Shampoo and Conditioning

British illusionist, Derren Brown, has made a career out of his obsession with subliminal messaging. In the video below he displays a stunning example of how easily we can be influenced. I don’t want to spoil the video for you so I will let you see for yourself. It is amazing…

Now that you have watched the video; I have one word for you, “Islamophobia”. For years we have been conditioned into believing that attacks on Al Qaeda, Baathists, and the Taliban are heavily influenced by our prejudice against Islamic people. We are continually taught that terrorists attack us because of our prejudices.

It was no accident that the Obama Administration bizarrely obsessed over a false narrative regarding the Benghazi attacks on a US “diplomatic compound” in that city. Against a mountain of evidence the Administration continued to insist that the attacks were the result of a fabricated protest against a video that made fun of the Prophet Mohammed.

The YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims”, was made by an Egyptian-American. It led to violent protests in Cairo that later spread around the world. Even though the Pentagon, the State Department, CIA, FBI and the President of Libya disagreed, the Obama Administration continued to mislead the American people.

In order to promote this absurd view point Obama stated;

…What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

NATURAL PROTESTS?! If there had been similar protests against the “Piss Christ” there is no way Obama would have described them as “natural”. (The Piss Christ was a federally funded artwork that shows a crucifix with Jesus Christ immersed in a glass of the artist’s urine.) Obama is conditioned to embrace the belligerent anger of Muslims and ignore or condemn any similar Christian sentiment (you know, the ones who “cling to guns and religion”).

On September 16th, 2012 Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf confirmed on the CBS show ‘Face the Nation’ that the Benghazi attack was a planned operation and it was organized months before the video protests.  He stated;

It was planned definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who … entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their… arrival.”

Yet Susan Rice continued the Obama Administration’s lie on the same show.  She declared;

…based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy.”

Libyan President El-Magariaf was a Sunni Muslim, but still felt no need to attack American Islamophobia and link it to this attack. Like most Americans he clearly understood that the attack was an organized operation that had nothing to do with the Cairo protests, while the Obama Administration continued to push a false narrative.

Missing in Action

In view of Obama’s preoccupation with Islamophobia, it was no surprise that he was not interested in one of the largest political rallies in French history. On Sunday, January 11th 3.7 million people and over 40 world leaders marched in Paris and other French cities to condemn recent terrorist attacks on a French newspaper and a kosher supermarket.

Despite the large scale attendance of Muslims and Muslim religious leaders, Obama had little interest in promoting moderate Islam on this occasion. Instead he stayed home and watched football.

The White House claimed that since planning for the event had begun only 36 hours before, there wasn’t enough time to organize security for the President. However, over 40 presidents and prime ministers (including Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu) attended the event. Are we to believe that the Secret Service could not match the security services of 40 other countries, including Israel?

This bald-faced lie is completely in character for the Obama Administration. To understand what really happened take a good look at one of the targets of the terrorist attack, Charlie Hedbo magazine.

God Damn the 1st Amendment

In 2006 Charlie Hedbo republished the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons that had previously ignited deadly riots around the world. The magazine’s right to free speech was upheld by a French court when the editor was acquitted of the crime of “abusing a group on the grounds of their religion”.

This sort of free speech does not fit President Obama’s vision of the “future”. Around the time he was falsely blaming the Benghazi attack on an imaginary protest, Obama pushed his cherished talking point on the UN General Assembly.  He infamously proclaimed:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

In the space of one minute he placed Americans who exercise their freedom of speech on the same level of 1) the terrorists who kill Coptic Christians in Egypt and 2) the dictator of Syria, who slaughters his own people with crude chemical weapons. Obama said:

1) “The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt.”
2) “In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people.”

I’m sorry. My future shouldn’t be threatened because I don’t believe that Mohammed was a prophet. It is my right not to believe and my right to express my right not to believe. I am not an “obstructionist”.  I am exercising my right to free speech.

Obama has allies in his fight against the defamation of the prophet of Islam. In Pakistan a Christian mother of five, Asia Bibi, was sentenced to death for “defiling the name of the Prophet Mohammed”.

It is interesting to note that the charges were brought against her by Pakistanis who were discriminating against her faith. Bibi’s fellow field workers refused to drink out of a bucket of water that she touched because she wasn’t Muslim. An argument ensued and now she is condemned to death. Several prominent politicians in Pakistan have been assassinated for speaking out on Bibi’s behalf (including the only Christian member of the Cabinet).

In Bangladesh a cartoonist, Arifur Rahman, was jailed for six months because he made an innocent, a-political joke naming a cat “Mohammed”. Under pressure from Islamists Bangladesh has also persecuted bloggers for insulting Mohammed. Writer, Asif Mohiuddin, was murdered last week for defending them. This has become a regular pattern in that country.

When an Egyptian social studies teacher, Demiana Emad, said that the former Coptic Christian Pope Shenuda III was a better man than Mohammed she was jailed for six months and forced to pay a heavy fine.

We can go down the list such as; Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, UAE, Yemen, etc… but you get the idea. The most relevant case is the death sentence for seven Egyptian Christians for their roles in the movie “Innocence of Muslims”.

As his allies in Egypt were busy building a death penalty case, Obama was trying to persuade Google and YouTube to pull down the video. Although he failed, the video was later taken down for reasons that had nothing to do with insulting the Prophet.

The funny thing about some Americans is that they really do treasure the freedom of speech. It’s not just words…

The Future of Those Who Slander the USA

When a bully is looking for an excuse he will always find another one.  So if we surrender our freedom of speech Islamic terrorism will still continue. The conspiracy theories that fuel the hatred of Islamists are not even the sole domain of just Islamists. Westerners themselves are often the first to blame western imperialism.  We give them the reasons to justify their holy war against us.

On the other hand, I refuse to censor 9/11 Truthers and other conspiracy nuts no matter how much they offend me.  I also reserve the right to criticize them in return.

In protests we have turned a blind eye towards those who urge soldiers to assassinate their officers.

Anti-war activists protested at Walter Reed Medical Center, where injured soldiers were recovering from their wounds. They carried signs such as, “Enlist Here and Die for Halliburton” and “Maimed for Lies”.

However, there is no way in the world that I would demand that they be censored.  I will condemn their hateful propaganda until my last breath, but I am proud that my country tolerates such foolishness so that we can protect EVERYONE who expresses unpopular opinions.

