

I don't know how mainstream media is handling this yet, but parts of the blogosphere are reacting predictably. Free Republic's post on the article drew comments from the silly

• "Oh, Yeah? Well, I’m formulating my TWO-day plan!"
• "Its disinformation. The plan will take one day."

to the thoughtful

• "An alternative to direct military action would be to continue with the embargoes and keep up the political pressure. I would also encourage the smuggling of electronic communication devices like internet capable laptops into Iran. By educating the youth, who do not remember the cruelty of the Shah, only the cruelty of the Ayatollah, the stage will be set for a new revolution."
• "Airstrikes like these would be too good to be true; therefore, this story is probably just psy-ops. Especially since the source is identified. If it were an anonymous source, like those that the NY Slimes relies on, I’d give it more credibility."

(I said thoughtful, not polite!)

On the other hand, there's yesterday's post in a rather carefully anonymous blog called:

"Meanwhile in Palestine and Iraq (The Obsessive Compulsive's Guide to the Middle East)"

"While the Middle East takes a licking, we keep on ticking: Al Bintein Mudawenetein"

This blog's September 1, 2007 post title is "9/1/07 Meanwhile in the U.S. -- documenting another day of crimes by the American regime.," by "Catholic Sunni Shia." It's a collection of headlines with blurbs . The bomb-Iran headline is in bold. The headlines:

• "Marine killed five unarmed Iraqi men"
• "Marine tells of order to execute Haditha women and children"
• "U.S. Military Censors ThinkProgress"
• "Walt & Mearsheimer's Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog'"
• "As Her Star Wanes, Rice Tries to Reshape Legacy"
• "New McCain Push on War, His Candidacy"
• "UPI Poll: U.S. energy source less secure"
• "Civilian prisons coming soon to U.S. Army base near you"
• "Victims of National Security Injustice, The Tragic Ordeal of the Cuban Five"
• "Wives of Saudi militancy suspects want public trial"
• "Pentagon 'Three-Day Blitz' Plan For Iran"
• "USA equipping a private army in preparation for an invasion of Venezuela"
• "'They wanted them poor niggers out of there.'" (don't blame me: that's what was in the post)

That reminds me of my seventies college experience: and the eighties one, too.

(I did a little checking, and found that "Meanwhile in Palestine and Iraq etc." seems to have used a Duluth, Minnesota-based service: Do a "who is" request for inblogs.net, if you're curious. InBlog's purported purpose is to address blogosphere censorship: "Is your blog blocked in India, Pakistan, Iran or China? If Yes then you can still access your blog anytime using inblogs free Blog Gateway." - That's a whole different topic.)

So What?

As usual, I'd appreciate it if people would think before they wrote. (I'd also like a million dollars, tax-free, but that's not going to happen, either.)

More to the point, I'd be dismayed if the Pentagon planners didn't have contingency plans for obliterating the Iranian military.

I'd also be dismayed to discover that they hadn't planned for re-taking San Diego after its capture by hostile forces, and any number of other more-or-less probable scenarios.

• That's what they're supposed to do
• That's what any responsible military organization is supposed to do
• Just because a plan exists, doesn't mean its going to be executed

Unhappily, right now Iran has a nuclear program. The only assurance that it isn't being used to produce usable nuclear weapons is the word of the religious fanatics who run Iran.

Personally, I'd rather have some options other than hoping that the Iranian leaders are more reasonable, open-minded, and tolerant than they were back in 1979, when they broke into the American embassy in Tehran, and held hostages for 444 days.

If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!

The good news is that news media doesn't seem to have gotten excited about the six men who were speaking Arabic, and the woman with concerns about her children.

The bad news is that a planeful of passengers had to stay in San Diego overnight.

Judging from what's in the news, American Airlines Flight 590 was carrying six guys who had been training Iraq-bound Marines. A woman with her two kids was also on the plane.

She apparently heard them speaking Arabic, and reported her concerns to airport security. The security officers told her that they weren't suspicious, and let them board. After hearing them "clunking around" in the airplane's restroom, the woman and her kids left the plane.

The International Herald reports that "Airline spokesman Tim Wagner said earlier this week only that the 'incident' that began in the departure lounge had been ongoing and the flight crew felt it needed to be resolved on the ground."

Between airport security and local law enforcement, the snafu was resolved. But by that time the airport's outgoing-flight services were shut down.

What had started as a red eye flight became an overnight stay for the passengers and crew of Flight 590.

The woman with the kids said, "I do feel very bad but I was just protecting my tiny little family," to The San Diego Union-Tribune on Friday. "All I could think of was 9/11."

Understandable.

