I am so happy that President Obama has declared that the combat mission of our troops is now officially over, in Iraq.
In fact, I am tickled to no end.
Is it just me? Or are we seeing an escalation in violence towards the remaining U.S. military presence?
The bottom line here is that we may be seeing what can happen when you announce something is over, long before it really is. Remember President Bush on that aircraft carrier?
Note how in the clip that I posted from CNN, Rick Sanchez seems utterly amazed that something like this could happen. He cannot seem to fathom how an Iraqi soldier, one whom we worked so hard to train, could just up and start killing Americans after Obama said it was over.
Sanchez is usually clueless, we all know that. But he really doesn't get this one. He is in a state of bewilderment, he is confusion personified.
Oh well. No matter.
Obama says the war in Iraq is over. That means it's over, so what are we worried about? Probably just another fluke.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Some Sunday Reflections
After a wild and emotional week that was no less than anti-climactic on Wednesday morning, I thought I'd take a moment and reflect on some things that have emerged from the recesses of my brain.
President-Elect Obama will be my president. I may not like his policies (which led me to vote and actively campaign against him), but he is the man the American people elected and he will treated as such. I will criticize every policy, every stance, which I do not think is right for America. But make no mistake, he will get a far better shake here than George Bush got at liberal blogs. If he does the right thing, I will applaud him for it. If he doesn't, then (metaphorically speaking) I will rip his head off and spit down his neck.
Every move he makes will be watched and studied closely. He has already made some bold moves in his short time as the victor and here is my take on those:
1. Appointed Rahm Emanuel as WH Chief Of Staff.
Some people do not like him because of his affiliation with the Clinton Administration. From WND (HT: AICS) comes this article.
During the campaign, one of my deep concerns was Obama's commitment to Israel. He said he would continue to support the nation, despite the fact Jesse Jackson opened his big mouth to the contrary.
Make no mistake here. Emanuel is a tax and spend liberal, when it comes to domestic policy and it is expected this will not change much. But from the WND article, it would appear Israel will still have a friend in the White House, at least during the opening days of the Obama Administration. This is good news.
2. Obama is committed to the auto industry bailout.
In one respect, I am against the government getting involved in any industry or company within that industry. I do not believe that government intervention is the answer to all issues pertaining to a free market economy. From this perspective, I am not pleased.
But this is the auto industry we are talking about. It is a key component to the industrial infrastructure of this nation. To allow this industry to suffer and even risk shutting down would be a major blow, economically and militarily. If all out war were to ever break out, we need to have the capabilities of manufacturing military vehicles on our own soil and it would be utterly foolish to job it out to foreign countries, which may oppose out efforts.
The one caveat I would bring to the discussion is simple enough. If the car companies get bailout money, they must restructure their management and fire all of the bastards that have mismanaged the situation, allowing us to get to this point. Like I said, I am not thrilled about this at all. But this is a necessary evil, at this point in time, not for union jobs as much as the other reason I have stated.
3. I will be watching how he approaches the Fairness Doctrine issue.
It is my hope that he considers this a background issue for now, with other things considered to be more important. But, being the skeptic I am, I have a feeling this will generate out of Congress and be forced upon him. The question will be, how will he receive it?
As a responsible blogger, I want to ensure that I do my part to act professionally, not like the Daily Kos and HuffPo did during GWB's term. But know this, I will hit hard on issues of freedom and liberty and this area I will consider a priority, if he takes the wrong side of this issue.
4. I believe his election is in some ways positive.
For many blacks it has been viewed as a redemption of sorts, for slavery and other abuses. No one alive today lived under enslavement, but is a fact that many still harbor resentment over it. With that said, there are many good decent (key word: many) black people alive today, who did live under unfair Jim Crow laws. I work with one such woman.
I have worked with this lady for over ten years and she is the sweetest person anyone would ever meet. She remembers being out with her parents and other family members as a little girl in Louisiana; she could not eat in certain restaurants and was relegated to sitting on the back of the bus.
On the day after the election, I felt a myriad of emotions just like the rest of us that worked so hard for Obama's defeat. Some disappointment, disillusionment, and profound sadness permeated my sensibilities on that day. And when I saw her at work that morning, she (knowing I had supported McCain) saw me and was slightly guarded in the first instance of eye contact.
I immediately walked over to her and put my arm around her (in a filial way) and spoke directly to her saying, "although I didn't vote for him because of his politics, for you and especially you, I am truly happy for you. She shed a little tear and looked so relieved and gave me the biggest hug.
Another older black gentleman who I have known and worked with for years, is usually quiet, humble, and overall the nicest guy you would ever want to be around. Never has his countenance shown anger and hostility, at least not that I have ever seen. Many times it has shown some measure of melancholy, with his gait slow, and his head looking at the ground while in the hallways. But when I saw him Friday, he had a spring in his step and a smile on his face; he was walking with meaning and purpose.
For him, I also am happy. But to the little snerts with their hands out, those who haven't had to endure what this man and woman experienced, I have little joy for them.
All it has done for me is confirm what I have already known and believed, for some time now. A black person can make it in America, if they work hard. Obama may not be where I think he ought to be and I may not like his background and teachings, but I cannot deny the fact that he has worked hard for what he has achieved. Running for township trustee is time-consuming in my eyes, I can only imagine how busy he has been for the last two years.
I hope that from this point forward, all blacks can truly believe they are welcome to contribute to this society and that hard work WILL get them somewhere. Dr. Bill Cosby has believed it, Herman Cain has believed it, and countless other success stories have proved this, years ago. And there is no one person in the world happier for these two and the many others, than I am.
So now, the election is over. It is done, it is finished. Now comes the time to govern and set the tone for the next election. President-Elect Obama will get fair treatment here, just as George Bush did. His actions will be assessed, evaluated, and intelligent conclusions will be drawn and communicated, based on merit or the lack thereof.
I am LASunsett and I approved this message.
President-Elect Obama will be my president. I may not like his policies (which led me to vote and actively campaign against him), but he is the man the American people elected and he will treated as such. I will criticize every policy, every stance, which I do not think is right for America. But make no mistake, he will get a far better shake here than George Bush got at liberal blogs. If he does the right thing, I will applaud him for it. If he doesn't, then (metaphorically speaking) I will rip his head off and spit down his neck.
Every move he makes will be watched and studied closely. He has already made some bold moves in his short time as the victor and here is my take on those:
1. Appointed Rahm Emanuel as WH Chief Of Staff.
Some people do not like him because of his affiliation with the Clinton Administration. From WND (HT: AICS) comes this article.
While President-elect Barack Obama and his pick for chief of staff see eye-to-eye on domestic policy, they may find themselves arguing over foreign policy, especially when it comes to Israel, Iraq and Iran.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., who served as a captain in the Israeli army, is surprisingly hawkish when it comes to fighting the war on Islamic terror.
And unlike his new boss, he supported the war in Iraq, although he criticized President Bush for missteps.
During the campaign, one of my deep concerns was Obama's commitment to Israel. He said he would continue to support the nation, despite the fact Jesse Jackson opened his big mouth to the contrary.
Make no mistake here. Emanuel is a tax and spend liberal, when it comes to domestic policy and it is expected this will not change much. But from the WND article, it would appear Israel will still have a friend in the White House, at least during the opening days of the Obama Administration. This is good news.
2. Obama is committed to the auto industry bailout.
US President-elect Barack Obama vowed swift moves to help the country's auto industry recover from an economic crisis that has brought car-making giants to their knees, after General Motors said on Friday it was on the brink of collapse.
In one respect, I am against the government getting involved in any industry or company within that industry. I do not believe that government intervention is the answer to all issues pertaining to a free market economy. From this perspective, I am not pleased.
But this is the auto industry we are talking about. It is a key component to the industrial infrastructure of this nation. To allow this industry to suffer and even risk shutting down would be a major blow, economically and militarily. If all out war were to ever break out, we need to have the capabilities of manufacturing military vehicles on our own soil and it would be utterly foolish to job it out to foreign countries, which may oppose out efforts.
The one caveat I would bring to the discussion is simple enough. If the car companies get bailout money, they must restructure their management and fire all of the bastards that have mismanaged the situation, allowing us to get to this point. Like I said, I am not thrilled about this at all. But this is a necessary evil, at this point in time, not for union jobs as much as the other reason I have stated.
3. I will be watching how he approaches the Fairness Doctrine issue.
It is my hope that he considers this a background issue for now, with other things considered to be more important. But, being the skeptic I am, I have a feeling this will generate out of Congress and be forced upon him. The question will be, how will he receive it?
As a responsible blogger, I want to ensure that I do my part to act professionally, not like the Daily Kos and HuffPo did during GWB's term. But know this, I will hit hard on issues of freedom and liberty and this area I will consider a priority, if he takes the wrong side of this issue.
4. I believe his election is in some ways positive.
For many blacks it has been viewed as a redemption of sorts, for slavery and other abuses. No one alive today lived under enslavement, but is a fact that many still harbor resentment over it. With that said, there are many good decent (key word: many) black people alive today, who did live under unfair Jim Crow laws. I work with one such woman.
I have worked with this lady for over ten years and she is the sweetest person anyone would ever meet. She remembers being out with her parents and other family members as a little girl in Louisiana; she could not eat in certain restaurants and was relegated to sitting on the back of the bus.