Almost everyone “condemns” the violence of Islamists, but we often hear the caveat that cartoonists and amateur movie makers should behave themselves. So if a sacrilegious artwork such as the Piss Christ can be federally funded, how can anyone who approves of that object to publishing privately funded artwork such as the Mohammed cartoons? (Or is government approved blasphemy OK? Just kidding comrades)

The Elephant in the Room

Thanks to “Islamophobia” and our self-loathing bias we are blind to what is really happening in the world.  We know very little outside of anti-American talking points. The only reason we are familiar with the opposing point of view is because we are very familiar with the talking points that form the criticisms of them.

As an example, Gwen Ifill conducted a PBS interview of an author who traveled to the Islamic State to report on what is happening there. It was almost amusing to watch her confusion over the fact that the author was not beheaded when he traveled to ISIS territory.

It stands to reason that if you are a journalist covering international events you would understand the motivations of the subjects of your interview. Even before I pressed play to watch the video I knew the answer to Ifill’s lack of understanding.

The author that Ifill interviewed is a German named “Jürgen Todenhöfer”. Without any research I immediately realized that he was an anti-war activist. How is it possible that she can’t figure this out?

Todenhöfer was proud to criticize the ICC indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for genocide in the Darfur region of western Sudan. The Sudanese government and its Janjaweed militias destroyed 400 villages, displaced 2.5 million people and instigated a genocide that cost 400,000 lives (and countless rapes).

In an open letter to the ICC prosecutor, Todenhöfer argued that if President Bush or Prime Minister Blair has not been indicted by the court then they should not indict the Sudanese President. So HELLO Gwen Ifill, it’s obvious why the Islamic State let this man into their territory without beheading him.

We Are Useful Tools

Todenhöfer seems like a really nice guy, like a friendly grandpa... But very friendly with terrorists and dictators and a complete tool. The problem is that he knows this. That is why he reiterates over and over that he criticizes the Islamic State. I’m sure he does, but he didn’t make too many criticisms during the interview.

Regardless, the Islamic State doesn’t care when Todenhöfer criticizes their brutality or their dictatorial nature. They actually want him to report those things. They rule through terror so they don’t want the message to go out that they are reasonable and accommodating liberals.

Most of all they want Todenhöfer and other likeminded Westerners to continue their propaganda. He has no sense of history outside of anti-Americanism. Only a pronounced bias can lead to this claim by Todenhöfer;

If you send your troops, even your best troops, I think they would have little chance to fight in a guerilla war in a big city. Because an American soldier, even your best soldiers the Marines or Special Forces, they want to come home, they want to survive. But these people want to die. They want to win and they are ready to die.”

He conveniently forgets the tenacity that US troops have shown over the years. This is nothing new to our soldiers.  In the Battle of Iwo Jima during World War II the Japanese commander, General Kuribayashi, issued an order forbidding his troops to commit suicidal Banzai charges because they always failed against US firepower. The Banzai charge was replaced by kamikazes, but the US still defeated the Japanese Empire.

During the Battle of the Surge US Marines also used superior firepower against a suicidal enemy with success. Al Qaeda suffered a great defeat. Todenhöfer knows this, but he feels that he needs to propagandize against the US to help prevent us from being what he considers to be warlike and foolish.  The Islamic State counted on that when they issued him a guarantee of protection.

That is why they offered Todenhöfer the opportunity to try on a suicide belt. During another interview with CNN he blurted out that, “…these belts are very small, very easy to wear… I wore one… it’s a horrible feeling…”

In the video you can see that Todenhöfer realized he shouldn’t have admitted that on camera. He becomes visibly uncomfortable and looks down away from the camera as he grasps for words. Thankfully for him it is CNN and the interviewer bails him out by changing the subject. Soft interviews are a given when you have the right talking points.

In actuality the Islamic State doesn’t really need Todenhöfer.  There is enough anti-American propaganda in the Western world. However, he posed no threat for them and they felt they could use him anyway.

As long as we tell the world that Americans are racist warmongers and that is why we invade other countries, they will never believe anything we say (other than when we say bad things about ourselves). When Obama suffers from the Karzai Dilemma and tells the UN that the US is racist, the Muslim world will not believe him when he claims to be bombing the Middle East for humanitarian reasons.

To them it’s no different than a bank robber who rats on his accomplices. And just imagine if the leader of the gang tries to blame the other robbers. Who is going to believe him?

The cognitive dissonance will only be overlooked by those who claim to be American patriots, but are conditioned to believe that America’s foreign policy has always been primarily motivated by bigotry and greed.

Stuck In The Karzai Dilemma

More and more people are finally beginning to see the truth about Islamist terrorism. Recent attacks against our “intellectual superiors” in Europe have created a backlash. No matter how much our biased media wants to blame the West for terrorism, they cannot allow a threat to their livelihood to go unanswered.

Chris Matthews had a fascinating interview with State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf. As a member of the “Obama Department” and a former campaign advisor, Harf is completely insulated against reality. She repeatedly demonstrated her ignorance during the interview.

This ignorance exists from the top to bottom. President Obama recently said,

“…I reject a notion that somehow that (Islamist extremism) creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam. I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge it is very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9% of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we are looking for…”

So if al-Zawahiri and al-Baghdadi are not Muslim, what religion do they belong to? It’s not just wishful thinking, Obama is really just a compulsive propagandist. .1% doesn’t come anywhere near the support base for Islamist extremism. The Pew Research Center did a study which revealed that 15% of US Muslims between 18 to 29 years old thought that suicide bombing was justified. Keep in mind that the average age of a suicide bomber is in the early twenties.

Regardless, Obama would never say that the term “White Supremacy” is a problem because it is supported by only .1% of whites. Such an argument could be used to justify the rebranding of the term “White Supremacy” to something like “Misrepresentative Cross Section of Unnamed Master Race”.

You can see the hollowness of this rhetoric when Chris Matthews asked Marie Harf how can we stop terrorism. She replied;

“…We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs…” Harf then doubled down on this nonsense by saying, “We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people…”

This lack of understanding by intelligent people can only be explained by denial. The resulting rationalizations just cloud any attempt to define solutions.

The Myth of Oppressed Terrorists

Over a dozen years ago I had a Jewish business associate who traveled extensively in the Middle East. I made a comment that since he dealt with educated people he probably didn’t have to worry that much about religious prejudice. His reply stunned me. He said that educated people in the Middle East were more indoctrinated than the uneducated.

Newsweek supports this observation with a quote from terrorism expert, Walter Laqueur, who stated that terrorists are, “relatively well educated and gainfully employed”.

At the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Marc Sageman, was concerned about our lack of knowledge concerning terrorism. He conducted a survey of 162 terrorists. His study (that was conducted over a decade ago) would stun the ill-informed Obama Administration today.

