Has Maliki Ended The Insurgency?breaking news

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/ ^

[WBL 1952]

Earlier today, the Italian news service AKI reported that the presumed leader of the largest insurgency in Iraq will start cooperating with the Iraqi government. Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, one of the highest-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's government, reportedly pledged to work with Iraqi and American forces to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq:

The leader of Iraq's banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party's former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat. "AlDouri has decided to sever ties with al-Qaeda and sign up to the programme of the national resistance, which includes routing Islamist terrorists and opening up dialogue with the Baghdad government and foreign forces," al-Jashaami said.

Al-Douri has decided to deal directly with US forces in Iraq, according to al-Jashaami. He figures in the 55-card deck of "most wanted" officials from the former Iraqi regime issued by the US government.

In return, for cooperating in the fight against al-Qaeda, al-Douri has asked for guarantees over his men's safety and for an end to Iraqi army attacks on his militias.

Recent weeks have seen a first step in this direction, when Baathist fighters cooperated with Iraqi government forces in hunting down al-Qaeda operatives in the volatile Diyala province and in several districts of the capital, Baghadad.

This could be game, set, and match for the Iraq War. Some smaller insurgent elements assisted in clearing Baqubah as a test to see whether an alliance with Americans would work. Apparently, the experiment worked. If al-Douri accepts the authority of the elected Iraqi government, then almost all of the resistance in western Iraq will disappear -- leaving AQI very exposed.

[SE Mom]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
A Lack of Precision on Hillary and Levin’s Words About Maliki

I’m not really a fan of Nouri al-Maliki. I don’t think anybody’s impressed with his performance as Iraqi prime minster.

So when Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., says, “I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government,” it is, in and of itself, not that objectionable. We can hope for leadership changes in a lot of countries — Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Syria come to mind...

But that’s getting reported as Levin calling for Maliki’s ouster.

It’s a rare day that I find myself in agreement with Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, but he said to the Post that, “if it appeared that Maliki had been ousted at Washington’s behest, his replacement would be seen as a U.S. puppet — a kiss of death in the region.”

So as Hillary says:

“The Iraqi government’s failures have reinforced the widely held view that the Maliki government is nonfunctional and cannot produce a political settlement, because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders,” the New York senator said in a statement given exclusively to CNN’s Jessica Yellin.

Clinton went on to say she “hope[s] that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks.”

She may be precise with her words, but it’s not getting reported that way. CNN’s headline is, Clinton: It’s time for Maliki to go. The Levin comments were reported as, “Senator Calls for Maliki’s Ouster.” It sounds like they’re calling on the insurgents or some faction to overthrow him, and that’s “off message” to put it mildly.

Secondly, our friends on the left side of the aisle loudly lament that America is seen as arrogant, a bully, an imperialist power meddling in the affairs of other countries... and then they turn around and tell the Iraqis who their leader ought to be. Uh, guys, ya ever think comments like this might be part of the problem?

08/22 05:27 PM

[STARWISE]

Former Saddam Hussein commanders on trial

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/21/iraq.trial/

August 21, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Fifteen former Iraqi officials from the regime of executed dictator Saddam Hussein went on trial Tuesday for their alleged roles in the slaughter of thousands of Shiite Muslims during a 1991 uprising, court officials said.

They are charged with crimes against humanity in the case being heard by the Iraqi High Tribunal. Estimates of the Shiite death toll range from 20,000 to 100,000.

Four of the former regime members now standing trial have already been convicted for their roles in the Anfal campaign — an Iraqi Army offensive in the 1980s that killed up to 100,000 people in Iraq’s Kurdish region.

Mohammed Khaleefa, the chief Judge in the Anfal trial, will also preside over a five-judge panel in this case.

Those on trial, who were also convicted in the Anfal case, are:

# Hussein’s first cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majeed, nicknamed “Chemical Ali,” who was sentenced to death for genocide and war crimes. He is appealing the ruling.

# Sultan Hashem Ahmed, military commander of the Anfal campaign, is also appealing his death sentence.

# Hussein Rashid Mohammed, deputy general commander of the Iraqi armed force, assistant chief of staff for military operations, and former Republican Guard commander. He is also appealing his death sentence.

# Saber Abdel Aziz al-Douri —(((DIFFERENT Al-Douri))) director of military intelligence during the Anfal campaign — received a life sentence.

The others on trial include:

# Abdul Ghani Abdul Ghafour

# Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hasn

# Ibrahim Abdul Sattar Mohammed

# Ayad Flayyeh Khaleefa

# Sa’edi Tou’ma Abbas

# Ali Hameed Mahmoud

# Ayad Taha Shehab

# Lateef Muhal Hammoud

# Sufyan Mahr Hasan

# Waleed Hameed Tawfeeq

# Qais Abdul Razzaq Mohammed

[SE Mom]

# Hussein’s first cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majeed, nicknamed “Chemical Ali,” who was sentenced to death for genocide and war crimes. He is appealing the ruling
-

I have found Chemical Ali to be similar to Arafat, Castro and UBL. - thought he was killed in the war, then thought he escaped, then thought he’d been killed LATER in the war...then thought he’d been hung with some other bad guys. Apparently I’m living under the proverbial rock!!

[STARWISE]

LOL ... how sickeningly true. I’m laughing rather than throwing up a little in my mouth ... ;)

[oneamericanvoice]

Why is al-Douri still free?

Don’t trust al-Douri anymore than I trust the Russians.

[oneamericanvoice]

The Baathists aid and abett the insugents.