On the day after the election, I felt a myriad of emotions just like the rest of us that worked so hard for Obama's defeat. Some disappointment, disillusionment, and profound sadness permeated my sensibilities on that day. And when I saw her at work that morning, she (knowing I had supported McCain) saw me and was slightly guarded in the first instance of eye contact.
I immediately walked over to her and put my arm around her (in a filial way) and spoke directly to her saying, "although I didn't vote for him because of his politics, for you and especially you, I am truly happy for you. She shed a little tear and looked so relieved and gave me the biggest hug.
Another older black gentleman who I have known and worked with for years, is usually quiet, humble, and overall the nicest guy you would ever want to be around. Never has his countenance shown anger and hostility, at least not that I have ever seen. Many times it has shown some measure of melancholy, with his gait slow, and his head looking at the ground while in the hallways. But when I saw him Friday, he had a spring in his step and a smile on his face; he was walking with meaning and purpose.
For him, I also am happy. But to the little snerts with their hands out, those who haven't had to endure what this man and woman experienced, I have little joy for them.
All it has done for me is confirm what I have already known and believed, for some time now. A black person can make it in America, if they work hard. Obama may not be where I think he ought to be and I may not like his background and teachings, but I cannot deny the fact that he has worked hard for what he has achieved. Running for township trustee is time-consuming in my eyes, I can only imagine how busy he has been for the last two years.
I hope that from this point forward, all blacks can truly believe they are welcome to contribute to this society and that hard work WILL get them somewhere. Dr. Bill Cosby has believed it, Herman Cain has believed it, and countless other success stories have proved this, years ago. And there is no one person in the world happier for these two and the many others, than I am.
So now, the election is over. It is done, it is finished. Now comes the time to govern and set the tone for the next election. President-Elect Obama will get fair treatment here, just as George Bush did. His actions will be assessed, evaluated, and intelligent conclusions will be drawn and communicated, based on merit or the lack thereof.
I am LASunsett and I approved this message.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Possibilities Of A Stable Iraq
Having turned a major corner in Iraq, there are some real possibilities for the future of the Middle East. Sure, the setbacks were not always pleasant to hear about. Yes, there have been times I had my doubts on positive outcomes.
But overall pessimism has been replaced by optimism, thanks to Gen. Petraeus and the surge that many said would not work. This is the surge that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi once said would not, could not, and was not working. This is the one that Obama said he wouldn't support even now in the face of success.
This does not mean that all is won of course. But for some intelligent expostulation, VDH's weekly column examines the real possibilities of a stable constitutional Iraq can have on the region (with some considerable caveats, as well).
But overall pessimism has been replaced by optimism, thanks to Gen. Petraeus and the surge that many said would not work. This is the surge that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi once said would not, could not, and was not working. This is the one that Obama said he wouldn't support even now in the face of success.
This does not mean that all is won of course. But for some intelligent expostulation, VDH's weekly column examines the real possibilities of a stable constitutional Iraq can have on the region (with some considerable caveats, as well).
Monday, July 14, 2008
Recap: The War On Terror
For those that have been in Rip Van Winkle status, here is a recap of a current news story that has been active for almost seven years.
News Flash:
US invades Afghanistan to remove Taliban from power.
Anti-War Crowd's Response:
We can't win in Afghanistan.
News Flash:
US invades Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Anti-War Crowd's Response:
We can't win in Iraq.
News Flash:
US sustains losses in Iraq campaign.
Anti-War Crowd's Response:
See? We told you so. We can't win in Iraq.
News Flash:
US to employ troop surge to curb Iraqi violence.
Anti-War Crowd's Response:
Won't work, we can't win in Iraq.
News Flash:
Violence decreases in Iraq, increases in Afghanistan.
Anti-War Crowd's Response:
We can't win in Afghanistan.
News Flash:
US invades Afghanistan to remove Taliban from power.
Anti-War Crowd's Response:
We can't win in Afghanistan.
News Flash:
US invades Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Anti-War Crowd's Response:
We can't win in Iraq.
News Flash:
US sustains losses in Iraq campaign.
Anti-War Crowd's Response:
See? We told you so. We can't win in Iraq.
News Flash:
US to employ troop surge to curb Iraqi violence.
Anti-War Crowd's Response:
Won't work, we can't win in Iraq.
News Flash:
Violence decreases in Iraq, increases in Afghanistan.
Anti-War Crowd's Response:
We can't win in Afghanistan.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
News In Brief (And The Usual Opinionated Commentary)
Sen. Boxer Accuses White House Of Climate Change Cover-Up
We've come a long way, baby. Before this, there were accusations about WH cover-ups on WMDs, the WTC attacks, and the Valerie Plame affair. Now we have this. But that's not the funny part to all of this. The irony here lies with the fact that Boxer is a member of an institution which is currently pulling in only a whopping 9% favorability rating, in a recent Rasmussen performance poll.
With the ironic part out of the way, we can feel free to consider the sad part of this tragic tale: Most of these clowns will be re-elected.
Iraq Insists On Time Tables For Withdrawal
Assuming this bozo has any authority in this area, I say fine. If that is what they want, let them have it.
I wouldn't make the specifics public, but if they want time tables for withdrawal, I say give it to them. In fact, pull the damn troops out now for all I care. And when their country comes under siege from Iranian-backed insurgents, don't come crying to us. If Al Qaeda or other such outfits become emboldened and begin wreaking havoc on the Iraqi people and, killing their children again, they can solve the crisis themselves.
Personally, I am sick of helping people that do not appreciate it. Let them milk the EU for assistance, let them see how far that gets them. The US needs to start negotiating from a position of power, and that includes tactics like calling other nations' bluffs.
Obama To Give Acceptance Speech At Mile High Stadium
Delusions of being the next JFK aside, Obama is now convinced that by showing 75,000 screaming fans he can further use the media to paint an exaggerated image of his support base. This is a base that may become more disenchanted with him for triangulating toward the center before the convention ends.
Will he pack the stadium? Probably. Will it win him the election? Maybe, maybe not. It's too early to tell right now.
The real question (come November) will be, can he articulate a coherent plan to implement the grandiose ideas he and his campaign have been fervently promoting throughout the campaign, thus far? So far he hasn't. And until he learns to take hard questions from not so enamored journalists, he will be nothing more than a straw man that the media has built. But unfortunately, this may be just enough to sway weak-minded individuals that cannot see through the rhetoric and empty words he uses, to mesmerize the dumb masses.
A leading U.S. Senate Democrat accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of a "cover-up" aimed at stopping the Environmental Protection Agency from tackling greenhouse emissions.
"This cover-up is being directed from the White House and the office of the vice president," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
We've come a long way, baby. Before this, there were accusations about WH cover-ups on WMDs, the WTC attacks, and the Valerie Plame affair. Now we have this. But that's not the funny part to all of this. The irony here lies with the fact that Boxer is a member of an institution which is currently pulling in only a whopping 9% favorability rating, in a recent Rasmussen performance poll.
With the ironic part out of the way, we can feel free to consider the sad part of this tragic tale: Most of these clowns will be re-elected.
Iraq Insists On Time Tables For Withdrawal
Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.
Assuming this bozo has any authority in this area, I say fine. If that is what they want, let them have it.
I wouldn't make the specifics public, but if they want time tables for withdrawal, I say give it to them. In fact, pull the damn troops out now for all I care. And when their country comes under siege from Iranian-backed insurgents, don't come crying to us. If Al Qaeda or other such outfits become emboldened and begin wreaking havoc on the Iraqi people and, killing their children again, they can solve the crisis themselves.
Personally, I am sick of helping people that do not appreciate it. Let them milk the EU for assistance, let them see how far that gets them. The US needs to start negotiating from a position of power, and that includes tactics like calling other nations' bluffs.
Obama To Give Acceptance Speech At Mile High Stadium
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will leave the hall of the Democratic National Convention in Denver and deliver a rock-star-style acceptance speech at nearby Invesco Field at Mile High, quadrupling his live audience, the party announced Monday.
The speech, in the stadium that is home of the Denver Broncos, will be on the fourth and final night of the convention, Aug. 28.
Adding to the historic resonance of the first nomination of an African-American for president, that date is the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech.”
The move means additional expense for the television networks, where executives are having a conference call Monday to discuss the logistics of moving their cameras and anchors to the new location after months of planning for a finale in the smaller Pepsi Center, where the rest of the convention will be held.
Delusions of being the next JFK aside, Obama is now convinced that by showing 75,000 screaming fans he can further use the media to paint an exaggerated image of his support base. This is a base that may become more disenchanted with him for triangulating toward the center before the convention ends.
Will he pack the stadium? Probably. Will it win him the election? Maybe, maybe not. It's too early to tell right now.
The real question (come November) will be, can he articulate a coherent plan to implement the grandiose ideas he and his campaign have been fervently promoting throughout the campaign, thus far? So far he hasn't. And until he learns to take hard questions from not so enamored journalists, he will be nothing more than a straw man that the media has built. But unfortunately, this may be just enough to sway weak-minded individuals that cannot see through the rhetoric and empty words he uses, to mesmerize the dumb masses.
Friday, June 13, 2008
State Of The Mission: Afghanistan
I stumbled on a funny (but yet in some ways very sad) video dedicated to the "cut and run" from Iraq crowd.
But before you cut and run out on this blogpost to watch it, allow me to share something with you.