• About two-thirds of the terrorists went to college, in an area of the world where only about 10 percent of young men get a post-secondary education


• About 87 percent came from generally secular backgrounds (most of the other 13 percent, who studied at the Muslim schools known as madrassas, were Indonesians)


• Most came from middle or upper-middle class households

We can still help Muslim countries build their economies, BUT WE WILL ALSO NEED A PLAN TO COMBAT TERRORISM!!!

The Trap of the Karzai Dilemma

Former Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, owed his political power to the United States. Operation Enduring Freedom helped him gain political office. During his presidency our country was his primary financial and military supporter.

Yet Karzai’s relationship with the US was very strained, particularly with President Obama. Back in 2011 Karzai had a public meltdown. US air strikes (the preferred military reaction of the Obama Administration) had killed and wounded some innocent Afghan civilians.

(Before continuing I would like to make it clear that while I am criticizing the Obama Administration, I am not attacking our military. Airstrikes in a warzone against armed combatants are legal under the Geneva Conventions. However, friendly fire incidents show that if friendly military units can be accidently targeted, then innocent civilians are also at risk. Their deaths are not necessarily intentional and are often caused by the fog of war.)

Getting back to the point, Karzai reacted to American air strikes by declaring;

“With great honor and with great respect, and humbly rather than with arrogance, I request that NATO and America should stop these operations on our soil… …This war is not on our soil. If this war is against terror, then this war is not here, terror is not here.”

Despite his dependence on the US, this was just one of many anti-American tirades by Karzai. It betrays another dependency. In order to stay relevant to his people Karzai had to use Anti-Americanism to distance himself from his ally.

Anti-Americanism is the Problem

President Obama rose to prominence thanks to the political power of his church, Trinity United Church of Christ. It was led by his mentor; Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who is infamous for his anti-American sermons. His declaration of, “God Damn America”, is a testament to how deeply Pastor Wright felt he could pay tribute to anti-Americanism.

Obama’s debt to anti-Americanism is constantly being repaid. Last September Obama made a speech to the UN urging them to fight against ISIS. He switched gears for a moment in an amazing display of the Karzai Dilemma.

“I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within our own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.”

I would like to translate that into plain English for you. He is basically saying that, “I may sound like a George Bush warmonger, but I am as anti-American as you”.

In the Middle East the media and schools teach only that America killed the Indians, oppresses minorities, props up Israel and colonizes the planet. They know nothing but the bad that our country has done (or what they claim we have done). Populist Democrats preach the same thing. Islamist and Populist propaganda converge in Anti-Americanism.

President Obama would like to destroy ISIS, but leave anti-Americanism intact. That is impossible.

The only way to defeat Islamic Terrorism is to disarm the reason for its existence. Anti-Americanism helps to radicalize and recruit new members. It also helped to rationalize the justifications for the beheadings of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig.

The Karzai Dilemma leaves President Obama powerless because he must always kowtow to anti-Americanism while fighting America’s enemies.

• Whenever President Bush was responsible for an airstrike that resulted in collateral damage (real or imagined), Obama could ride his high horse.


• Whenever President Obama is responsible for a similar airstrike it raises uncomfortable questions. So he fishes for sympathy by slyly insinuating to the listener that he is a black man and the US oppresses his race. His UN speech was a classic example of unstated assumptions used as propaganda. 

It gives me no pleasure to watch him squirm. These airstrikes are often necessary. I wish collateral damage did not exist, but I do not subscribe to a populist ideology that promises a perfect world. I support President Obama’s war on ISIS, but I know the truth. His anti-American populist ideology is a part of the problem.

If you really want to win the war against ISIS you must change Mr. President. You can still preach about the racism of America’s past, but do not forget that it is not just America’s history. It is the history of the world and a part of human nature.

Blaming the sins of the world on the US ignores the great history of our representative democracy and the present day triumphs of civil rights. The solution can’t be found by fabricating white racism, when the problem is truly black racism against whites. (White racism does exist, but it was not a factor in the violence between police officer Darren Wilson and Blood gangster Mike Brown.)

Many countries in Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East don’t have the diversity from global immigration that we have. For many of them free speech and equal rights are only a dream. And they often suffer from terrible corruption that snuffs out struggling businesses. We are a white majority country with a black President and more equality than any populist hustler will ever sincerely admit.

Mr. President you rode the tiger and don’t want to get off. If you really want a great legacy here is your chance. Work to destroy anti-Americanism and the associated victimhood rackets. That will help rot away the foundation of Islamic terrorism…

Terror Tourism

Back in December of 2007 the Bethlehem Chamber of Commerce and MSNBC brought you a publicity campaign to increase tourism in the biblical city of Bethlehem.



If the Palestinian Department of Tourism can have a spokesman like Ahmed Balboul, a terrorist from the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, then by all means let us devise a Tourist Adventure Package worthy of their high standards. We don’t have to create something brand new. No, we can benefit from existing terror-tourist guidelines. Take the accommodations that are already offered by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM).

This tour package gives you the opportunity to prove that Liberals support the right to bear arms… well, at least weapons that belong to terrorists, of course.


ISM “Peace Activists” pose with weapons under the supervision of a terrorist from the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade (on the right). Please note that the woman in this picture, Gabi, is disguised as an Orthodox Jew. This is a great example of the deceitfulness of the ISM. She is not even Jewish, let alone Orthodox. (The photo is from Stoptheism.com)

Many people want some adventure when they take a holiday and the ISM put together this package especially for thrill seekers who love to get their adrenaline flowing. The ISM holiday tour allows you to enter a war zone with the mission to protect terrorists and their weapon smuggling tunnels. At the end of the day you can even sleep in the bed of a terrorist and live to tell about it.



Paul Larudee, a leader of the ISM in Northern California, is notorious for proudly exclaiming that he slept in the bed of a suicide bomber. If you ever wondered how self-professed pacifists could justify their support for terrorism against democratic countries just take a look at how Larudee rationalizes the unthinkable. In his own words…

“Although we are totally dedicated to nonviolence, we recognize not everyone in the Palestinian community is dedicated to nonviolence and under international law we recognize that violence is necessary and it is permissible for oppressed and occupied people to use armed resistance and we recognize their right to do so.”

This pattern of doublespeak is shared by the terrorist allies of these pacifists. Check out how the wanted terrorist and tourism advocate, Ahmed Balboul, sends ‘a message to tourists all over the world’:

“Welcome to Bethlehem, Bethlehem a holy city. I and my nation/people refuse the terrorists and we like the life, we like all the world and I say to them they are welcome to Bethlehem. This is a holy place and a holy city.”