[STARWISE]

From: Michael Yon

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-1-of-4.htm

Ironically, in Anbar Al Qaeda has become our best ally for killing al Qaeda. They’ve managed to do this directly, just by being al Qaeda. Despite the promised carrots, what Al Qaeda consistently delivered here was mostly stick, and with a special kind of hypocritical contempt that no sensible person would believe possible. (Not unlike the notion of baking the children of resistant parents or ordering shepards to diaper the corrupting genitals of goats.)

Al Qaeda has a management style—doing drugs, laying up sloppy drunk, raping women and boys, and cutting off heads, all while imposing strict morality laws on the locals—that makes it clear that they have one set of principles for themselves, and another for every one else.

In that kind of scheme, it didn’t take long before people in Anbar realized that any benefits from Al Qaeda having control would not be distributed equally. Once that realization spread, the tribal sheiks—almost all Sunni—had to consider the alternatives.

The sheiks of Anbar turned against al Qaeda because the sheiks are businessmen, and al Qaeda is bad for business. But they didn’t suddenly trust Americans just because they no longer trusted al Qaeda. They are not suddenly blood allies. This is business, and that’s fine, because if there is one thing America is good at, it’s business.

Reframed thus from a position of strength, this stage of the Anbar-war is more a sort of business transaction, where alliances beneficial to all sides—except Al Qaeda—are formed.

From this perspective, there is now a moment of genuine ground-floor opportunity in Anbar, if the people here can see that by doing business with the Coalition, everyone benefits—except Al Qaeda—an exclusion that most can live with.

~~~~~

If true, this would be a huge development. Praying for our troops and for victory.

[trooprally]

Good news in deed. Our Marine son is in Ar Ramadi. Hope it makes his life easier.

[Mr] T

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Nice tidbit from Townhall:

President Bush Gives Quantitative Metric Of Succss In Iraq

***********************************EXCERPT***************************

President Bush gave a hugely important speech today to a gathering at the Veterans Of Foreign Wars National Convention, and this passage made us sit up and take notice.

Youtube of the President

>

An average of 1,500 bad guys a month have been killed or captured since January, or roughly 12,000 bad guys year to date.  That certainly is a remarkable achievement.  But there are definite questions that have to be answered in order to determine how strong of a metric of success this is. 

Do we have any intelligence of how many foreign fighters or insurgents there were in Iraq in January?  Do we have any reasonable estimate as to their numbers now?  Have the coalition and Iraqi forces been able to gain control over the borders in order to stem the flow of foreign fighters coming into Iraq?  Do we have any idea of the ratio of foreign fighers to Iraqi insurgents now as opposed to in January?  

The White House should be encouraged to release more of this kind of information, and answer some of the natural follow up questions in order to give the American people a truer picture of how the war in Iraq is progressing, rather than let the mainstream media just trickle U.S. body counts night in and night out.  The more Americans hear about what is really going on, the more likely they are to disregard the defeatist spin being fed to them by Democrats in Congress and in MSM. 

[OESY]

Hillary: "During his trip to Iraq last week, Senator Levin ... confirmed that the Iraqi government is nonfunctional and cannot produce a political settlement because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders," as she called for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to be replaced with a "less divisive and more unifying figure... Our best hope of fostering political progress in Iraq is to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops," she said.

The President: "I support him. It's not up to the politicians in Washington, D.C., to say whether he will remain in his position. It is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship."

The proverbial crow has walked Hillary's face yet again, leaving it footprints. Surely she had a difficult meal, realizing she is running to be the next Commander in Chief while her foreign policy and military instincts remain abysmal.

.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See the Youtube link at post 129.

[jveritas]

Professor LS made an analysis a while ago that is close to what the President said today about the average numbers of terrorists who are killed and captured every month. I also believe that the President is conservative in his estimate because many of the injured terrorists who are carried out of the battlefield by their fleeing comrades will eventually die for lack of proper medical care (LS analysis).

[pax_et_bonum]

ping

[trooprally]

Bush at his best. Wish he did more speeches like this a long time ago.

thanks.

[Mr] T

[lentulusgracchus]

Ping....ping....ping.....

I hear the flutter of wings......see above...

[Recovering_Democrat]

Look, al-Maliki didn't do squat. :) I know, I know, to be "politic" for the face-saving cultural of the Arabs we might have to give credit to him.

The fact is American power is responsible for any good conditions that exist in Iraq.

[potlatch]

It has always been a disappointment that the President doesn't counter the media and speak out more.

From his speech;

"Do we have any intelligence of how many foreign fighters or insurgents there were in Iraq in January? Do we have any reasonable estimate as to their numbers now? Have the coalition and Iraqi forces been able to gain control over the borders in order to stem the flow of foreign fighters coming into Iraq? Do we have any idea of the ratio of foreign fighers to Iraqi insurgents now as opposed to in January? "

It was quite impressive to see Senators Levins and Warner return from Iraq and state on the Sunday talk show that they saw good results of "the Surge".

Now I wish the President would say this;

"Do we have any intelligence of how many terrorists or insurgents there were in Mexico in January? Do we have any reasonable estimate as to their numbers now? Have the government and American forces been able to gain control over the borders in order to stem the flow of foreigners and illegals coming into America? Do we have any idea of the ratio of terrorists to illegals invading now as opposed to in January?"

[Dad yer funny]

FR *bookmark* , . . . ( and fingers crossed )

[potlatch]

Bump to that!

[bray]

By her statement, Do Nothing Nancy should be Replaced.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters