Target Centermass

Category: War on Terror

  • The Best Debate Live-Blogging

    From somebody who didn’t even watch (and justified it well):

    I’m sure Bush kicked Kerry’s ass all over the stage if you give a farthing about terrorists and killing those who undeniably and without quarter want to kill you. Outside of that, who could possibly give a flying eff at a rolling donut about stem cells or deficits or the opinions of the French or Germans? Western civilization is at war. If those dipsticks don’t care to defend it, that’s their call and their shame. But don’t tell me America can’t do it, not when we’ve got the Aussies, the Brits, the Poles and 30 more freedom-loving countries on our side.

    Holy crap, Scott, you are the man. If the world goes to hell and Bush loses, I’m nominating you for President of the reborn Republic of Texas.

  • The Elections that MAY Decide the Election

    Can Afghanistan pull off an election? Will the appeasement win in Australia?

    This will be an interesting weekend. Dems will be spinning for Kerry; the worst of Afghanistan will get more play over the historical enormity of the moment; a Howard affirmation in Australia will be relatively quiet while a slight upset will be portrayed as a brutal rejection of Bush.

    Let’s sit back and watch. And hope. I honestly believe much of our civilization hangs in the balance. I have faith in the Aussies, though; for some reason, there’s always seemed a sort of kinship between Texans and Australians.

  • Is Fallujah Next?

    After the combined Iraqi-American pressure on al-Sadr’s criminals in Najaf, after the American and Iraqi success in Samarra, after the apparently-effective strikes on Sadr City and Fallujah, the question has been raised: is Fallujah next for the ground onslaught?

    Well, not if Fallujah has a say.

    Iraqi insurgents from Fallujah are in intense negotiations with the country’s interim government to hand over control of the city to Iraqi troops, according to representatives of both sides, in hopes of averting a bloody military battle for the city of 300,000 that has become a haven for foreign guerrillas and a symbol of the limits of Baghdad’s authority.

    “We have met representatives from Fallujah,” the interim deputy prime minister, Barham Salih, said Wednesday. “We have had detailed discussion with these representatives, and we have agreed on a road map or a framework to facilitate the resolution of this conflict in Fallujah.”

    The talks apparently gained momentum Wednesday after the mujaheddin shura — or council of holy warriors — that now governs Fallujah voted overwhelmingly to accept the broad terms demanded by Iraq’s government. By a vote of 10 to 2, the council agreed to eject foreign fighters, turn over all heavy weapons, dismantle checkpoints and allow the Iraqi National Guard to enter the city.

    In return, the city would not face the kind of U.S.-led military offensive that reclaimed the central Iraqi city of Samarra from insurgents last week, a prospect that one senior Iraqi official said clearly grabbed the attention of the Fallujah delegation.

    U.S. troops would remain outside the city and end the airstrikes that have shaken residential neighborhoods on an almost daily basis in recent weeks, according to one account of the terms now on the table.

    Meanwhile, Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Allawi continues a tough-love outreach to Sadr City.

    Iraq’s interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, told reporters Wednesday that a committee was being formed to hash out the final terms of a deal to dismantle the Mahdi Army, Sadr’s militia. Allawi’s government, which authorized a U.S. offensive against Sadr’s militia in the southern city of Najaf in August, has been trying to persuade Sadr to join the political process.

    “No cease-fire,” Allawi cautioned. “We responded positively to the request of the people of Sadr City. They will surrender their weapons to the authorities. They will dismantle any armed presence in the city. They will respect and abide by the rule of law in the city. They will welcome the police to go back, patrol the streets of the city.”

    Peace through strength, in a microcosm.

    The international Islamist terrorists should quickly realize that they need something other than status quo Iraqi incidents before Nov. 2 or they are in great danger of losing any homefield advantage. Probably something spectacular. Otherwise, any local support in Iraq is soon going to give way to their closest enemy, the people of Iraq.

  • Da Man is Back!

    The first blog that made me consider the life of the blogosphere is back from hiatus.

    Go. Read.

    Thanks to Scott for catching the resurrection.

  • VP Debate Postmortem

    I promised it so here it is.

    After reviewing the transcript, Cheney won. Simple as that, and not surprising at all. Cheney edged on the domestic latter half and dominated on the security issues.

    I’ll keep this post brief because my timing sucks. In retrospect, I probably should’ve gone with the nom de keyboard of the DelayedPundit.

