High Stakes: The War in Iraq, the Election and America's Future

[Sean Osborne]

High Stakes: The War in Iraq, the Election and America’s Future


By Sean Osborne
Associate Director, Senior Analyst, Military Affairs
sosborne@homelandsecurityus.com

Once again America finds itself fast approaching a pivotal election in this most critical time of our modern history. The stakes are very high if not almost incalculable in their significance. The choices before voter enfranchised America are for the most part clear. However, I will use the following paragraphs to polish up certain facts. These are facts which are quite to the contrary of what most of the so-called mainstream media plates up for us each evening in their nightly news programs, in their bold, morning edition headlines or weekly magazine covers.

I am going to attempt to expose why the war in Iraq is a major issue before the American electorate but not for the reasons the mainstream media are telling you it is. America knows we are at war with terrorists, and that there are terrorists in Iraq as there are in many nations around the world, including our own. However, Iraq is the pivotal focus for America, and it’s not because of Al Qaeda or any other nebulous terrorist group. Iraq is pivotal for America because the Ba’athist Iraqi regime we and our coalition allies launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to remove is still largely intact, is calling the shots and is primarily responsible for the carnage throughout the country which continues to this day.

It is my firm conviction that well-financed former-regime Ba'athists, with probable clandestine foreign state sponsorship and support, continuing as it has from when before the war began, during initial combat and ever since (Russia, Belarus and Syria for examples). It is my contention that the remnant senior leadership of Al-Mukhabarat (Iraqi Intelligence Sevice), the Iraqi Republican Guards and Fedayi Saddam are the driving forces behind continuing Ba'athist regime resistance against American and Coalition military forces. This was Saddam's tactical plan from the beginning in the face of overwhelming US military power and it remains in execution.


I do not believe that Al Qaeda is leading the "insurgency" in Iraq as the so-called mainstream media is fond of declaring. And I do not accept the same media use of the term "insurgent" or "insurgency" as both are erroneous descriptors of what has been occurring in Iraq since March 2003.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurgent

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurgency

The use of these terms by the mainstream media implies that Al Qaeda is a defender of the former regime. Neither can Al Qaeda be described as rebels against the new order in Iraq. They are quite simply and have been all along terrorists and tools of the former Ba'athist regime, and therefore cannot be legitimately described as "insurgents" or as an "insurgency".

At this point I want to quote Dr. Laurie Mylroie, an acknowledged and world-leading expert on Iraq from an email exchange yesterday morning between us.

“Our use of "al Qaida" to describe our enemy is nearly medieval in its incoherence. It is everywhere, anywhere, can't be defeated, and is unlike any enemy seen in history. That is the mainstream line. But if such an enemy has never existed in history, maybe it does not exist now? "Al Qaida," generally speaking, is the name we attach to the sophisticated part of the violence directed against us and our allies by a variety of hostile states in a variety of places.

In the 1980s, during the Regan administration, there was a huge debate about terrorism, or at least [about] major attacks on the US. The conclusion of that debate was that they were basically state-sponsored. That understanding endured through Bush 41, but was utterly lost during the Clinton administration, when the US counter-terrorism efforts focused largely on arresting individual perps. That had enormous intelligence consequences, because 1) the intelligence community didn't receive the results of the FBI investigation, because of the "wall" and 2) the job of a prosecutor is to secure the conviction of individuals. He isn't necessarily interested in the larger structure behind the terrorist attacks, and he is not interested in states.”

Dr. Mylroie concluded her remarks to me by saying, “Most Iraqi officials would say much what you are saying, but their very strong and clear emphasis would be on Syrian support for the Sunni terrorists and Iranian support for the Shia ones. There is also an interesting piece on Afghanistan in this week's NYT magazine, which both highlights the complexity of the violence there and the key role of Pakistan in supporting it.”

Indeed. The war we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is supported by state-sponsors. The terrorist enemies are proxy force multipliers for these state-sponsors, be they Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, HAMAS, Abu Sayyaf, or the Afghan Taliban. Yet, notwithstanding events in Afghanistan, it is in Iraq where this is most abundantly evident.

This has been evident to me since the beheading of Nick Berg. The individuals in that horrific video had the demeanor of military men and the use of beheading as a terrorism tool against the Iraqi population was long established and practiced on a virtual daily basis by the Ba'athists and Fedayi Saddam in the years immediately preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. Al Qaeda adopted a Ba'athist terrorist tool and not vice versa.