And how exactly does Ahmed Balboul “refuse the terrorists”?

Well… he closely associates himself with the commander of Islamic Jihad in the Bethlehem area, Mohammed Shehadeh, and two other Islamic Jihadists. Shehadeh was an expert bomb maker who was behind several terrorist bombings including a suicide attack on the Jerusalem Hilton.

It’s sad that our media is so quick to give terrorists the benefit of the doubt, but not our troops or democratically elected leaders. The article that inspired this post was entitled, “Normal Life Escapes Palestinian Militant”. It made the dubious claims that Balboul disavowed violence and expressed his support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

While it is true that Balboul has postured for peace, the truth is that he only wanted amnesty for his crimes. If the Emmy award-winning journalist who wrote this article was capable of researching Balboul’s claims to the standards that an Emmy award supposedly requires, she would have to reveal that Balboul actually condemned the peace process and of course associated with terrorists who still supported violence against innocent Israelis.

In December of last year Balboul held a press conference with his terrorist comrade-in-arms, Mohammed Shehadeh, denouncing peace with Israel. In his last interview before his death Shehadeh used children as human shields and declared, “…I don’t ask any pity from the occupation, the opposite, one must be cruel before it…”

Balboul’s association with the Islamic Jihad leader cost him his life because Israel had recently stepped up its efforts to kill Shehadeh. When they finally caught up with the terrorist Balboul was beside his comrade as always. This is a severe setback for the Bethlehem tourist industry. They may now be forced to recruit spokesmen who are not terrorists with innocent blood on their hands. It is a stark example of how Israeli military operations are hurting tourism in Bethlehem.

The Veto Rides Again!

Yesterday’s failure by Vermont Democratic Party lawmakers to override a veto by their Governor cast an ominous shadow over today’s Troop Withdrawal Vote in Washington D.C. The Vermont vote was an effort by majority Democrats to slap substantial taxes on their local utilities, but they faced stiff opposition from their fellow party members. Evidently 11 Democrats felt that the CO2 Scare was not worth risking the bill’s adverse effects on Vermont’s economy or angering their constituents with higher energy bills.

So the stage was set for today’s vote in D.C. where Democrats want to set a withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq. The legislation was passed 223-201 in the House. This margin is nowhere near enough to override President Bush’s veto. Almost as importantly, the voting record has shown that the media’s focus on growing Republican opposition to President Bush was overblown. The Herald Tribune and Bloomberg both reported that only four Republicans backed the measure, three of whom co-sponsored the legislation to give it a false bi-partisan appearance. This is a common tactic which is used quite often by the Left.

Over the past week the press has been eagerly devoting massive amounts of coverage to the defection of a handful of Republicans who support a change in strategy in Iraq. The Democrats have eagerly helped promote these unbalanced news stories by getting those dissenting Republicans to co-sponsor the latest withdrawal bill.

Appearances are everything in these days of Al Qaeda and Baathist terrorism. The rhetoric is so high that the media ignores the fact that there is a bigger revolt in the Democratic Party than there is in the Republican Party. 10 Democrats voted against party lines and rejected the bill.

It just goes to show that it’s only a matter of what we focus on that decides popular opinion. If America united instead of fighting amongst ourselves the war would have been over already. Its not as if these years of divisive politics have occurred in a vacuum. Even the remotest corners of our planet have access to the worldwide media. Al Qaeda often cites current events like U.S. elections when releasing threatening videos and tape recordings. They know what John Kerry, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi say. It’s no secret!!! Jihadists around the world take heart from the political opportunism of the Democratic Party.

In this day and age its almost as if I cant accuse these “dissenters” of being unpatriotic because nothing short of waging civil war is considered unpatriotic. At least that means that our democracy is the strongest it has ever been. It’s amazing that we are so tolerant during wartime and I am encouraged by the greatness of our country. However, I still reserve the right to criticize these power hungry buffoons.

Zarqawi Revisited

One year ago last week on June 7, 2006 the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a U.S. air strike. Unfortunately Al Qaeda didn’t have to scratch up a publicity campaign in order to perform damage control. No… they had the luxury of relying on Western Liberals to do it for them.

There was a flurry of articles stating that the insurgency would not suffer from this loss and some even claimed that the insurgency would actually be invigorated by the death of its most prominent figure. Such sentiment was echoed by political hacks like the culture critic at the Washington Post, Philip Kennicott. In addition to his optimism that the insurgency could benefit from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s “martyrdom”, Kennicott cried foul because he was worried that the death of Zarqawi was being politicized by our government. Yet Kennicott ignores his own politicization of the event. Furthermore, he doesn’t bother to consider that during times of war our government has the right to promote such victories in order to support our troops in the field … At least as much as he has a right to harangue his readers in an effort to undermine the hard work that our troops put into tracking down Zarqawi.





The government was only doing its job by congratulating our troops on a job well done. In times of war this is not unprecedented. Take for instance the Doolittle Raid which was conducted on April 18th, 1942 at the low point of the American war effort against the Japanese Empire. Shortly after this raid the fortress of Corregidor fell and the Japanese conquest of the Philippines was completed. Basically the raid was militarily insignificant because it failed to cause any lasting damage and was not immediately followed up by more air raids. However, it was a propaganda triumph since it marked the first time that the U.S. successfully bombed the Japanese home islands. Our government zealously used the raid to promote its efforts against our enemies and our current government could hardly be blamed for doing the same in the case of Zarqawi’s death. If any motives should be suspect it should be of those Americans who criticize the promotion of a military success that benefits our troops in Iraq and instead explores every possible avenue to spread propaganda against them.

I am not saying that the freedom of speech for such activists should be curtailed in any way. I am merely making the observation that their accusations should be put into proper context and I hope that my own freedom to criticize them in turn is respected as well. Freedom of Speech needs to be a two-way street.

An article in the NYC newspaper, The Indypendent, highlights the extremes that self-professed Advocacy Journalists or Alternative Journalists would go to spin Zarqawi’s death. One of The Indypendent’s writers by the name of A.K. Gupta declared, “…Bush Administration policies promoting sectarianism and death squads also ensure the fighting will continue…”

In a calculated gesture of misinformation Gupta breezes by Al Qaeda’s dependence on sectarian violence and blames President Bush for it. The real source of the current violence should not be glossed over so quickly. Zarqawi championed the complete elimination of the Shia. Two months before his death Zarqawi issued a recorded statement which dictated that, “The Muslims will have no victory or superiority over the aggressive infidels such as the Jews and the Christians until there is a total annihilation of those under them such as the apostate agents headed by the rafidha (Shiites)…” So Zarqawi actually viewed the Shia as a worse enemy than the United States!!! He was rather direct on this point, “The danger from the Shia… is greater and their damage is worse and more destructive to the (Islamic) nation than the Americans… we will hurt them, God willing, through martyrdom operations and car bombs.”

Zarqawi’s words were backed up by a campaign of mass murder that was orchestrated to spark all out war between the Sunnis and Shiites. In March 2004 he was responsible for attacks on Shia shrines in Karbala and Baghdad, which killed over 180 people. In December 2004 he masterminded car bomb attacks against Shiites in Najaf and Karbala, claiming over 60 lives. In addition to many other sectarian attacks he is also believed to be responsible for the bombing of the Golden Mosque in early 2006, which finally succeeded in instigating all out sectarian warfare between the Sunni and Shia. After Zarqawi’s death Al Qaeda continued to use the same sectarian tactics. Just today the Golden Mosque was attacked once again. Sectarian warfare is clearly the policy of the Sunni insurgency and they benefit the most from the instability that it causes.

The Indypendent article was so biased that it actually echoed Al Qaeda propaganda by stating that Zarqawi’s death was a boon for his supporters. Gupta pronounced, “Not that everything is lost for Zarqawi’s followers. Now they have a new martyr to rally around.” It was a very similar tone to a statement published on an Al Qaeda website stating, “We announce the martyr death of our sheikh, fighter Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (His death will) only reinforce our determination to pursue jihad so that the word of Allah gains the upper hand.” (Only the religious fervor is missing from the Indypendent’s article.)

Despite their cheerleading, the Indypendent is not consciously on Al Qaeda’s side. They just harbor a pathological aversion to President Bush. So they fail to ponder the fact that their staunch opposition to the U.S. –in combination with– their silence against the brutal methodology behind terrorism is as charitable as donating weapons or money to Al Qaeda. It’s actually worse because weapons and money are only the means by which Al Qaeda seeks to achieve its goal of generating such media stories. The success of their manipulation of the media only encourages more brutal attacks against innocent civilians because it makes such violence a much more valuable commodity.

These news stories are vital to terrorists because they cannot raise an army large enough to defeat an enemy like the United States. They can only hope to break the will of their opponent’s civilian population to support its war effort and shift the blame for their own violence to their enemies. Ever since World War I warring armies have gained a greater appreciation for the value of propaganda. No one understands this better than modern-day terrorists. They actually wage war with the intent of using it for propaganda and don’t use the traditional model of promoting propaganda to support their war effort.

Unfortunately the Indypendent willingly follows the path laid out for them since they actually train future generations of journalists to corrupt their writing. The newspaper holds weekend-long workshops on journalism that teaches its students to assume a one-sided bias in order to discredit the establishment that they hate so much (Al Qaeda is not a part of the establishment so they don’t warrant a second glance, unless it embarrasses the Bush Administration.)

In a discussion of these workshops they addressed their students’ concerns about objectivity in the media. While they make a good point that accuracy is one of the most important aspects of journalism, the workshop goes on to promote political activism as a higher virtue than objectivity. Editor John Tarleton stated, “…we shouldn’t forget that power tends to corrupt and that those who hold power and wealth will often abuse it while trying to conceal or spin their activities. What we’re striving to do is tell the story of the world around us from the bottom-up instead of with the usual top-down perspective of the giant media corporations.” Interesting enough, earlier in the linked article Tarleton had also cited ‘open-mindedness’ as another important aspect of journalism, but judging from the previous comment he has already made up his mind about what to write before starting any story. ‘Open-mindedness’ in this case is complete agreement with his activism against the alleged conspiracies of a conniving upper class.

The leading intellectual of this school of thought is Noam Chomsky. His idea of media bias was the accusation that the Cambodian dictatorship of Pol Pot was unfairly criticized due to the alleged anti-Communist sentiment of the media. The opposite was true. Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge because of his anti-American bias. Under Pol Pot the Khmer Rouge exterminated an estimated one to three million Cambodians. So in recent times it is not surprising that he is also a leading critic of the Iraqi reconstruction. He consistently takes the side of America’s enemies no matter how reprehensible they may be.

The prevalence of such a strong leftwing bias against the US government led to a hysterical reaction to Zarqawi’s death. Take Michael Berg for example. He is the father of Nicholas Berg, an American civilian who was believed to have been personally beheaded by Zarqawi. Although his son was killed by Al Qaeda, Michael Berg blamed President Bush for his son’s death.

Even before his son’s killer finally paid for his crimes Michael Berg displayed a bizarre sympathy towards Al Qaeda that was akin to something like Stockholm Syndrome. In the wake of his son’s death he said, “I am sure that he (Nicholas Berg) only saw the good in his captors until the last second of his life. They did not know what they were doing. They killed their best friend.” Such cloudy reasoning could have been attributed to Michael Berg’s grief, but it is also consistent with his statements made years later after he had time to reflect.

During this time Michael Berg rarely condemned Zarqawi, instead he reserved almost all of his bitterness towards our President, who he insisted was as bad as or worse than Zarqawi. This was his reaction to Zarqawi’s death in an interview video taped by CNN’s Mary Snow;

“I think it is a tragedy when any human being dies, but Zarqawi’s doubly because Zarqawi, aside from being someone’s son who is now going to suffer what my family suffered, he is also a political figure. And he and George Bush are involved in this cycle of revenge and revenge begets revenge… I think that one is cowardly. The man in the oval office doesn’t look at his victims when he kills them…”

When challenged if he thought that the murder of his son by Zarqawi was a brave act Michael Berg responded, “No I’m not saying that Zarqawi committed a brave act, I abhor what he did, I’m just saying that he looked into Nick’s eyes when he killed him.”

Wow! ... There is a serious lack of context in Michael Berg’s reasoning here. Whether he intends to or not he gives credit to Zarqawi for not being a ‘coward’, as he accuses President Bush of. He also gives Zarqawi a small measure of legitimacy by saying that he was “a political figure”. Did Zarqawi run for election? How can a terrorist be elevated to an equal or even higher level than an elected official that is the legal representative of his people?

This derangement is the result of a propaganda echo chamber that elevates the hatred of our President into a fever pitch. Michael Berg tortures himself with his political activism and this is no way to mourn such a loss. The whole situation is actually a best case scenario for his son’s killers and it is no mystery as to why they chose the tactics that they do. For the most part, terrorism increases because these tactics are so effective against its target audience, Western Liberals. That’s why in victory or defeat Al Qaeda could count on their message to be echoed by Western Liberals and filtered out to the media.

