This from yesterday's National Review Online:
Bearing Witness to Virtue
Defending the honor of those in uniform.
By David French
Diyala Province, Iraq — Every now and then I get e-mails from friends and family members with subject lines like “Can you believe this?” or “This will make you mad!” Invariably they link to some form of radical rant that either slanders soldiers or so completely departs from the reality I see and experience on the ground in Iraq that I laugh out loud. I typically read and dismiss these messages. In a nation of 300 million, there will always be “those people” — individuals so consumed with ignorance, dominated by hatred, and obsessed with the political cause of the moment that they lose all perspective. But as I prepare to wrap up my deployment and head back home, I’ve changed my mind.
We simply cannot let lies pass unopposed.
Those of us who have been here — who have spent a year (and typically more) of our lives in this place — must speak the truth. Unless we do, yesterday’s slander can become today’s conventional wisdom and tomorrow’s history.
One week ago, I opened one of those e-mails which linked to an insidious article not from some fringe blogger fond of words like “rethuglican” or “Bushitler,” but from a respected member of the mainstream media, a self-described conservative who has occupied space in the most coveted perches of political commentary. Andrew Sullivan, writing from The Atlantic Monthly’s website, compared Russia’s aggression against Georgia with the United States Army in Iraq with the following words:
Just imagine if the press were to discover a major jail in Gori, occupied by the Russians, where hundreds of Georgians had been dragged in off the streets and tortured and abused? What if we discovered that the orders for this emanated from the Kremlin itself? And what if we had documentary evidence of the ghastliest forms of racist, dehumanizing, abusive practices against the vulnerable as the standard operating procedure of the Russian army — because the prisoners were suspected of resisting the occupying power? (Emphasis added).
I was appalled. As an officer in the 2d Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment (LTC Paul T. Calvert, Commanding) in eastern Diyala Province, I serve in a unit which is at the very tip of the spear in the Diyala Province, arguably now the central front of the war and one of Iraq’s bloodiest provinces. As a judge advocate, one of my core functions is detainee operations. So I know and have lived our “standard operating procedure.”
I first wanted to write to enlighten Mr. Sullivan about the way our soldiers truly behave. I wanted to tell him of the young men who risk death to capture men they could have killed. I wanted to tell him we are so careful with our detainees that the single worst injury ever suffered by any of the hundreds of men our squadron detained even momentarily was a scraped knee. I wanted to describe our procedures for collecting evidence — procedures so demanding that soldiers have braved IED-laden roads to obtain sworn statements from troops in the field so that detainees could be prosecuted according to the rule of law.
But I realized that all of that would be futile. I realized that Sullivan (and others like him) would slander the 99 percent of soldiers who do the right thing by reference to the 1 percent (or less) who commit crimes. And in the minds of many who inhabit Beltway coffeehouses, cubicles in Brussels, and university lecture halls, we could die doing right . . . but they will still define us by those who do wrong.
So if I can’t persuade Andrew Sullivan, perhaps the Iraqis can. After all, they’ve lived with our “standard operating procedure” every day for more than five years. Who knows the Army better than they?
So, Mr. Sullivan, I have a few questions for you: If “the ghastliest forms of racist, dehumanizing, abusive” practices are our “standard operating procedure” why do the al-Qaeda terrorists I’ve seen (and I’ve personally been face to face with more than 100) often visibly relax when they enter Coalition custody? Why do they so frequently and readily surrender rather than even try to escape our allegedly vicious detention? Why do they sometimes plead to remain in our facilities? If individuals are arbitrarily “dragged off the streets” for “torture and abuse,” why do civilians, including the smallest children, pour out of their homes to see and greet American soldiers when we walk through their villages? Why do they hide behind their mud and stone walls only when they fear reprisals from our enemies or suspect an imminent firefight? If we are such monsters, why do sheikhs and everyday citizens beg for us to stay with them, rather than living in dusty combat outposts in the heart of their communities?
Perhaps Iraqi citizens would shut their doors in fear if they learned about the army from Mr. Sullivan’s columns rather than from their personal interactions. Perhaps insurgents would fight to the death every time rather than face our “racist, dehumanizing” detention if they attended a panel discussion at your average university. Perhaps children would run screaming in fear if they saw almost any of Hollywood’s recent “important” films about the war. But they don’t see any of that. Instead, they see and experience the U.S. Army as it is, warts and all. And while they chafe at the presence of foreign soldiers (as any proud people would), they are making their choice. For more than five years they have seen the contrast between our soldiers and the terrorists and militias. And unlike Andrew Sullivan, they can tell the difference.