Much of the cut and run crowd has used the excuse that we have severely neglected our commitment in Afghanistan, for what has been termed "Bush's war for oil. They claim we are losing in Afghanistan because our resources are overly committed to Iraq away from where the "real threat of terrorism" exists. And if we would only begin withdrawing from Iraq after Obama is sworn in, things will miraculously go our way.
Well, here are the words of a commanding officer (a family member of the Sunsett household) of a sizable organizational unit assigned to Afghanistan for the specific purpose of weeding out Taliban and eliminating them:
It's been a tough road, for sure. And we can make a good argument that the Administration didn't take into account some potential unintended and unforeseen consequences. As a result, it's taken longer than we were all led to believe. But progress is being made and to "cut and run" after all of this hard work would be the epitome of stupidity.
But before you cut and run out on this blogpost to watch it, allow me to share something with you.
Much of the cut and run crowd has used the excuse that we have severely neglected our commitment in Afghanistan, for what has been termed "Bush's war for oil. They claim we are losing in Afghanistan because our resources are overly committed to Iraq away from where the "real threat of terrorism" exists. And if we would only begin withdrawing from Iraq after Obama is sworn in, things will miraculously go our way.
Well, here are the words of a commanding officer (a family member of the Sunsett household) of a sizable organizational unit assigned to Afghanistan for the specific purpose of weeding out Taliban and eliminating them:
"...I can tell you with complete honesty and all confidence that we are truly breaking the back of the Taliban and as long as we keep the operational pressure up and keep hitting them where it hurts them the most, we can start rebuilding this country in earnest by this time next year."
It's been a tough road, for sure. And we can make a good argument that the Administration didn't take into account some potential unintended and unforeseen consequences. As a result, it's taken longer than we were all led to believe. But progress is being made and to "cut and run" after all of this hard work would be the epitome of stupidity.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
PYY Sunday Reader
Here are a few articles that may be worth a look, when you get a moment:
Tsar Putin's Move Toward Fascism?
This one is from the Daily Mail. Comparisons and contrasts are found in this article about Putin's reign as President of Russia and his future role of Prime Minister. A bit lengthy and well-written, this one definitely contains some things to consider.
Jean Sarkozy, A President's Son Is Active.
With France being anything but a monolithic society, I am not sure all French will agree with the contents of this London Times piece. This article describes Nicolas Sarkozy's politically active son and the ambitions he may or may not have.
The China Challenge
Despite the recent tragedy that has killed many people in the heart of China, this WSJ article raises some cause for concern. My heart certainly goes out to the individuals that have suffered great loss, but like the author of this piece, I too am very skeptical of the Chinese government.
(HT: Amerloque)
VDH's Latest Essay
This one deals with a war of words over the war in Iraq. In any conflict or endeavor of any kind, there are bound to be unintended consequences. Unfortunately, we live in a finger pointing and blame placing world that must assign full responsibility to honest mistakes made by fallible human beings. Someone must take the fall for negative outcomes and in the process, some defensive blame projections do occur. This article Mr. Hanson outlines his views on the mistakes made in the Iraq War and why we are being confronted with the excuses well-before the final outcome is known.
Tsar Putin's Move Toward Fascism?
This one is from the Daily Mail. Comparisons and contrasts are found in this article about Putin's reign as President of Russia and his future role of Prime Minister. A bit lengthy and well-written, this one definitely contains some things to consider.
Jean Sarkozy, A President's Son Is Active.
With France being anything but a monolithic society, I am not sure all French will agree with the contents of this London Times piece. This article describes Nicolas Sarkozy's politically active son and the ambitions he may or may not have.
The China Challenge
Despite the recent tragedy that has killed many people in the heart of China, this WSJ article raises some cause for concern. My heart certainly goes out to the individuals that have suffered great loss, but like the author of this piece, I too am very skeptical of the Chinese government.
(HT: Amerloque)
VDH's Latest Essay
This one deals with a war of words over the war in Iraq. In any conflict or endeavor of any kind, there are bound to be unintended consequences. Unfortunately, we live in a finger pointing and blame placing world that must assign full responsibility to honest mistakes made by fallible human beings. Someone must take the fall for negative outcomes and in the process, some defensive blame projections do occur. This article Mr. Hanson outlines his views on the mistakes made in the Iraq War and why we are being confronted with the excuses well-before the final outcome is known.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Winning A War
No doubt, you have heard of the book How To Win Friends And Influence People by Dale Carnegie. If I were to title this post out long-hand, it whould read How To Win A War And Make It Look Like A Loss or How To Lose A War, Even Though We Are Winning. Either one is fitting, or could be a subtitle for the other.
The writer of this book could be one of many: George Soros, Michael Moore, or even Barack Obama himself (just to name a few). They all subscribe to the same ideology. So. when we review the Left Wing's many statements/claims over the past five years, we can see many of these people that share this "collective" philosophy have been promoting this myth for the duration.