One of six "Iraqis" questioned is David Al Watan, 30, of Dearborn, Michigan. He says he's embarrassed, and had no idea there was a problem until the plane returned to the to the terminal. "Everyone who didn't look like us went off and did whatever they wanted," said Al Watan, who apparently fled Iraq in 1991 and is now a U.S. citizen. He says he loves his adopted country. "I would die for it," he told a newspaper.

The group now has a lawyer, who says they want an apology from the airline.

Also understandable.

"They can't just assume someone has a bomb strapped to them just because they are Arabic," the group's attorney said.

Sounds reasonable to me.

This foul-up was discussed on FreeRepublic.com. the Free Republic post was reasonable enough. Some of the comments were, in my opinion, not:

• "After 9/11, who doesn't know that Americans have a problem with sharing a plane flight with a group of Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern types. Prejudice? You bet, but in deference to our national painful memories, they should have shown far more tact if they were Iraqis Americans."
• "sounds like cair fear.
  
  "one passenger reported an issue so they removed that passenger and then when they left they had a unrelated mechanical issue."
  (I have not found reference to a "mechanical issue" in published reports. The poster may be referring to remarks by Irene McCormack, a spokeswoman for the San Diego Harbor Police, who said that planes returning to the gate is unusual, and that returns are usually for medical or mechanical problems, or a disturbance. (cbs2chicago.com))
• "Iraqi Americans?
  The subtle injection of race-by association by the reporter seems to have escaped everyone.
  "What the hell is an Iraqi-American? If they are muslims, that is a useless meaningless phrase.
  
  "They were muslims being their usual stupid, arrogant, self-important selves."

Free Republic wasn't the only place where people were upset. "It is one thing to flag suspicious behavior, but to flag a global language? We are deplaning people for who they are, not what they do," said Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Chicago.

I can understand Mr. Rehab's position. His job is to raise and maintain awareness of unfair treatment of Muslims in America, real or apparent.

It's harder to wrap my mind around "muslims being their usual stupid, arrogant, self-important selves." However, this crude statement illustrates something that Muslim apologists should pay attention to. From Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to the Flying Imams, enough Muslims have 'just happened' to be offensive for unsophisticated infidels to assume that all Muslims are self-righteous prigs. It's not true, of course.

The unpleasant reality is that Muslim fanatics are trying to destroy American culture and institutions: and any Americans who are not sufficiently Islamic, or who simply get in the way.

Some Americans find it difficult to be tolerant toward these activities and beliefs.

Rational self-preservation is a correct response to the threat of the Jihad against the west.

Overly-broad, ignorant generalizations about all Muslims, or everyone who speaks Arabic, is foolish.

Implied claims of racism aren't the most sensible thing to do, either. Unless the intent is to whip up even-stronger anti-Muslim/anti-Arab statements and acts: which in turn could be used as support of the initial claims of bias.

Bottom line: With the exception of a few people who support al Qaeda or similar jihadist organizations, everyone in a country which is either non-Islamic, or insufficiently Islamic, is in danger.

Rational steps need to be taken to deal with that danger.

But, being suspicious of everyone who looks Middle Eastern and/or speaks Arabic is not rational.

Information and quotes for this post are from:
Breitbart.com
International Herald Tribune
FreeRepublic.com
cbs2chicago.com

Posts on this general topic:

• If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP
  (September 1, 2007)
• Beware Hate: From Any Side
  (August 28, 2007)
• Special Consideration Doesn't Help
  (August 27, 2007)
• Jihad Rehab
  (August 22, 2007)
• Muslims Are Not All Alike
  (August 19, 2007)
• More about "Yeh Hum Naheen" / "This is Not Us"
  (August 9, 2007)
• Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten
  (August 9, 2007)
• Moderate Muslim Video from Pakistan: Very Good News
  (August 7, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks
  (July 17, 2007)
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota
  (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate
  (July 16, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion" 2
  (July 15, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion"
  (July 6, 2007)

Six Iraqis, Arabic, and Someone with Two Kids in Tow

Details are still sketchy, but what I saw in "Airplane Passenger Dispute Involving Six Iraqis Forces Jet Evacuation in California" (August 30, 2007) looks like an American Airlines flight from San Diego to Chicago got delayed because some passengers got into an argument.

This incident made national news because six of the people involved are Iraqis, and were speaking Arabic.

American Airlines spokesman Tim Wagner said that the argument started between someone traveling with two children and six men from Iraq. The Iraqis were in America, training Marines who were on their way to Iraq.

My sympathies are with the passenger with two kids in tow. I've traveled with one of our kids: one of the best-behaved ones, at that, and that was stressful enough.