In addition, there is also rampant Iranian involvement in exploiting and providing war materiel and personnel support to the sizeable Shiite population in southeastern Iraq from Baghdad to Basra. So when certain elected American officials make the totally partisan and ludicrous declaration of a need for America to embrace a “cut and run” stratagem, to unilaterally abandon our allies, to surrender and forsake the sacrifice of all of our fallen hero’s and those who remain in harms way, let me be very blunt, these politicians are talking the talk of yellow-bellied cowards, they provide lip service and tremendous damage by aiding and abetting all of these enemies and the state sponsors arrayed against us and our coalition allies.

Are these the people and the political party America will vote for? I think not.

As we move forward to this election I must state that the way forward is not to change the horse or its rider in the middle of the race. We need to send a clear message to the brave Iraqi people who’ve voted to stand with us and our efforts to completely liberate their nation from the dictatorial tyranny they endured for so many years. In my opinion, the trial of Saddam Hussein needs to be expedited and concluded. Saddam's expected execution for his crimes against humanity needs to be implemented immediately thereafter. Concurrent with the decision taken by our elected leadership to stay the course the US military needs to mount-up once again in full combat gear, with heavy armor support, in overwhelming force and be turned loose and finish the job which was prematurely declared ended in May of 2003 in eradicating ALL of the remaining elements of the Ba'athist regime resistance, just as we did with the Nazi's in Germany sixty years ago. Then we can focus on foreign interlopers like Iran and make foreign support from Russia, Belarus and Syria a moot point because the recipients of their support will no longer exist.

We must complete this mission as expeditiously as possible. Our enemies in Iraq are not idle as we have all seen in the past months, even robbing the Iraqi treasury of a half billion dollars to fund their resistance and come back hopes. If this is their version of a ‘Tet’ offensive then it must be militarily defeated as the original ‘Tet’ was defeated. Then we must build upon that victory and also win the political war before the Ba’athist murder squads can destroy the political leadership in Iraq, as is their current plan.

Here from Dr. Mylroie is a translation from an Iraqi colleague of hers of a Ba’athist document dated 5 September 2006 detailing the leading Iraqi leadership they plan to assassinate along with all relative to the third degree in short order unless stopped. You will probably recognize some but not many of these names. However, the inclusion of this list primarily is to serve as your notification that the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein is not dead yet and Operation Iraqi Freedom is not ‘mission complete’.


(Hand writing)
Martyr Qusay (Saddam son) unit/Karkh sector (Baghdad)

Thi Qar Operation HQ
((Special Operations))
(Poetry)

(Motto)
No. : /12/221 Î.Ú
Comrade Saddam Hussain
Date 5/9/2006


Comrades; commanders of Special Operations.

Approval of deputy combatant comrade, treasure of the country (baath party-Iraq branch), and the supreme commander of armed forces was granted, and communicated to us by the letter from the country treasure office no. A.3/312 on 2/9/2006. Execution punishment regarding criminals, agents, apostates, names below, in addition to their first, second, and third degree relatives. Execution (of the order) by your units is according to the plan and to your suitable timing discretion.