Because nothing less than history is at stake (and so few have seen the truth with their own eyes), it’s time for those of us who’ve been here to set the record straight. We must testify to the brutality of our enemies — just two days ago, al-Qaeda thugs in our area of operations shot a two-month-old infant in the face. More importantly, we must bear witness to the courage and virtue of our brothers- and sisters-in-arms.
Some try to define the 99 percent through the actions of the 1 percent.
We can never let that happen.
— David French is a senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund and a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve. He is winding down his first deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Showing posts with label al-Qaeda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label al-Qaeda. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Coulter Gives Bush an A++
Ann Coulter is heaping much-deserved praises on W, just as the party he's led for seven years tries to pretend they don't know him:
Bush's America: 100% Al-Qaeda Free Since 2001
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.
I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.
Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."
Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.
But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.
It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.
We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.
The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.
The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."
(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")
Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.
Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."
It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.
Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.
But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.
We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.
But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of bearnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.
The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Bush's America: 100% Al-Qaeda Free Since 2001
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.
I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.
Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."
Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.
But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.
It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.
We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.
The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.
The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."
(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")
Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.
Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."
It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.
Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.
But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.
We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.
But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of bearnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.
The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Pulling al-Qaeda's Lynchpins in Iraq Is Counterterrorism, Senator
[Steve Schippert]
In a major development in the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq, the United States has disclosed the Baghdad capture of a major al-Qaeda financier who funneled over $100,000,000 into Iraq this summer alone to fund al-Qaeda terrorists and purchase weapons and explosives.
Iraqi and US forces have detained a man they believe received 100 million dollars this summer from Al-Qaeda sympathisers to hand out for "terrorist" operations in Iraq, the US military said Thursday.
"The 100 million was what our intelligence reports indicate he has received spanning several months this year," US military spokesman Sam Hymas told AFP.
"That is all the unclassified information I can give you."A statement from the military said the man, who was detained in the central Baghdad neighbourhood of Al-Kindi, was suspected of handing over 50,000 dollars a month to Al-Qaeda using his leather merchant business as a front.
"He is believed to have received one hundred million dollars this summer from terrorist supporters who cross the border illegally or fly into Iraq from Italy, Syria and Egypt," the military said.
He is suspected of travelling abroad himself to seek money for Al-Qaeda and of employing up to 50 extremists to help deliver bomb-making materials to insurgents attacking the US-led coalition.
This news comes on the heels of information released yesterday that US forces killed the al-Qaeda Emir of the Iraq/Syria Border, 'Muthanna,' in an operation back on September 11. Hundreds of documents were obtained after his death. Among them was a list of about 500 men recruited to fight with al-Qaeda in Iraq. Among the names were 143 detailed biographies.
"Muthanna was the emir of Iraq and Syrian border area and he was a key facility of the movement of foreign terrorists once they crossed into Iraq from Syria. He worked closely with Syrian-based al Qaeda foreign terrorist facilitators," he said.
Bergner told a news conference that the information discovered included 143 biographies of foreign recruits, with personal data, photographs, their recruiters' names, date of entry into Iraq and the route they took.
"They came from a range of foreign countries that included Libya, Morocco, Syria, Algeria, Oman, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom," he said.
"In other documents that we found included a formal pledge from foreign terrorists who were committed to suicide operations," Bergner said.
One curious detail considering the release of news today that a major al-Qaeda financier has been capture: Among the documents obtained from Muthanna's person were detailed expense reports.
The captured al-Qaeda financier brought funds into Iraq from sources outside the country, using Syria as the primary conduit for the terrorists bringing in the resources. Muthanna was in charge of terrorist transport and ingress from Syria into Iraq. The financier was captured after the intelligence trove obtained after Muthanna's killing (presumably, as no specific timeframe for the capture was announced.)
What we have are two major al-Qaeda assets rolled up — one still alive to tell more — and the principal conduits for al-Qaeda's human and financial resources import infrastructure seriously downgraded.