Let’s take another look at Michael Berg’s reaction to Zarqawi’s death. He added, “…My feelings this morning are feelings of sorrow for the loss of yet another human being. I know he’s the one that is supposed to have killed my son, but I have learned to forgive a long time ago and I regret mostly that his death will bring about another wave of revenge from his cohorts in Al Qaeda.”

Why does Michael Berg continually forgive the terrorist who killed his son and yet refuse to forgive President Bush who did not commit the murder? Pacifism and loving forgiveness are some of the highest human traits that makes us a more advanced species than any other creature on this planet. However, there is no love in this forgiveness, only spite for President Bush. I understand that leftwing activists believe the President to be a “liar” and a “warmonger”, but is beheading an innocent civilian the measure of honesty or bravery? Zarqawi was a terrorist before Bush became president, why does he deserve forgiveness and Bush doesn’t?

Anyways, we’ve examined how the Washington Post, The Indypendent and Michael Berg have exhausted every argument to convince the public that Zarqawi’s death wouldn’t make a difference or could actually benefit Al Qaeda. … But is there any truth to these claims?

Iraq is certainly as violent as ever so in one crucial aspect it could be said that maybe they are right… However, there have been some dramatic developments over the year and the death of Zarqawi was an essential ingredient that enabled an important shift in the composition of the counterinsurgency.

Up until Zarqawi’s death the terrorist mastermind was consolidating the insurgency under his leadership. Even in the wake of his worst defeat, the Battle of Fallujah, two Iraqi insurgent groups joined forces with Zarqawi, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and the Islamic Army in Iraq. Through his adept hand at using the latest technology to promote his propaganda, his fearsome brutality, his ability to elude capture and the perception that he crafted of an effortless transfer of his terrorist operations to Ramadi - Zarqawi pervaded a superhuman aura that magnetized the insurgency around him.

A year before his death U.S. military intelligence revealed that Zarqawi commanded thousands of fighters from various rival groups and dominated the smaller resistance groups in the pivotal city of Ramadi. A resident of the city related the following; “His men announced through leaflets that all Shia should leave Ramadi or face ‘the iron fist’. At first local Sunnis didn’t want anything to do with it, but they know how powerful Zarqawi’s group is, that it doesn’t hesitate to kill and is not afraid to die. They control Ramadi now. They have the best weapons and the most money, and more and more men. They walk openly on the streets when the Americans aren’t around. So the Shias left, by their thousands.”

In order to counter Zarqawi’s hold on Ramadi American commanders held meetings with local Sheiks in November of 2005. Although the Sheiks were enthusiastic about American proposals for cooperation, Zarqawi squashed the potential alliance in a fit of violence.

However, in the aftermath of Zarqawi’s death Al Qaeda lost its momentum. There was a short spike in violence, but something was dramatically different. Al Qaeda in Iraq seemed directionless. A website frequently used by Islamic militants announced that a little known terrorist named Sheikh Abu Hamza al Muhajir was appointed as Zarqawi’s replacement. This led to a stir of confusion by terrorist experts. The U.S. military came to the conclusion that al Muhajir was actually an alias for Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an experienced associate of Zarqawi who based his operations in Iraq even before the ouster of Saddam in 2003. Egyptian lawyer, Muntasir al-Zayyat, claims that the person identified as al-Masri is really a fellow Egyptian named Yusif al-Dardiri.

Whatever the identity of al Muhajir may be, Al Qaeda could not handle the disarray that they added to the mix when a video by a spokesman of its Islamic State of Iraq announced that al Muhajir was only the Minister of War in the “cabinet” of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. Al-Masri then pledged allegiance to al-Baghdadi in a muddy succession that failed to impress anyone. Clearly both parties are not as strong willed as Zarqawi and cannot live up to the legacy of their predecessor. This demonstrates that Al Qaeda in Iraq has lost much of its flair for propaganda. Most Americans don’t even know the name of any Al Qaeda operative in the country anymore. Despite claims that al-Masri was killed early this spring, the terrorist has failed to personally issue a message of denial. While it looks like the claim might have been false, it is telling that while Al Qaeda has denied his death they were only able to scrounge up an old audio tape of al-Masri which denies that there is infighting between the Sunnis and Al Qaeda, but doesn’t even mention claims of his death. It is an uncharacteristic for Al Qaeda to be so defensive and not to seize upon an opportunity to drum up some valuable press by releasing a mocking video or audio tape that the Western media would have fallen over themselves to cover. The authoritative guidance of Zarqawi is clearly missing and it shows. Iraqi Sunnis have taken notice.

[The announcement of Al Qaeda’s “Islamic State of Iraq” was a comically pathetic attempt to look sophisticated. Even the well funded terrorist organization could have afforded a lot more than just an empty desk and a flat screen monitor with speakers…]





Earlier I mentioned that Zarqawi had scored some successes in Ramadi. He kicked out a large portion of the Shiite population and dominated the local Iraqi police force. If it wasn’t for the presence of American troops he would have seized complete control over the city just like he did in Fallujah. However, since his death things have dramatically changed.

In response to Zarqawi’s brutal campaign in Ramadi U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland began to implement aggressive new tactics in the city. He started to establish combat outposts deep in Al Qaeda strongholds. These outposts were so strongly defended that Al Qaeda couldn’t remove them, putting a serious dent in their over-inflated reputation. The new stations enabled our troops to directly support our Sunni allies where they needed it. So when Al Qaeda’s attacks against these outposts failed they focused their attacks once again on pro-American Iraqis. In an attempt to replicate the decisiveness of Zarqawi’s thuggery his successors made a huge mistake by killing a Ramadi Sheik and not allowing the family to bury him for four days. This event was the catalyst of a sustained Sunni revolt against Al Qaeda. The formation of the Anbar Salvation Council went mostly unnoticed when it began operations against Al Qaeda only a few months after the death of Zarqawi (in September of 2006).

The organization is headquartered in Ramadi and was founded by a prominent Sunni Sheik, Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi. He was a former member of the secular neo-Baathist insurgent group Al-Awda and had actually been imprisoned several times by the Americans. The Anbar Salvation Council has since pushed Al Qaeda out of Ramadi and most of the Anbar province. To prevent Al Qaeda from re-entering the city Ramadi police have had to set up a screen of checkpoints on its outskirts because the terrorists have been retaliating by sending suicide bombers from their remaining pockets in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces. In Western Ramadi U.S. troops haven’t experienced a single death in four months and have had only one serious injury during that time. Only the eastern portion of the city has a few insurgent holdouts.