Comrade General
Commander of Thi Qar Operations – Special Operations

Names

1. Abul Aziz Alhakim (H of SCIRI – M.COR)
2. Ammar Alhakim (son of martyr Mohammad Baqir Alhakim and H of Mihrab organization)
3. Hadi Alamiri (H of Badr Brigade)
4. Sadr Aldin Alqabani (Ayatulla Sistani spokesman)
5. Muwaffaq Alrubaie (National Security Minister)
6. Nuri Almaliki (PM)
7. Ali Aladeep (M.COR -Fadilah party)
8. Jalil Aldeen Alsagheer (M.COR- SCIRI)
9. Ibrahim Aljaafri (xPM- H of Da’wa party)
10. Baqir Jabur Solgh (xMOI – MOI, SCIRI)
11. Ahmed Alchalabi (x deputy PM, H of Debaathification commision)
12. Abdulkaram Al’inizi (M.COR – Da’wa party –Iraq)
13. Akrum Alhakim (M.COR – H of reconciliation commission)
14. Muqta Alsadir (H of Sadr Movement – Mahdi Army)
15. Abdulhady Aldaraji (M.COR)
16. Salam Almaliki (M.COR-Sadr Mov)
17. Baha Hussain Alaaraji (M.COR – Sadr Mov)
18. Hazim Gitran Alshalan (?)
19. Hussain Alsharistani (MO Oil – SCIRI)
20. Hameed Majid Musa (M.COR – H of Iraqi Communist party)
21. Abulkarim Almaahood Almuhammadawi (H of Hizbulla – Iraq)
22. Ghazi Ajeel Alyawar (x President of Iraq, Iraq party – M.COR)
23. Entifadh Qanber (Advisor to PM office – M Wafi’s brother)
24. Ayad Allawi (x PM, H of National Accord – M.COR)
25. Rasim ALawwadi (deputy NA – M.COR)
26. Mahmood Almashhadani (National Accord Front - Chair of M.COR)
27. Jalal Altalabani (H of PUK – current President of Iraq)
28. Masud Albarazani (H of KDP)
29. Fuad Masoum (PUK – M.COR)
30. Adil Abdulmahdi (deputy President of Iraq)
31. Sadoun Aldulaimy (x MOD)
32. Wafiq ALsamarai (PM Inelegance advisor)
33. Falah Alnaqeeb (x MOD)
34. Thair Albnaqeeb (x Spokesman of Ayad Allawai)
35. Mohammad Abdulla Alshahwani (H of Iraqi Intelligence)
36. Ayad Jamaluldeen (libral Shea clerics, National Accord – M.COR)
37. Tariq Alhashimi (H of IIP – deputy President of Iraq)
38. Ayad Alsamari ()
39. Abbas Albayati (Torkman, Da’wa party – M.COR)
40. Wael Abdullatif (x Minister, National Accord – M.COR)
41. Jawad Bolani (MOI)
42. Ali Allami (?)
43. Judge Raouf Rashid Abdulrihman
44. Jafar Almousawai (General Prosecutor at Saddam Aldejail trial)
45. Munqith Faraoun (?)
46. Raid Juhi (Judge – Saddam’s court) ß------------- (hand writing)
47. Mithal Alalousi (H of Umma party – M.COR) Comrade Fakhir
48. Qasim Dawud (?) to the court group
49. General Mahdi Sabeeh Algharawi add Mohammad Aluraibi
50. General Hasan Ali Kamal
51. General Rashid Flayih (reply)
52. General Ahmed Alkhafaji Yes
53. General Mohammad Zaidan (signature)
54. General Mohammad Alni’mah 5/5
55. General Mohammad Thulfiqar
56. Brigadier General Abdulsalam Shahwan
57. Brigadier General Abduljalil Khalaf Shawail Almohammadawi
58. Brigadier General Najim Aliqabi
59. Brigadier General Abbas Hasan Almousawi
60. Brigadier General Karim Nasir

[Sean Osborne]

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20061024-090445-5244r

Another bin Laden victory

TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Michael F. Scheuer
October 25, 2006

In a world where leading Western experts have consigned Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to near-irrelevant status, the gangly Saudi is on the verge of seeing the forces he leads and inspires knock off their third infidel government. Not bad for a guy running from rock to rock and cave to cave.

First was the defeat of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's conservative government after the Islamists' 2003 attack on Madrid's train station. Spanish voters ousted that rarity, a European leader who recognized bin Laden led much more than a criminal gang, and that Islamists would have to be confronted and smashed with a heavy, prolonged application of Western military power. Sadly, Mr. Aznar allowed himself to believe Washington's delusion that war in Iraq would be an effective, tide-turning extension of the battle against Islamist militancy. He paid the ultimate electoral price for indulging that lethal pipe dream, and the West lost a man who had accurately gauged the severity of the Islamist threat.

Next down the drain was the government of Thailand via last month's military coup. After the coup, rumors of deposed Premier Thaksin Shinawatra's corrupt activities spread, but at base the Thai generals seized power because of the increasing intensity of the Islamist separatist revolt in Thailand's three Muslim-dominated southern provinces. Nearly 2,000 people have died there since 2003, the central government is losing its grip in the region, and Mr. Thaksin's military response to the unrest was making little progress.

The Thai generals named a Thai Muslim as the new premier, and he has said it is time to slow military operations and talk about autonomy for the Muslim south. As always, what seems reasonable to the West and the westernized Thai will be seen by Thai Islamists and their backers as a long step toward victory that requires more military aggressiveness.

Bin Laden, his lieutenants and their allies are no doubt pleased by the destruction of the Spanish and Thai governments and the exhilarating message it sends to the worldwide Islamist movement: The infidels are weak, politically divided, terrified of using full military power and think we can be appeased. In short, war works; keep at it.

Even so, bin Laden, et. al, know the biggest prize looms just ahead — the chance that the Republican Party will be ousted from one or both houses of Congress. There are many factors contributing to this possibility: the Foley abomination, other corruption cases, the trumped?up "crisis" over First Amendment rights and the administration's ill-informed and ham-fisted handling of the Iraq and Afghan wars. If the Republicans are ousted, pundits on both sides of the aisle will find the causes strictly in America's navel.