My sympathies are also with the six Iraqis. It sounds like they've been working hard, and didn't need this sort of incident, either.

Before identifying this as 'racial profiling' or something else along those lines, I'm going to wait until a little more information comes out.

Meanwhile, let's remember that there were about two hundred air rage incidents over America during the late 1990s, and almost 250 last year. Some of those fracases resulted in flights being diverted from their destination.

"Peace For Our Time," or Peace?

The unclassified part of the National Intelligence Estimate released today is coming out in bits and pieces in the news.

The Jerusalem Post concentrated mostly on what the report had to say about Iran, in "US reports bleak political situation in Iran" (August 23, 2007).

The Associated Press article says that:

• Iran will keep developing its nuclear program, which may or may not be producing nuclear weapons
• Iran will continue to "cause problems" in Iraq
• Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group, will still be backed by Iranian money and weapons
• Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will continue to be Iran's Supreme Leader

I haven't been keeping score, but at least four Iranian-Americans have been arrested by Iran for alleged espionage. The U.S. government has warned American citizens against traveling in Iran.

"Intelligence Assessment Suggests Now Is Not Time to Change Mission in Iraq," on FoxNews.com, paid more attention to what the report had to say about Iraq.

It's not all bad news, but it's not all good, either:

• Iraqi military forces are okay, but they still need coalition support for major operations
• Political and security troubles in Iraq are driven by
• Shia insecurity about keeping the political power they have
• A general Sunni unwillingness to accept the post-Saddam Iraq where they aren't the top power
• Fighting between groups within sectarian communities
• Extremists trying to make the fighting worse
• Civilians are still getting hurt
• Sunni Arab groups and individuals are getting fed up with al Qaeda in Iraq, and are resisting or working against AQI

There's more, of course. Fox News put a .pdf copy of the report online.

The report's authors say that stopping Coalition forces from focusing on fighting terrorists and stabilizing Iraq, and making them a combat support service for the Iraqi forces, "would erode security gains achieved thus far."

I would love to have "peace for our time." The violence in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and everywhere else that al Qaeda and other Islamic fanatics are at work, is terrible. I wish that it would stop.

But wishing doesn't make it so.

Like it or not, there are people who earnestly believe that their god is telling them to conduct a jihad against the people their leaders don't approve of.

And, it's been going on for at least 30 years. The Ayatollahs who run Iran are the same bunch that took over the U.S. Embassy, back in the seventies.

There's no reason to believe that Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jemaah Islamiyah, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, or any of the other people who think they're on a sacred mission, will stop because America and other coalition troops stop trying so hard in Iraq.

"We make war that we may live in peace."

To people who grew up in the sixties, or who are still living then, that sounds crazy. But Aristotle was no lunatic, and leaders who don't let terrorists do what they will may not be, either.

---

Jihad Rehab

Saudi Arabia, home to nearly half the foreign detainees in Iraqi jails, and most of the 9/11 hijackers, is trying something new to combat terrorism: a 12-step program for terrorists.

"Saudi Youth Enter Rehab to Overcome Their Terrorist Ways" tells about a program sanctioned by the Saudi Arabian government, which is giving hundreds of Islamic fighters a second chance.

To live a peaceful life, that is.

It sounds good. Presumably, some of the 'death to America' crowd have already graduated, and are living happy, healthy lives: going to universities, holding down jobs, and having children.

A few quotes from people involved in the program:

• "I would like to say to the American people that Islam forbids killing innocent people." Ahmed al-Shayea, who blew up a tanker truck outside the Jordanian embassy, killing nine people, al-Shayea escaped, but without a few fingers and with burns over most of his body
• "We tell them that they should give the right picture of Islam. They should not kill or bomb or do anything against Islam." - Dr. Ahmad Hamad Jilan of the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs
• "I regret strongly for what I had done because unfortunately I was instead of building Islam, I was destroying Islam," - Saddam Saleh, recovering terrorist

The facility covered in the news article is on the edge of provincial capital Al Janderea, in Saudi Arabia.

It sounds like a pretty nice place to hang out. The half-way house for repentant terrorists includes

• A pool
• A library
• A volleyball court
• Gardens

I assume that the participants can't leave, which would take some of the shine off its allure.

In addition to getting help with social problems which are assumed to have made them go bad, the recovering terrorists get a re-education in Islam.

"Jilan and other instructors teach the inhabitants that jihad should not be waged against any non-Muslims with whom an Islamic nation has a truce or peace treaty. Jihad must also be approved, he said, by the state and by one's parents," the article says.