    The reason I give the VP a decided victory is simple: Kerry and Edwards are wrong about the war against Islamist terror. When they talk about the centrality of bin Laden, when they show their blinders allowing nothing but a focus on bin Laden, when they condemn any other effort in the war that does not expressly address bin Laden, they are wrong. Yes, Osama bin Laden attacked us. All parties are interested in busting his ass. Apparently only Bush-Cheney are interested in stopping other reiterations of bin Laden by attacking the Islamist culture and offering the alternative of freedom and democracy. Do Kerry and Edwards honestly think we would be magically safe from the Islamist bastards if Osama’s head was stuck atop a star-spangled pike? If so, they are wrong and American lives could be the cost. That is the reality of a post-9/11 world.

  • House Shreds Draft Legislation

    In a maneuver to quash the current draft rumors, the GOP leaders in the House of Representatives forced the proposed draft legislation to face a crushing vote.

    With the Internet abuzz with rumors that a military draft would be reinstated after the November election, House Republicans yesterday forced a surprise vote on the issue and blamed Democrats for scaring young people.

    “We’ll … see who trusts the volunteer military and who is practicing the dishonest politics of fear,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in moving to get lawmakers on record on a bill by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. to revive the draft.

    ….

    The final vote was two “yeas” and 402 “nays”, with 29 members not voting.

    Even the primary sponsor of the legislation rallied against it.

    Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) did something a little unusual yesterday. First he protested when Republican leadership scheduled his own bill for a vote.

    Then he sent out a letter encouraging his Democratic colleagues to vote against it.

    Rangel’s bill, which the leadership had placed on the suspension calendar, would create a national-service draft under which all 18- to 26-year-olds would serve in the military or perform two years of national service as determined by the president. Rangel has been advocating a draft for several years, but he argued yesterday that the bill was too important for the suspension calendar, “which is reserved for non-controversial items,” he said in a statement.

    Bills on the suspension calendar cannot be amended on the floor and require two-thirds of the House to clear the chamber.

    Rangel accused Republicans of using his bill to assuage fears that President Bush had plans to reinstate the draft, stating, “The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President’s intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.”

    He went on to urge Democrats running for reelection to vote no.

    “I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.

    Rangel is wrong and his crap does not deserve even light-hearted consideration. His support for a draft is based exclusively on class politics, and he gave absolutely zero consideration to the best interests of the military when he proposed this legislation.

    As I pointed out when the Kerry-Edwards campaign first co-opted the internet draft rumors as part of their anti-Bush innuendo, the draft may well be needed again one day, possibly even in the war against the Islamist bastards. However, it is not needed now and there is never a justification for using fear tactics to politicize the military or our national defense interests. Rangel, Kerry and Edwards have been equally disgusting in this affair.

  • Kerry Says Franco-German Troops Unlikely

    John Kerry has finally admitted what should’ve already been known — despite all of his global support, diplomatic skills and internationalistic stances, he simply would not be able to get French and German boots dusty in Iraq.

    Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.

    The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won’t trade their soldiers’ lives for those of U.S. troops.

    “Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that,” he said.

    Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, “When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained.”

    “Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities,” he added, as he took questions from reporters in a school yard in Tipton, Iowa.

    Let’s briefly review. The Kerry campaign insults the sacrifices of the friendly Iraqi troops and police by not counting their losses with those of the coalition. Kerry cannot deliver the in-country aid of our French and German “allies.” Kerry personally has insulted our current allies, calling them the coerced and the bribed.

    Given this track record, how would Kerry get more allies? His plan apparently is to actually coerce and bribe them. Here, from the opening Bush-Kerry debate, is what he said should have been done:

    If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, “What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?” we’d be in a stronger place today.

    There you have it, Kerry’s diplomatic magic — do what he has accused Bush of doing. And it ain’t going to be good enouch for Germany or France.

  • Hostage ‘Sold to Less Brutal Gang’

    The hopes for a safe return for Ken Bigley, the British hostage held by terrorists in Iraq, were bouyed by today’s news.

    Hopes for Ken Bigley’s freedom rose yesterday after it was claimed he had been ‘sold’ to a less brutal gang of kidnappers.

    The Iraq hostage’s brother believes he is now being held by the same group who released two Italian women aid workers last week.

    And Paul Bigley says Ken could also come home alive – if a ransom is paid.

    Paul said that if Ken had been moved, ‘it can only be a positive thing’. He added: ‘I would much rather deal with people talking money than people holding a government to ransom.

    ‘It makes the whole scenario a little easier. Funds can always be found, somehow.’

    Yeah, okay, hopes rose.

    For the life of one guy.

    Sure, I understand the desire of the family to have their loved one back safe. What I do not understand is how people do not realize the number of lives they are willing to barter away with their willingness to finance future terrorism.

    How tragic the state of the world that people find hope when a man is “‘sold’ to a less brutal gang of kidnappers.” How disgusting it is to see the inability of some to recognize the vicious barbarity of the Islamist danger.

    Historically, apparently it’s a good thing the Nazis turned to aerial bombing before kidnapping. But wait, those were other days, days when an obvious enemy was recognized by most and not downplayed by many for short-term political gain.

    Despite this story and the adversity caused by Bigley’s peril, I still have faith in the Brits to do what’s right in the long term. I just worry they may stretch out that long term.

  • Poland May Withdraw From Iraq in 2005

    There are conflicting reports about the future commitment of Poland to the Iraqi coalitions, with the latest saying it was still up in the air.

    [Australian Foreign] Minister Alexander Downer has played down reports that Poland is considering withdrawing its troops from Iraq by the end of next year.

    President Aleksander Kwasniewski said there had been no final decision on when to withdraw forces, but said Warsaw was considering the late 2005 deadline with the hopes that January elections in Iraq would bring stability to the country.

    Mr Downer said today Poland’s proposed withdrawal date was a long way away and a lot of progress would have been made by then.

    He said Poland’s consideration of a late-2005 pull out would not have any impact on troop numbers in the region.

    “It doesn’t mean very much. It’s a very long way away now,” Mr Downer said in Adelaide.

    Another recent report takes the same stance.

    Alexander Kwasniewski, the Polish president, today said the country had set no date for withdrawing its troops from Iraq despite comments from the defence minister that they should leave by the end of 2005.

    He told reporters it might be possible “to finish our mission” by then, but stressed that discussions on Poland’s role in Iraq were continuing.

    The defence minister, Jerzy Szmajdzinski, told the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper in an interview published today that the troop withdrawal should coincide with the expiry, at the end of 2005, of a UN security council resolution endorsing Iraq’s current interim government.

    So far 17 Poles have died in Iraq and opinion polls show nearly 75% of the public opposing troop deployment there. An opposition party, the Polish Peasants’ party, has launched a petition seeking an immediate withdrawal.

    The prime minister, Marek Belka, said he had not authorised Mr Szmajdzinski to make such a statement, which departed from Warsaw’s long-standing position that troops would remain in Iraq for “as long as it takes” to complete their mission.

    Mr Szmajdzinski argued that two and a half years in Iraq would be “enough” for a former Warsaw Pact army still “reaching new capabilities and introducing new equipment”, but later said his remarks were his personal opinion and not the official position of the government.

    The withdrawal of the Polish troops would not be catastrophic for the coalition helping Iraq, but it would be a big loss. I’m not at all happy with such a potentially short-sighted early declaration of disengagement and the wrong signals it may send, but I have nothing but appreciation for the noble work to date of the valiant Polish troops and their military leadership. These are truly our allies.

  • Italians Fall out of Love with ‘Two Simonas’

    The words and actions of the two recently-released Italian hostages have quickly splintered a fawning Italian public.

    Italy’s adoration of the “two Simonas”, the women aid workers abducted in Iraq, began to sour yesterday, as the extent of their sympathy for the Iraqi fight against the allied occupation became clear.

    In their first big interviews given since their release in return for a reported $1 million ransom on Tuesday, Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, both 29, gave their backing to insurgents opposing the allied forces.

    ….

    [Pari said,] “If you ask me about terrorism, I’ll tell you that there is terrorism and there is resistance. The resistance struggle of people against an occupying force is guaranteed by international law.”

    The women’s comments are likely to cause renewed anger in government circles, following their call soon after their release for Italy’s peacekeeping forces to be withdrawn.

    ….

    After they were taken hostage on Sept 7, the two Simonas achieved iconic status in Italy and the conservative government and the opposition put aside their differences to work together for the women’s release.

    But as the Turin newspaper La Stampa said yesterday, national unity has been short lived since their arrival home, wearing kaftans and thanking their captors in Arabic for their release before the cameras of the Al-Jazeera stellite television network.

    When these two were first seized, I pointed out that an al-Jazeera article showed that these two had been specifically targeted. The reason was not immediately obvious. It now is — the terrorists knew they were potentially valuable as mouthpieces for Islamist villainy. Shrewd … and accurate.