Even today with al Qaida Iraq and the Mahdi Army on the ropes, we hear that we are in a war that we cannot win. We hear that in a Hillary or Obama presidency, we can certainly expect immediate withdrawal, beginning within the first few months of either candidate's administration.
Well, here's something that doesn't happen when an enemy is winning the war. Take a look at this article about the al Qaida #2's latest recruiting drive.
What this says is not easy to decipher, if one is biased or incredibly dull in the critical thinking department. If there was no way to win this war, why would Zawahiri be chastising Muslims for NOT supporting jihad against the infidel Americans? Normally when an enemy (as given over to lies and propaganda as these are) is winning they proclaim it from the rooftops and from every corner. Even when they aren't winning, they usually proclaim that they are (SEE: Baghdad Bob).
But here, AQ sounds very desperate for volunteers. They seem to understand that many of their brothers have been killed or captured. They see the Iraqis purging the enemies of the Iraqi state and it is well-known they are doing it systematically, one by one, and doing it with less American intervention. First, AQ was severely weakened and now, we are seeing the Mahdi Army taking its hits. This cannot spell success for anyone other than the Iraqi nation.
Last year at this time, the Left was proclaiming the Iraqis were incapable of policing themselves and were in the midst of a civil war, created by George Bush's illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Even I was beginning to have doubts about the ability of the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. But today, there is success despite the fact that there are still some setbacks from time to time. If there wasn't, we would not be hearing this kind of plea from Zawahiri or anyone else involved in international terrorism.
Additionally, there are threats coming from the coward insurgent leader al Sadr while he is based in Iran. Why? Because he knows that his cause is losing more and more influence, as more of his army is killed or captured for failing to disarm.
With all of this fragility abounding at the same time so much progress has been made in the critical areas, why the hell would any intelligent person even begin to entertain the notion of pulling out now?
The writer of this book could be one of many: George Soros, Michael Moore, or even Barack Obama himself (just to name a few). They all subscribe to the same ideology. So. when we review the Left Wing's many statements/claims over the past five years, we can see many of these people that share this "collective" philosophy have been promoting this myth for the duration.
Even today with al Qaida Iraq and the Mahdi Army on the ropes, we hear that we are in a war that we cannot win. We hear that in a Hillary or Obama presidency, we can certainly expect immediate withdrawal, beginning within the first few months of either candidate's administration.
Well, here's something that doesn't happen when an enemy is winning the war. Take a look at this article about the al Qaida #2's latest recruiting drive.
Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri criticised Muslims for failing to support Islamist insurgencies in Iraq and elsewhere in a new audiotape posted Tuesday on the Internet.
What this says is not easy to decipher, if one is biased or incredibly dull in the critical thinking department. If there was no way to win this war, why would Zawahiri be chastising Muslims for NOT supporting jihad against the infidel Americans? Normally when an enemy (as given over to lies and propaganda as these are) is winning they proclaim it from the rooftops and from every corner. Even when they aren't winning, they usually proclaim that they are (SEE: Baghdad Bob).
But here, AQ sounds very desperate for volunteers. They seem to understand that many of their brothers have been killed or captured. They see the Iraqis purging the enemies of the Iraqi state and it is well-known they are doing it systematically, one by one, and doing it with less American intervention. First, AQ was severely weakened and now, we are seeing the Mahdi Army taking its hits. This cannot spell success for anyone other than the Iraqi nation.
Last year at this time, the Left was proclaiming the Iraqis were incapable of policing themselves and were in the midst of a civil war, created by George Bush's illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Even I was beginning to have doubts about the ability of the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. But today, there is success despite the fact that there are still some setbacks from time to time. If there wasn't, we would not be hearing this kind of plea from Zawahiri or anyone else involved in international terrorism.
Additionally, there are threats coming from the coward insurgent leader al Sadr while he is based in Iran. Why? Because he knows that his cause is losing more and more influence, as more of his army is killed or captured for failing to disarm.
With all of this fragility abounding at the same time so much progress has been made in the critical areas, why the hell would any intelligent person even begin to entertain the notion of pulling out now?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
What They Said
I lifted these from the front page of the Indianapolis Star, Wednesday. They were sound bites from the first day of the Petraeus hearings. All three candidates were in attendance, all three had much to say (which is customary in this situation).
Hillary Clinton:
The wrong plan.
A premature disastrous departure makes no sense for the long term stability of the region. She knows it and would have no trouble going back on this promise. She's just playing to the anti-war base. The trouble is, she'd leave them there only to screw it up worse than it already is.
Barack Obama:
No plan.
He's still arguing the case against the war. But it's not a valid argument for the present or the future, it's about what we cannot change now.