That sounds better than "Death to the Jews! Death to the great satan America!" - but I couldn't help notice how jihad is still okay, as long as the right people say so.

I'd like to believe that this program, and ones like it in Egypt and Yemen, are legitimate: that they actually are trying to heal the minds of these terrorists, and turn them into people who can be safely released.

That doesn't mean that I'm not maintaining a robust skepticism about the Saudi program. There's the possibility that it turns out terrorists who are aware that they have to maintain a better cover to be effective, or that it is a public relations gimmick.

At this point, there doesn't seem to be any way to tell.

I'm just glad that Saudi Arabia is making a gesture, at least, toward stopping terrorism.

Posts on this general topic:

• Muslims Are Not All Alike (August 19, 2007)
• More about "Yeh Hum Naheen" / "This is Not Us" (August 9, 2007)
• Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten (August 9, 2007)
• Moderate Muslim Video from Pakistan: Very Good News (August 7, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks July 17, 2007
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate (July 16, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion" 2 (July 15, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion" (July 6, 2007)

---

T-Shirt Story 2: Civil Rights vs Common Sense

My post earlier today, "T-Shirt Story 1: 'I Got Rights!'," tells about Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi living in the United States, who chose to wear a T-shirt with bold Arabic lettering, days after terrorists tried to blow up airliners. Again.

He's suing, of course.

Maybe scaring airline passengers is a constitutional right. The ACLU is backing Mr. Jarrar, the architect who says his civil rights were violated, so I think we can count on this case being taken as far as it will go in the courts.

I'm not going to argue one way or the other about the profound constitutional issues involved. Not in this post, anyway. I don't have expert knowledge in constitutional law.

On the other hand, I think that over a half-century of living in the real world has given me a little knowledge about common sense.

Based on my experience, Mr. Jarrar was not showing common sense. Not if he was serious about wanting to board that JetBlue airliner quietly.

I mean to say: a few days after terrorists tried to blow up airliners, wearing a black shirt with big white letters - in Arabic?!

The sad fact is that there is the people who knocked over the World Trade Center in New York City were from the Arabic-speaking part of the world. The people who have been chanting "Death to Israel! Death to the Great Satan America!" all these years have been doing so in Arabic.

Like it or not, Arabic has been linked with some very anti-social activity. Moreover, many people are not broad-minded enough to risk being part of the next jihadist martyrdom, just to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

I hope that the Flying Imams (I still think that would be a good name for a rock group) and Mr. Jarrar's T-shirt escapade don't represent an increase of false alarms triggered by daft behavior.

I'm very fond of my hypothetical Scandinavian Lutheran terrorists, so I'm going to indulge in another mini-story about them.

If you find that sort of thing annoying, you should stop reading this post now. There won't be anything else after this paragraph.

In case you missed the setup of this very hypothetical situation, here's an excerpt from a previous post.

Let's say that Scandinavian Lutherans had, for decades, been blowing up airplanes, buses, and themselves in what they called a Ragnarokathon. Leaned scholars explained that the Scandinavian Lutherans were doing this because western culture didn't appreciate lutefisk and lefse.

Then, in the fall of 2001, Scandinavian Lutherans, mostly from Sweden, blew up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Thousands of people were killed. The skyscraper was destroyed by crashing two airliners into it.

It's five years later. A few days earlier, Norwegians belonging to Eske Lutefisk og Lefse eller Dø (ELLD) were foiled in their plans to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.

You're in a New York City airport. You notice that a fellow passenger, six-foot-something (two meters) Kjell Hanssen is wearing a black T-shirt.

The first thing you notice is probably not how well it sets off his pale blond hair and blue eyes. You're more likely to notice the big white letters spelling out "Stillhet er ikke en valgmuligheten." You might even notice the English translation, in small lettering below: "Silence is not an option," a phrase used by those protesting the war in Denmark.

You've got quite a few options, including

• Ignore Kjell, and hope he's not a terrorist
• Alert one of the flight crew or a guard of the shirt and its slogan, and your visceral reaction to it
• Beat Kjell to within an inch of his life, just in case
• Make a mental note to contribute to the Defense Alliance for Witless Norwegians (DAWN)

I'm sure you can think of other options.

I don't think that the second option would be that far out of line, under the circumstances.

Finally, in case you wondered what the name of that hypothetical Scandinavian terrorist group, "Elske Lutefisk og Lefse eller Dø" (ELLD), means, here's the name in English: "Adore Lutefisk and Lefse or Die." Catchy, isn't it?

T-Shirt Story 1: 'I Got Rights!'

"I grew up and spent all my life living under authoritarian regimes and I know that these things happen.

"But I'm shocked that they happened to me here, in the US."

These were the words of Mr. Raed Jarrar, an architect, who wasn't allowed to board a JetBlue airliner in New York. Just because of his T-shirt!

If fact, he wasn't allowed to board until he got another T-shirt to wear.

Shocking!

And he's gonna sue!

That's not really so shocking, come to think about it.

On the surface, this looks like a clear case of racism, islamophobia, or something scary like that. Mr. Jarrar grew up in Iraq, moving to to the United States in 2005. The T-shirt he was wearing was black, with the words "We Will Not Be Silent" written on it in white.

In Arabic.

These days, "We Will Not Be Silent" is a slogan used by people against the war in Iraq and other conflicts in the Middle East. The BBC article on Mr. Jarrar's troubles says that the phrase comes from the White Rose dissident group in Nazi Germany. "Resistance group" might be a better term, but "dissident" is the more groovily relevant term these days. That's another topic.

The Curious Affair of the Architect's Shirt started August 12, 2007.

"We Will Not Be Silent" was boldly proclaimed on Mr. Jarrar's shirt in Arabic, and, in much smaller lettering, in English.

The black-shirted Iraqi-American boarded the flight "days after British law enforcement officials announced they had disrupted a plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights," the New York Sun pointed out.

I wouldn't have chosen that day to wear a black T-shirt with Arabic writing in big, bold, white lettering.

Mr Jarrar said that the T-Shirt slogan was protected by his "constitutional rights to free expression."

He finally consented wear another T-shirt, another T-shirt, purchased for him by a JetBlue employee at the airport gift shop. At least, that's what the Mr. Jarrar's complaint says.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has gotten involved with Mr. Jarrar's lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security over the T-shirt affair. This should be interesting.

If Mr. Jarrar's lawyer decides to play Mr. Jarrar as an a-political architect whose just happened to wear a T-shirt with a harmless slogan, I hope that the court will take a few facts in mind:

• A month before the T-shirt incident, Raed Jarrar wrote "An Illegal War Degenerates / Iraq: Raped." He has a definite position on U.S. involvement in Iraq, and has actively promoted that position
• Raed Jarrar is the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange

Global Exchange says that, in contrast to "US companies such as Nike abusing the women who make its shoes, the US government fueling an illegal, unjustified, murderous war in Iraq, or the World Trade Organization (WTO) undercutting consumer and environmental protections, Global Exchange offers itself as a partner for peace and social justice."

Mr. Jarrar's bolg is In The Middle / Raed Jarrar's Blog.

News, Truth, and the Big Picture

One of my history professors, who had family in Russia, said that back in the old country there was a saying, or joke, about the two major news services in the former Soviet Union: Tass (News) and Pravda (Truth). The joke ran, "there's not much Tass in Pravda, or Pravda in Tass."(1)

I don't think that the United States has that sort of problem, but I do think that the news isn't quite the truth.

Yes, what we read in the paper and hear on the news is factual. For example, "Militants Bomb Home of Anti-Al Qaeda Cleric in Iraq" is a headline. One we're quite accustomed to here in the United States. And I'm quite sure it's true. Other news from Iraq includes

• Police found pieces of people in Dujail, 80 kilometers (50 miles) north of Baghdad that added up to four men - They'd been abducted a week ago
• A roadside bomb killing one civilian and wounding another while they were driving on the highway south of Baghdad
• Another roadside bomb killed the governor of Diwaniyah province in southern Iraq, the provincial police chief, their driver, and a bodyguard

All quite true, and very sad. However, without minimizing the tragedy of these deaths, that's not all that's going on.

The same article that started with the bombing of an anti-al Qaeda cleric mentioned a U.N. Security council resolution. The United States and the United Kingdom co-sponsored a resolution that the Security Council adopted Friday.

The United Nations, at the request of the Iraqi government, will "promote political talks among Iraqis and a regional dialogue on issues including border security, energy and refugees as well as help tackling the country's worsening humanitarian crisis which has spilled into neighboring countries."

The U.S. and the U.K. apparently hope that the image the U.N. has for being neutral will help factions in Iraq talk with each other.

It might work.

The same article quotes Salim Abdullah, spokesman for the biggest Sunni political bloc in parliament, the Iraqi Accordance Front:

"The U.N. is a neutral party that can play a good role in Iraq. They have played good role previously and now, we need them to re-activate that role and expand it, so we welcome this renewed chance for them here in Iraq," and -

"Finding a third party, however, does not lift the responsibility from the shoulders of the American administration," he added. "It should be clear for the political powers inside Iraq that they cannot completely rely on the U.N., which should have a complementary role."

Another article led with news of the U.N. resolution, didn't mention Salim Abdullah, but did quote U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad: "This resolution underscores the widespread belief that what happens in Iraq has strategic implications not only for the region but for the entire world."

This is the sort of thing that I think is headline news: The U.S. and the U.K., major members of the "unilateral" action in Iraq, co-sponsor a resolution in the U.N. Security Council that calls for U.N.-promoted intra-Iraqi political talks. The resolution passes, and can be seen as recognition of the strategic importance of Iraq.

A hundred years from now, that may be at least as important that the tragic loss of life during the same period.

I realize that this is wishful thinking: but I'd appreciate it if the news put the 'big picture' points closer to the top.

(1)
(Yes, I know that Tass is a 1920s acronym, "Telegrafnoe Agentsvo Sovietskovo Soyuza," or "Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union." I gather that it became synonymous with "news" in about the same way "Kleenex" became synonymous with "facial tissue.")

Taliban: Down Two Leaders, Up One Propaganda Claim

"Nato airstrike kills senior Taliban leaders" is how the UK's Telegraph headlined the news. A NATO airstrike seems to have killed at least two or more senior Taliban leaders in territory that's nominally part of Afghanistan: Mullah Rahim and Mansoor Dadullah, and maybe others.

I was grimly amused to note that the self-defined uber-Muslims were killed while watching a public execution. They were hanging some people they said were government spies.

This was a targeted strike. One of the targets was Mansoor Dadullah, Taliban commander for southern Afghanistan. This hasn't been a good year for the Dadullah family. Mansoor took over as Top Taliban terrorist in his territory in May when his older brother, Mullah Dadullah Akhund, was killed by the Special Boat Service. The Telegraph article doesn't say how many Dadullahs are still in line.

It sounds like the Taliban lost a great leader in Mansoor Dadullah's death. The current Dadullah, interviewed on British television last week, promised a wave of kidnappings targeting foreigners in his province. Child executioners were going to behead his victims.

There's no indication of what will happen to Mansoor Dadullah's planned corps of kiddie killers, now that he's dead.

Predictably, there are claims of massive civilian injuries. An excerpt from the Telegraph article:

Nasibullah, one of the injured, said the bomb hit a crowded market killing dozens of civilians and that no Taliban were in the area.

One military source, who did not wish to be named denied allegations of civilian casualties.

"We are 100 per cent clear that this was entirely Taliban. Those in hospital are fighting age males. This is the Taliban trying to cover the fact that they got caught out."

A statement put out by the US-led coalition in Afghanistan last night said that it had targeted two "notorious Taliban commanders": "During a sizable meeting of senior Taliban commanders, coalition forces employed precision-guided munitions on their location after ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area."

This is a familiar pattern. As I remember, a remarkable number of hospitals and markets were hit during the two wars in Iraq: at least according to supporters of Saddam Hussein's regime and presumably-Iraqi militants.

Since I think these claims are made more because of their propaganda value than because they are true, I believe we can learn something about Middle Eastern society and culture by the nature of these claims.

Since, to the best of this news-nut's memory, there have been no claims that of casualties at a nursing home or orphanage, we may consider this possibility: Such institutions do not exist in that part of the world. If they did, I'm sure that orphans and nursing home residents would have been claimed as victims of American aggression.

Keith Ellison, Iraqi Sheikhs, and Islam's Image

Representative Keith Ellison's term in Congress will be historically important, no matter what he does. As the first Muslim elected to that body, he represents another step in the development of the United States of America as an open, free, society: one where a person's ancestral geography or religious beliefs does not determine what position that person holds.

After a relatively quiet first six months in office, Representative Ellison promises to make history through his own efforts.

Recently, Keith Ellison traveled to Iraq. I first read about his trip in the St. Cloud Times (July 31, 2007), where "Ellison meets Iraqi sheikhs" ran across the top of four of the paper's five front-page columns.

The sheikhs, who "oversee several hundred thousand congregants," had a very good reason for speaking with the only muslim among America's congressmen. "They were very upset and concerned that al-Qaeda is misrepresenting Islam," Ellison said in the AP article. "And they were talking to me about what I can possibly do to work with them to give a clearer, more accurate picture of what Islam is all about." (Emphasis is mine.)

Essentially the same story had appeared in the previous day's USA Today, Ellison returns from trip to Iraq. Ellison, referring to the sheikhs' request, said he would help. He was already involved in "a State Department outreach effort aimed at improving the image of the U.S. in the Muslim world."

The USA Today article included quite a bit that wasn't in the St. Cloud, Minnesota paper. Again quoting Representative Ellison, and the USA Today article: "The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."

Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.

This is a far cry from the Ellison who said, while meeting with the group Atheists for Human Rights, "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you." (Another Islamic Voice in the Debate)

There are politicians who say whatever they think the group they're with wants to say. If Representative Ellison is one of that sort, I suspect that he'll have a long career. If he doesn't have American journalists on his side, he at least seems to enjoy a certain immunity from journalistic curiosity.

News media in the States don't generally seem inclined to look closely to Mr. Ellison's background. That's according to M. Zuhdi Jasser, a contributing editor for the FSM (Family Security Matters) website: and a Muslim. I'm somewhat inclined to agree. Dr. Jasser gives details of Keith Ellison's connections and past that I'd consider to be newsworthy:

• Addressing the North American Imams Federation Congressman-elect Ellison. Dr. Jasser says the AIF is behind the lawsuit brought by the Minnesota Imams against U.S. Airways
• Ellison's campaign fund raisers involved Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) members. CAIR is a group identified by the Anti-Defamation League as founded by leaders of a Hamas affiliate
• Representative Ellison insists that his connection with Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam was limited to the Million Man March

Any or all of these could simply be the sort of elbow-rubbing that a good politician does.

I think it's a little odd that Mr. Ellison's connection with the colorful Louis Farrakhan, who was banned from the UK "on the grounds he expressed racist and anti-Semitic views" hasn't gotten more attention. Farrakhan, a man with colorful ideas and a talent for getting attention, combined with the first Muslim Congressman, is not intrinsically boring. In fact, it should be news. (Don't blame me for the remark about Mr. Farrakhan: I'm just quoting the BBC.)

However, for now I don't know what to think of Mr. Ellison. He may be a young man with little practical experience in public life, who needs to learn that being an American Congressional Representative is an important, high-profile position: and that he can't count on the cooperation of a selectively attentive press indefinitely.

I hope so. We don't need a reckless Representative with comparative immunity from press scrutiny right now. Representative Keith Ellison's official website seems well-organized, and should be a good place to see what he wants his image to be.

We do need people who are able to understand the many flavors of Islam that seem to exist, and to communicate that understanding to the rest of us.

I think it's going to be a long time before we discover whether Keith Ellison is one of those people.

Happily, we don't need to rely entirely on Representative Ellison and the press corps for information on his activities. So far, the Web has proven to be an excellent forum for ideas that the New York Times, broadcast networks, and other traditional information gatekeepers would just as soon be quietly ignored.

Keith Ellison posts:

• Keith Ellison, Iraqi Sheikhs, and Islam's Image (August 3, 2007)
• This Keith Ellison Story Might Take Off (July 27, 2007)
• Congressman Keith Ellison and Islam (July 22, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks (July 17, 2007)
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate (July 16, 2007)

As the first Islamic member of the American Congress, Representative Ellison deserves some attention. There may be more K.E. posts, given his colorful past associations and current talent for getting in the news.

Civil War in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, doesn't really exist. Maybe.

My guess is that the U.S. Army Brigadier General who made the announcement earlier this month is right.

Army Brigadier General Kevin Bergner announced that the Islamic State of Iraq is a cyberspace fake, and that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is a virtual leader of a Web hoax. The fake Islamic State of Iraq was cooked up by by an Iraqi terrorist and Egyptian Abu Ayyab al-Masri, al Qaeda in Iraq leader, and Ayman al-Zawahri, al Qaeda number two world leader.

If Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, non-existent leader of a fake organization, is an "Iraqi" leader of the "civil war" in Iraq, then the conflict in Iraq starts looking a lot less than a civil war, and much more like the work of a group from outside Iraq.

It's early days, but I think that the U.S. Congress should stop, take a deep breath, and think very hard about whether their "civil war in Iraq" is real, or as fake as any other online hoax.

Especially the Senate. They'll probably be voting soon on whether or not to abandon Iraq to whatever armed faction is left in the chaos that would follow after a U.S. troop pullout.

That's my opinion. The rest of this post is what I dragged out of the news.

It's been hard to find much information about this online. Some of the first references I found were a USA Today blog, and an article in the Sacramento Bee.

A more detailed source was Al Qaeda in Iraq Duped Into Following Foreigners, Captured Operative Says, a DefenseLink News article dated July 18, 2007.

The man thought to be the senior Iraqi in al Qaeda in Iraq, Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud Mahmud al-Mashadani, was captured in early July. According to the U.S. military, al-Mashadani said that he was one of the people who created a virtual organization, called the Islamic State of Iraq, on the Web in 2006.

Army Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, made the announcement.

"The rank-and-file Iraqis in (al Qaeda in Iraq) believed they were following the Iraqi al Baghdadi, but all the while they have actually been following the orders of the Egyptian Abu Ayub al Masri," DefenseLink quotes Bergner as saying. "Mashadani has said in his own words that the Islamic State of Iraq should be free of foreign influence, but that is not the case."

Quoting from the DefenseLink article: "In fact, Bergner said, Masri relies solely on the direction of foreign leaders and doesn’t trust or seek the advice of Iraqis in the network.

'The disclosures of Mashadani show how (al Qaeda in Iraq) leaders misrepresent themselves and purposely deceive the Iraqi people and their own members,' Bergner said. 'ISI leaders cloak themselves in Iraqi nationalism, but in fact their purpose is to subjugate the Iraqi people under a foreign-led terrorist organization that wants to impose a Taliban-like ideology on Iraqis.'" The DefenseLink article didn't mention Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi's name did turn up in a Reuters article. Reuters has Bergner saying that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is a non-existent figurehead for the virtual Islamic State of Iraq.

U.S., Iraqi, Successes - News Not Fit to Print?

No, I do not believe that there's some sort of plot. I'll get back to that point.

Also, I generally don't try to divert visitors to another site, but this time it's important.

Despite attempts to cut funding and poison morale, U.S. and Iraqi forces are making major progress in Iraq.

Ralph Peters' column, WINNING IN IRAQ details what's been accomplished, really accomplished, in Iraq. If more of this sort of fact leaked into the news, there might not be so much anti-war sentiment in the States. And elsewhere.

The lead sentence of Peters' column is, "TO a military professional, the tactical progress made in Iraq over the last few months is impressive. To a member of Congress, it's an annoyance." (New York Post, July 26, 2007)

It's a moderately long column, but Peters lists quite a number of goals achieved by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Achievements I haven't heard about, for the most part, and I'm a bit of a news nut. More than a bit, if you ask my wife.

Do I think that "they" are keeping this out of the news? No. I don't think this is a conspiracy of some sort. At least, I prefer not to.

My father taught me to "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." And there are days when I've felt that there must be an awful lot of stupidity out there. And, that the really stupid ones tend to be promoted to management and administrative positions. Judging by the success of the Dilbert strip, I'm not the only one with this feeling.

Of course, that's just feeling, emotion: hardly the sort of thing I'd want to base an opinion on.

Besides, what a person believes to be true is at least as important as intelligence, when it comes to decisions.

An explanation for the apparent suicidal lunacy on Capitol Hill, and the way that news services resolutely present U.S. casualties, statistics on U.S. casualties, emotionally-charged interviews with those left behind by U.S. casualties, and the horrific horror visited upon the horrified victims of the War on Terror may be in a world view that seems to be common among the better classes of people in the States.

I don't think it's too unfair to summarize it this way:

• America is bad
• Big problems are America's fault
• America is an imperialist warmonger
• It takes two to fight
• If America doesn't bother al Qaeda (or whatever group tops the list), al Qaeda won't bother America
• People would get along if Society - and America - would let them

Maybe I'm being unfair, but not by much. I grew up within a block of a college, and spent a great deal of my young-adult life in academia. The cultural norms, and enforcement of them, were far from subtly handled.

There may have been a little change in academia over the last few decades, but I believe I recognized the familiar cultural assumptions in this country's education, entertainment- and news- media today.

Conspiracy to cover up successes? No. Belief that such successes aren't important, and certainly shouldn't be emphasized? Yes.

Peters also asks, "Do our politicians really want to help al Qaeda regain its balance?"

I would prefer to believe that this is not the case. But their behavior strongly suggests that their either want al Qaeda to restore its power to kill Americans, that (as Peters suggests) they are so greedy and short-sighted that they just don't care, or that they simply aren't experiencing the same state of consciousness that I am, here in Minnesota.

There are other possible explanations, of course, but none of the ones I've thought of are any more reassuring.

Still reading this? Follow that link to Peter's post, and look for his list of U.S./Iraqi accomplishments! There are good things happening: at great cost, but good things nonetheless.

There's a decidedly conservative view of this topic in Impressive Annoyance.

Previous posts on this topic:

• U.S., Iraqi, Successes - News Not Fit to Print? (July 29, 2007)
• Iraq Wins Asian Soccer Cup, Peace Breaks Out in Diyala (July 29, 2007)
• U.S. Masses Not the Only Ones Fed Up About Iraq (July 23, 2007)
• Iraq, Congress, and the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report
  (Or, Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
  Or, There's Nothing so Lovely as Surrender in April.)
  (July 12, 2007)