But what will bin Laden and his Islamist allies think? Well, if Republican defeat comes to pass, they will first thank the Almighty — "Allahu Akhbar!" or "God is the greatest!" — for tangible proof of approaching victory. In Spain, Thailand, and Britain — where Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered the fate of Messrs. Aznar and Thaksin for the same reason, but is leaving gracefully — al Qaeda and its allies see politicians winning power who argue: "The military option has been tried and it has failed. We must seek other-than-martial means to defuse the Islamists' appeal and power."

As in Europe and Thailand, this has been the refrain of Sens. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Rep. Jane Harman, and a swath of Republicans who value their seats more than U.S. security.

If Americans vote for what sounds like sweet reason from the Democrats, bin Laden and company will rejoice.

What they will hear is the death knell for any prospect of effective U.S. military resistance to militant Islam.

With the Republicans out, the Islamists will be confident that Democrats will deliver the best of both worlds: less emphasis on military force and a rigid maintenance of U.S. foreign policies that are hated with passion and near-unanimity by 1.3 billion Muslims. If Osama approved of music, he would be whistling "Happy Days Are Here Again!"

What the enemy thinks is not the sole reason on which to base a vote. I will vote for Republicans, as I always do, because some know unborn babies are human beings who should not be murdered with the Democrats' joyful zeal. Enemy perceptions are worth remembering, however, because if Americans elect Democrats believing them likely to defeat al Qaedaism, history suggests they will be wrong.

The combination of Democratic rhetoric and the indelible fact of the Clinton administration's relentless refusal to try to kill bin Laden — preferring to protect its Arab, arms-buying buddies at the cost of American corpses — ensures that voters will receive what Clinton-era Democrats are best at giving: barely disguised pacifism that has and will continue to allow al-Qaeda and its allies to steadily destroy U.S. security.

Michael F. Scheuer, a 22-year veteran with the CIA, created and served as the chief of the agency's Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center.

[Joey Bagadonuts]

President Bush sure has his hands full.
Anti-war protestors, a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, mid term elections, US Congressmen who would impeach him in a second if they could, a liberal press that BBQ's him no matter WHAT he does, a traitorous Iraqi general and now... a real pain in the ass Iraqi PM, who instead of working WITH us, seems to be using every opportunity to bend the President over a barrel. (IF the news report is accurate).

Politics suck.
I just know that sometimes the President has to feel...."F*** this! Tomorrow we're pulling out. You're free now, and now you ungrateful bastards can handle it all yourselves now. Good luck and AMF!"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061029/...q_061028155132


Aide: Iraqi PM using U.S. angst




By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers Sun Oct 29, 1:15 AM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - After a hastily arranged video conference with
George Bush,Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that the U.S. president promised to move swiftly to turn over full control of the Iraqi army to the Baghdad government. A close aide to Nouri al-Maliki said later the prime minister was intentionally playing on U.S. voter displeasure with the war to strengthen his hand with Washington.

Hassan al-Suneid, a member of al-Maliki's inner circle, said the video conference was sought because issues needed airing at a higher level than with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad.

Al-Suneid said the prime minister complained to Bush that Khalilzad, an Afghan-born Sunni Muslim, was treating the Shiite al-Maliki imperiously.

"The U.S. ambassador is not (L. Paul) Bremer (the former U.S. administrator in Iraq). He does not have a free rein to do what he likes. Khalilzad must not behave like Bremer but rather like an ambassador," al-Suneid quoted al-Maliki as saying.

The remarks were the fourth time in a week that al-Maliki challenged the U.S. handling of the war. The ripostes flowed from an announcement by Khalilzad on Tuesday that al-Maliki had agreed to a U.S. plan to set timelines for progress in quelling violence in Iraq.

Al-Maliki's anger grew through the week until on Friday, al-Suneid said, the prime minister told Khalilzad: "I am a friend of the United States, but I am not America's man in Iraq."

After Saturday's talks, White House spokesman Tony Snow said of al-Maliki: "He's not America's man in Iraq. The United States is there in a role to assist him. He's the prime minister — he's the leader of the Iraqi people."

Snow said that reports of a rift between the United States and Iraq were wrong and that Bush had full confidence in al-Maliki.

"What you've got in Maliki is a guy who is making decisions. He's making tough decisions, and he's showing toughness and he's also showing political skill in dealing with varying factions within his own country. And both leaders understand the political pressures going on."