Even if it were the biggest blunder ever, the fact remains we are there. If we leave before the job is done, we risk certain instability and the further strengthening of Iran's influence. Now that we see Iraq's Army pushing back at the Mahdi Army, we can truly see some progress (however overdue it may be).
John McCain:
A better plan than the other two.
The only thing I would say different is, the can should be replaced with may. Other than this minor deviation, this is certainly a more sensible way of looking at what we have in our hands right now. It is much more accurate account.
Question: How far can you run into the woods?
Answer: Halfway. Because then, you would be running out of the woods.
Hillary Clinton:
I think it's time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military.
The wrong plan.
A premature disastrous departure makes no sense for the long term stability of the region. She knows it and would have no trouble going back on this promise. She's just playing to the anti-war base. The trouble is, she'd leave them there only to screw it up worse than it already is.
Barack Obama:
I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder.
No plan.
He's still arguing the case against the war. But it's not a valid argument for the present or the future, it's about what we cannot change now.
Even if it were the biggest blunder ever, the fact remains we are there. If we leave before the job is done, we risk certain instability and the further strengthening of Iran's influence. Now that we see Iraq's Army pushing back at the Mahdi Army, we can truly see some progress (however overdue it may be).
John McCain:
We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success.
A better plan than the other two.
The only thing I would say different is, the can should be replaced with may. Other than this minor deviation, this is certainly a more sensible way of looking at what we have in our hands right now. It is much more accurate account.
Question: How far can you run into the woods?
Answer: Halfway. Because then, you would be running out of the woods.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Inconsistency And Common Sense: The Battle Of Basra
While analyzing the recent Basra confrontation in which the Iraqi Army confronted al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, the usual assessments are flowing from those associated with the anti-war movement. Take Juan Cole's recent essay that appeared in Salon Magazine (which is considered one of the more liberal publications) for instance.
Negativity permeates this article, much as we would expect from anyone that is critical of the Iraq War. I think this is mainly because Mr. Cole has made his name by communicating his belief that the current Iraq is a failed state. His commentary is well-known and respected in the circles that are against the war and to backtrack now would embarrass him greatly, in his academic circles. So, he continues to march, in the hope that he can influence perceptions of the outcome (if not the outcomes, themselves).
In his essay and speaking of the cease-fire, Mr. Cole expostulates:
As any person that is predisposed to certain biases, Mr. Cole communicates his assessment without regards to the analysis that directly contradicts his own. Take this recent column by Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette into consideration, and you'll see what I mean.
Speaking of the cease fire called for by al-Sadr, he both poses and answers this question:
It doesn't sound that way to me, either.
How hard was the Mahdi Army getting hit? Mr. Kelly goes on to say (citing Mr Roggio):
By lumping the number of casualties into one number (hoping the reader will not ask the pertinent questions that most critical thinkers would in this case), or by making a biased and inaccurate assessment (as Mr. Cole does in his essay), one thing rings true. Who you believe may be dependent on who you want to believe. If you want the Iraqi state to fail so you can blame George Bush, you will subscribe to typical media accounts and those essays put forth by people like Mr. Cole. if you want the truth, you will wait and read all accounts, before jumping to conclusions.
And just to take it a step further, I will pose another question for consideration in your pondering calculations: Why would al-Sadr offer a cease fire if the Mahdis were winning?
Common sense would dictate that the one that offers the cease fire is usually the one getting hit, the hardest. Wouldn't it?
Negativity permeates this article, much as we would expect from anyone that is critical of the Iraq War. I think this is mainly because Mr. Cole has made his name by communicating his belief that the current Iraq is a failed state. His commentary is well-known and respected in the circles that are against the war and to backtrack now would embarrass him greatly, in his academic circles. So, he continues to march, in the hope that he can influence perceptions of the outcome (if not the outcomes, themselves).
In his essay and speaking of the cease-fire, Mr. Cole expostulates:
By the time the cease-fire was called, al-Maliki had been bloodied after days of ineffective fighting and welcomed a way back from the precipice. Both Iran, which brokered the agreement, and al-Sadr, whose forces acquitted themselves well against the government, were strengthened.
As any person that is predisposed to certain biases, Mr. Cole communicates his assessment without regards to the analysis that directly contradicts his own. Take this recent column by Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette into consideration, and you'll see what I mean.
Speaking of the cease fire called for by al-Sadr, he both poses and answers this question:
Why might Mr. al Sadr have sought a cease fire? "Sources in Basra tell TIME that there has been a large scale retreat in the oil-rich port city because of low morale and because ammunition is low due to the closure of the Iranian border," TIME reported Sunday.
"They were running short of ammunition, food and water," a U.S. military officer told Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal. "In short, (the Mahdi army) had no ability to sustain the effort."
That sure doesn't sound like al Sadr's forces were winning.