And just a few short moths ago, Sen. Charles Schumer demanded that the United States withdraw our military forces to the periphery and vacate the heart of Iraq in order to "change our mission and focus it more narrowly on counterterrorism, [and go] after al Qaeda camps that might arise in Iraq."
Withdrawing and waiting for an unfettered al-Qaeda to establish camps and brutally dominate Iraqi cities while doing so is not counterterrorism. It's insanity and, furthermore, completely dismissive of the security, safety, and wellbeing of the Iraqi people. Dropping huts and buildings of a terrorist training camp are not signs of effective counterterrorism.
The latest developments above surely confirm, "This Is Counterterrorism, Senator." The elimination of safe havens, the high rate of AQI foot-soldiers dying in our offensive ground operations, and the rolling up of leadership elements cannot be mistaken for anything else.
From the Tank at NRO.
[Steve Schippert]
In a major development in the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq, the United States has disclosed the Baghdad capture of a major al-Qaeda financier who funneled over $100,000,000 into Iraq this summer alone to fund al-Qaeda terrorists and purchase weapons and explosives.
Iraqi and US forces have detained a man they believe received 100 million dollars this summer from Al-Qaeda sympathisers to hand out for "terrorist" operations in Iraq, the US military said Thursday.
"The 100 million was what our intelligence reports indicate he has received spanning several months this year," US military spokesman Sam Hymas told AFP.
"That is all the unclassified information I can give you."A statement from the military said the man, who was detained in the central Baghdad neighbourhood of Al-Kindi, was suspected of handing over 50,000 dollars a month to Al-Qaeda using his leather merchant business as a front.
"He is believed to have received one hundred million dollars this summer from terrorist supporters who cross the border illegally or fly into Iraq from Italy, Syria and Egypt," the military said.
He is suspected of travelling abroad himself to seek money for Al-Qaeda and of employing up to 50 extremists to help deliver bomb-making materials to insurgents attacking the US-led coalition.
This news comes on the heels of information released yesterday that US forces killed the al-Qaeda Emir of the Iraq/Syria Border, 'Muthanna,' in an operation back on September 11. Hundreds of documents were obtained after his death. Among them was a list of about 500 men recruited to fight with al-Qaeda in Iraq. Among the names were 143 detailed biographies.
"Muthanna was the emir of Iraq and Syrian border area and he was a key facility of the movement of foreign terrorists once they crossed into Iraq from Syria. He worked closely with Syrian-based al Qaeda foreign terrorist facilitators," he said.
Bergner told a news conference that the information discovered included 143 biographies of foreign recruits, with personal data, photographs, their recruiters' names, date of entry into Iraq and the route they took.
"They came from a range of foreign countries that included Libya, Morocco, Syria, Algeria, Oman, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom," he said.
"In other documents that we found included a formal pledge from foreign terrorists who were committed to suicide operations," Bergner said.
One curious detail considering the release of news today that a major al-Qaeda financier has been capture: Among the documents obtained from Muthanna's person were detailed expense reports.
The captured al-Qaeda financier brought funds into Iraq from sources outside the country, using Syria as the primary conduit for the terrorists bringing in the resources. Muthanna was in charge of terrorist transport and ingress from Syria into Iraq. The financier was captured after the intelligence trove obtained after Muthanna's killing (presumably, as no specific timeframe for the capture was announced.)
What we have are two major al-Qaeda assets rolled up — one still alive to tell more — and the principal conduits for al-Qaeda's human and financial resources import infrastructure seriously downgraded.
And just a few short moths ago, Sen. Charles Schumer demanded that the United States withdraw our military forces to the periphery and vacate the heart of Iraq in order to "change our mission and focus it more narrowly on counterterrorism, [and go] after al Qaeda camps that might arise in Iraq."
Withdrawing and waiting for an unfettered al-Qaeda to establish camps and brutally dominate Iraqi cities while doing so is not counterterrorism. It's insanity and, furthermore, completely dismissive of the security, safety, and wellbeing of the Iraqi people. Dropping huts and buildings of a terrorist training camp are not signs of effective counterterrorism.
The latest developments above surely confirm, "This Is Counterterrorism, Senator." The elimination of safe havens, the high rate of AQI foot-soldiers dying in our offensive ground operations, and the rolling up of leadership elements cannot be mistaken for anything else.
From the Tank at NRO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