Snow said Bush told al-Maliki not to worry about U.S. politics "because we are with you and we are going to be with you."

Al-Suneid, however, said al-Maliki was intentionally using the displeasure of American voters over Bush's handling of the war to strengthen his position.

"It's al-Maliki's chance to get what he wants. It's a chance for al-Maliki to force a better deal for himself," he said.

Al-Suneid said Bush accepted Iraq's position that a renewal of the U.N. mandate for the U.S.-led military force was conditional on swift action to hand full control of the Iraqi army to the Baghdad government and the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraqi cities and towns when the army is ready to take control.

Bush also agreed to set up a joint military operations room early next year that would give Iraqi authorities a say in the movement of U.S. and Iraqi troops, al-Suneid said. That is meant to head off unannounced raids like one Wednesday in Baghdad that targeted an alleged Shiite death squad leader.

Al-Maliki, who depends heavily on Shiite politicians whose parties have heavily armed militias, complained angrily about the U.S.-backed raid and demanded he be consulted before such operations in the future.

The United States said the death squad leader was on a preapproved list and the raid to capture him did not require specific Iraqi government approval. The man was not caught.

It was not clear whether al-Maliki's tough stance in recent days is a matter of conviction or a bid to bolster support among his domestic constituency — or both.

A joint statement issued after the video conference between al-Maliki and Bush said both sides "are committed to the partnership our two countries and two governments have formed and will work in every way possible for a stable, democratic Iraq and for victory in the war on terror."

It said the two sides agreed to form a working group "to make recommendations on how these goals can be best achieved." It will consist of the U.S. military commander, Gen. George Casey, Khalilzad and Iraq's national security adviser and ministers of defense and interior.

Al-Maliki has grown increasingly prickly as the Americans have pressed him to rein in Shiite militias and crush death squads that have sprung up since a Shiite shrine was bombed by Sunni insurgents in February. Thousands of Sunnis have died in revenge attacks, many under brutal torture.

The Sunnis, particularly disaffected insurgents, have fought back vigorously in a sectarian bloodbath verging on civil war.

The U.S. military on Saturday reported the combat death of a U.S. Marine in Anbar province, raising to 98 the number of U.S. personnel killed in October — the fourth deadliest month for American forces since the war began in March 2003.

Violence also returned to the capital after a relative five-day calm following the end of the holy month of Ramadan.

One person was killed and 35 wounded when a rocket slammed into an outdoor market in Baghdad's turbulent southern neighborhood of Dora, while a bomb in a minibus killed a second person and wounded nine in an eastern district, police said.

Police also found 10 bodies of victims of apparent sectarian violence — seven in several parts of Baghdad and three in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of the capital.

Eleven other people were reported killed in shootings and bomb attacks nationwide.


***

[Sean Osborne]

U.S. naval armada set to sail into Gulf to 'intimidate' Iran

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM


Friday, November 10, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Navy has gathered aircraft carriers and troop transports for entry in the central Gulf. Included, officials said, were at least 10 warships that would arrive in the region over the next few days.



"The reason is to intimidate the Iranians," an officia said. "There are two crises: . The second is Iranian efforts to recruit and Gulf Arab states in an alliance."

The Bush administration was said to have been alarmed by the Gulf Cooperation Council interest in an alliance with . Officials said pledged to end the incitement of the large Shi'ite communities in GCC states if the alliance was concluded.

Officials said Iran might be behind the destruction of a refinery over the weekend. They said the reports that the refinery was demolished by an "accident" was incorrect.

"There are assets being gathered in the Indian Ocean off the coast of India and Pakistan as well as assets moving toward the Gulf from the
Officials said the navy was ordered to begin the redeployment in the Gulf in Oct. 1. They said the first assets to sail toward the region were cruisers and minesweepers.

The navy maneuvers were said to have been initiated and ordered by the White House. A source close to the administration said Vice President Richard Cheney has warned against the massive maneuvers.

Officials said Pentagon analysts warned of Iranian retaliation. The analysts stressed that the U.S. military lacks sufficient high-value, particularly nuclear, targets in
On Nov. 5, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Gen. Yahya Safavi ruled out a U.S. strike against . Safavi told Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam television that the military deployment was already under strain throughout the region.

"Under the current circumstances, Americans are involved in Afghanistan and the quagmire of Iraq so we do not anticipate any military attack from AmericaIran has its own defense and deterrent power and it is very unlikely that will cause us any problems.''

---

Copyright © 2006 East West Services, Inc.

[American Patriot]

Good

Let's go do some intimidation. I wanna go help them.