By May of 2006 the whole city of Ramadi had 254 attacks total, but during the same months in 2007 there have only been 30 (and U.S. troops didn’t win control over the city until March). For all of 2006 only 1,000 Iraqis volunteered for the Iraqi Security Forces in the entire Anbar Province, however, since the beginning of 2007 over 12,000 Iraqi citizens have volunteered. These developments were significant because the 2004 U.S. victory in Fallujah created an exodus of fighters to Ramadi and the city became the new capital of the insurgency. The loss of another base of operations is a major blow to Al Qaeda.

The stakes are high so any American success story is guaranteed a chorus of naysayers. Last year Common Dreams featured an article about Ramadi that was originally published by the L.A. Times. They reported, “The death last week of Jordanian-born terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi may have dealt a psychological blow to the Iraq insurgency, but it is not expected to dent the destabilizing power of anti-American guerrillas in Al Anbar.”

Such activists found the Holy Grail in a classified intelligence report entitled, “State of the Insurgency in Al-Anbar”. It was partially leaked in late 2006. This was only a few months before the unraveling of Al Qaeda in the Anbar province and just in time for the November elections. Although the details of the report were not publicly revealed because the report was top secret, the media and “antiwar” movement seized upon it as evidence of the failure of American policy in Iraq.

Here is an excerpt of the report printed by the Washington Post; “Al-Qaeda itself, now an ‘integral part of the social fabric of western Iraq’, has become so entrenched, autonomous and financially independent that U.S. forces no longer have the option ‘for a decapitating strike that would cripple the organization’, the report says. That is why, it says, the death of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June ‘had so little impact on the structure and capabilities of al-Qaeda’, especially in Anbar province.”

Incredibly, an NBC News correspondent (Jim Miklaszewski) used the report to chase a reporter’s pipedream to be the first to announce a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (or at least a partial withdrawal). Miklaszewski creatively added his own interpretation of the situation by stating, “The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Tuesday there has been some military and economic progress in Anbar, but for the first time, it appears the U.S. military is preparing to concede a large piece of Iraq to the enemy and leave it entirely to the Iraqis to eventually sort it out.” If you look at the source of the quote you will see that it was made by Marine Major General Richard C. Zilmer, who was a regional commander in the province and not the top commander in Iraq as Miklaszewski erroneously states. It should also be pointed out that Zilmer never mentioned any preparation to evacuate his command so the second half of the sentence is a complete fabrication. As General Zilmer said earlier in the article, “Recent media reports fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity of the current situation”. The NBC article shows that the general was being too generous in his assessment.

In the linked Washington Post article above there is also a video interview with Thomas Ricks, a reporter for the Post who sums up what he claims to be the Pentagon’s views on the state of Iraq. Basically his news brief is on par with what you would expect from a junior high school social studies report. I would be extremely disturbed if Ricks did not misrepresent the Pentagon by either quoting those that are not in a position to represent the agency or if he merely used his own artistic license to craft their words into his own. I can grudgingly live with activist journalists, but our military leaders should be free from this kind of political maneuvering.

When asked if the Pentagon agrees with President Bush’s assessment that Al Qaeda has fomented the sectarian violence in Iraq through their brutal attacks against the Shiites, Ricks goes off the board. He concludes that, “the Pentagon analysis definitely says that the roadside bombs which are the main killer of American troops are not an Al Qaeda operation and tend to be Iraqi insurgents”. What the hell does roadside bombs that target Americans have to do with sectarian violence in Iraq? This is clearly an argument built upon political activism. If we were talking about sectarian violence between Christians and Muslims then Ricks (or whoever he is quoting, if he didn’t take their stance out of context) would at least have some evidence that is almost relevant to justify such a stance. The reality is that insurgent IED Attacks on American troops do not contribute in any appreciable manner to the sectarian violence that is plaguing the Sunnis and Shiites. This is just shoddy reporting.

The news brief just gets worse from here. Ricks is then asked if the Pentagon has a strategy for dealing with the problematic Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr. So he launches into a rant about how powerful the Pentagon believes that Al-Sadr is becoming. Ricks went as far as to say that, “He (Al-Sadr) now has an armed force of between 40 to 60,000 which makes him probably a much more effective military force than the Iraqi government itself...”

In times of war most intelligent military leaders typically attempt to intimidate their enemies and motivate their support base by exaggerating the capabilities of their forces. In modern times America’s enemies are relieved of such pursuits because the American media will invariably engage in such propaganda on their behalf.

At the time of Rick’s report there were about 319,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces (now there are about 350,000). While the quality of these recruits can legitimately be challenged, the performance of Al Sadr’s militia has proven them to be of the lowest quality. The Mahdi Army draws its recruits from Iraq’s poorest slums and in many cases their militia members have been sent into battle barefooted and under equipped. Most importantly they have failed in every major military objective. Al Sadr’s militia has only been able to score any success when they have significantly outnumbered their enemies. In any case, having almost 300,000 less fighters than the government hardly gives the militia military superiority over the Iraqi government. (Which is also allied to the powerful Coalition forces. That’s another 100,000+ troops with heavy armor and airpower.) This analysis reeks of the biased ignorance that could be expected from a journalist with an agenda. Actually I can’t see how such an incorrect evaluation could be labeled as an analysis. It is clearly nothing but propaganda.

Anyways, the NBC reporter that was interviewing Ricks had to interrupt him because he was not addressing the question. So he rephrased it by saying, “Its one thing for the Pentagon to have an assessment about the capability of Muqtada al-Sadr, but do they have a plan for dealing with it?” You just have to watch the video to believe Ricks’ answer.

He said;

“I don’t think that they really do. Their plan is… the political people should come up with a political compromise that takes care of Muqtada al-Sadr. But I think there’s kind of a despair of that they don’t see that happening and so I was really surprised when I was doing this interview at the Pentagon that what was said was WE PROBABLY SHOULD ABANDON THE POLICY OF RECONCILIATION, of trying to get the Sunnis and the Shiites to sit down together and really throw in our lot with the Shiites and the feeling was that’s the way we might diffuse Muqtada al-Sadr and make him more of a political act and less than a military one.”

Ricks claimed that this statement came from a top Pentagon official. He continued by saying this official insisted that, “We tried reconciliation now for several years, it hasn’t worked, we should tell the Shiites OK you have the country you’re in control. He said yes, the Sunnis will probably walk out at that point and we are going to have to pay that price and just say OK it didn’t work. The Shiites are now in control of this country and then he said double the size of the Iraqi army and police and hire every Shiite you can find and create a Shiite Kurdish military. He said this is a prospect the Sunnis aren’t going to like, but this is a situation the Sunnis have now created.”

I would love to know who this mysterious top Pentagon official is. When such buffoons look at Iraq they don’t see anything except President Bush. As a high ranking defense official this person has access to more detailed data on Iraq than anyone else on the planet, yet he or she has lost the ability to interpret this information rationally (if this person actually exists).

The biggest problem the U.S. has had in the Sunni provinces of Iraq is the extreme difficulty to set up effective police forces. In areas with active insurgents Sunnis are reluctant to volunteer so Shiites and Kurds fill in. As outsiders they are resented by the local population and they are not familiar with the people or territory they patrol. To add to the mix, Shiite policemen have been accused of sectarian violence against Sunnis. The premise that the complete subjugation of the Sunni is the only way to subdue the insurgency is laughable. This short-sided fix is a recipe for a permanent insurgency with no hope for reconciliation. Well… it’s actually against reconciliation! This is typical of the wisdom of those who think they have a better plan.

While Ricks is cautious and claims that he is only the messenger, I have seen him use this ploy before. He clearly sees this as a more desirable strategy than reconciliation because he said, “I think they’re both (the Pentagon and the ISG) looking at that kind of radical changes in our posture in Iraq to try to do one last best chance at getting this right”. As he finishes that sentence the screen ominously flashes a text message saying that, “Sunnis Comprise the Overwhelming Majority of the Muslim World”. Due to the fact that the ISG Report or any Pentagon Report that I’ve seen hasn’t released such a drastic recommendation like the scenario Ricks produced I am all the more curious about Ricks’ unidentified source.

Such activist journalism has ensured that the legacy of Zarqawi’s death is not fully appreciated by the general public. I do not make this point to prove that the U.S. has won the war, but that the death of Zarqawi was a legitimate U.S. victory.

This must be pointed out because there is an established pattern here. Every notable U.S. victory like the referendum on a new Iraqi Constitution, the election of Iraq’s first truly democratic government, the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killing of Zarqawi and military successes like Fallujah, Najaf and Ramadi are all undermined as much as possible. This is not only true about radical activists and the Democrats, but in the media as well.

On the flipside U.S. setbacks are exaggerated through fabrications and misinformation. Data is continually held out of context. Body counts are repeated over and over and artificial milestones are proclaimed as much as possible. Yet figures like these are virtually ignored…

Pentagon Press Brief May 31, 2007

(Operational Results in Iraq since January 15th, 2007)

29 Car/Truck bomb factories neutralized

6 IED Cells dismantled

17,946 Detained

3,184 Enemy killed (A figure that is higher than the total number of U.S. military personnel Killed in Action since March 2003. As of June 8, 2007 the total of U.S. soldiers KIA was at 2,864. The other 627 died of other causes.)

Over 1,700 High Value Targets (291 killed, 1,499 detained)

2,493 Caches found and cleared

The naysayers said that nothing good would come from Zarqawi’s death, but back in Ramadi Colonel Sean MacFarland knew otherwise. He said that, “When a tribe ‘flipped’, attacks on U.S. soldiers and Marines in that area dropped to zero almost immediately”. This was not possible when Zarqawi was alive.

Under Zarqawi’s Mujahideen Shura Council the Anbar Province was dominated by Al Qaeda. With his death their aura of invincibility was cracked and the tribes rebelled. The Abu Risha tribe was the first to reject Al Qaeda’s self proclaimed sovereignty over its self declared Islamic State. The resentment of these foreigners declaring their own country in Iraq was enough to jump start the dissent. Al Qaeda’s harsh reaction to this dissent led to outright warfare not only with the tribes, but with Sunni insurgent groups as well.

A slow trickle of infighting has led to full scale war. Sunni insurgent groups like Jaysh Mohammed, 1920 Revolution Brigade, Iraqi Armed Forces, The Al-Awda Party and The Islamic Army have turned against Al Qaeda in bitter fighting (a truce between The Islamic Army and Al Qaeda was recently declared, but it is unclear if it is holding.). Former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, tried his hand at getting Sunni insurgent groups to cooperate against Al Qaeda last year, but had no success. We have finally been able to win some cooperation now that Zarqawi is gone. Without his leadership Al Qaeda has made some major mistakes like the declaration of its own state and its inability to continue their brutal treatment of civilians, just as Zarqawi was able to do, without completely alienating a large block of their Sunni supporters.

Not long ago it was unthinkable to imagine Sunni insurgents joining forces with U.S. soldiers. Yet they have banding together to wrestle control of the Sunni neighborhood of Amiriyah in Baghdad. Fighters from the 1920 Revolution Brigade and the Islamic Army in Iraq have waged all out warfare against Al Qaeda. They are being supplied by the Americans and are actually patrolling side by side with them as well. Even just as important was the fact that at least two Imams who were previously against the American presence in Iraq have agreed to cooperate with U.S. forces. Such clerics are crucial for winning local support of the population and chipping away at the terrorists’ support base.

It has been called by some a bargain with the devil or a gamble that could backfire. I have even heard some say that the U.S. is just creating new militias when that is the last thing we need. However, if these ‘militiamen’ are currently organized into insurgent groups that kill Americans, isn’t it better to turn them into pro-American militias instead?

Throughout this post I have torn into the press coverage of Iraq, but I must admit that we need the media. It is a complex situation. On one hand their inaccuracies and biased reporting must be addressed. Then again it is a mistake to needlessly alienate the press. That’s why the use of the terms like MSM and Old Media has always disturbed me. Not that it is morally wrong or anything of the sort. It’s just that I feel that if you denounce the press you should use specific examples of why you feel that way. Showing such hostility doesn’t do any good since we can’t compete with the sensational headlines that Al Qaeda’s brutal terrorism creates.

Civilization could fall before such tactics unless we can win the battle of perception. We need to check our own perceptions first…

There are some who say that there are no moderate Muslims in these days of Jihad. They should look to President Bush’s trip to Albania. He went there looking for Muslim allies and got mobbed by adoring crowds. When the President called for the independence of Kosovo he got out the message that America is not against Muslims.

In Iraq our policy of reconciliation is finally showing some signs of success. The secular nature of their society is rejecting Al Qaeda’s fundamentalism. Christian America needs to embrace the idea of working with Muslim Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, Turkmen and the neighboring Kuwaitis… If a working relationship is not nurtured with them then it will spell disaster for all of us.