It doesn't sound that way to me, either.
How hard was the Mahdi Army getting hit? Mr. Kelly goes on to say (citing Mr Roggio):
His sources in the U.S. military tell him the Mahdi army was getting pounded, Bill Roggio said. "According to an unofficial tally... 571 Mahdi army fighters have been killed, 881 have been wounded, 490 have been captured, and 30 have surrendered over the course of seven days of fighting." "The U.S. and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties at such a high rate during the height of major combat operations against al Qaida in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007," he said. The Mahdi army has won by surviving, media analysts say. But it seems apparent the Mahdi army survived by quitting.
By lumping the number of casualties into one number (hoping the reader will not ask the pertinent questions that most critical thinkers would in this case), or by making a biased and inaccurate assessment (as Mr. Cole does in his essay), one thing rings true. Who you believe may be dependent on who you want to believe. If you want the Iraqi state to fail so you can blame George Bush, you will subscribe to typical media accounts and those essays put forth by people like Mr. Cole. if you want the truth, you will wait and read all accounts, before jumping to conclusions.
And just to take it a step further, I will pose another question for consideration in your pondering calculations: Why would al-Sadr offer a cease fire if the Mahdis were winning?
Common sense would dictate that the one that offers the cease fire is usually the one getting hit, the hardest. Wouldn't it?
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Two Bright Shining Examples Of Ignorance
A couple of examples of idiocy:
Example Number One
This morning in the Indy Star I read this account of the visit by Bill Clinton in Bloomington, home of the prestigious Indiana University, which gladly sucks up my tax dollars to educate but instead turns out some of the biggest idiots in the world. Here is the part that really demonstrates my point (emphasis is mine):
There are many things I could say about this, I could write several paragraphs driving this home. But this is (certainly and by far) enough to illustrate my claim.
Example Number Two
From the esteemed Politico comes this article.
Basically, what Pelosi is saying here:
Do not say anything that does not conform with the image of what we want to portray is currently happening in Iraq. Never mind the truth, you must say what we think is real, regardless of the facts.
Example Number One
This morning in the Indy Star I read this account of the visit by Bill Clinton in Bloomington, home of the prestigious Indiana University, which gladly sucks up my tax dollars to educate but instead turns out some of the biggest idiots in the world. Here is the part that really demonstrates my point (emphasis is mine):
It was an unexpected showdown of surrogates for Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton here Wednesday, and it sure looked like Obama's representative whipped up the most excitement.
As former President Bill Clinton was extolling his wife's credentials, Obama's campaign office in Bloomington began giving away tickets to Sunday's Dave Matthews concert at Assembly Hall.
Jason Schechtman, 19, Deerfield, Ill., a student at IU, got his tickets about 8 p.m. after waiting more than three hours. He met folks in line who said they'd left the Clinton rally to wait for tickets.
"I was leaning toward Obama, but this sealed the deal for sure," he said. "The Obama campaign announced this right as (Bill Clinton) was about to speak, and it brought everyone from over there to over here."
There are many things I could say about this, I could write several paragraphs driving this home. But this is (certainly and by far) enough to illustrate my claim.
Example Number Two
From the esteemed Politico comes this article.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.
“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.
Basically, what Pelosi is saying here:
Do not say anything that does not conform with the image of what we want to portray is currently happening in Iraq. Never mind the truth, you must say what we think is real, regardless of the facts.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Another Terrorist Tale
Guest Post written by Greg, a PYY regular.
An interesting anti-terrorist trial just finished up. The defendants: at least four men of Arab descent living in a large city, and belonging to a terrorist cell that sent men to Iraq to kill Americans.
The two ring leaders recruited young men with the same objective, according to the prosecutor: making jihad against the Americans in Iraq. They got 8 years in prison, 2/3 of it guaranteed.
One of the men – Mohammen El Ayouni – who managed to reach Iraq and fight against the Marines in Fallouja, lost an eye and an arm there. He claimed to have saved a woman and her children from a bombed house, though, as the prosecutor noted, the house never would have been bombed were it not for the presence of “terrorists” like Ayouni. He got four years in prison.
Two other men were arrested just before their departure for Iraq. Their sentence is three years in prison.
Ayouni’s defense lawyer claimed that these were “above all else, a group of friends who empathized with people who were suffering in a country where American military intervention has killed thousands of civilians.” The defendants claimed without proof that they were tortured while in custody.
The prosecutor, for his part, said there was no doubt about the defendant’s “terrorist motivations” and stressed that “claiming that the American military intervention in Iraq was illegal does not suffice to excuse these men, who adherence to a group that resorted to suicide bombings is incompatible with fundamental international human rights law.”
Prison sentences for men who had not actually picked up weapon. Claims by the defendants of torture and arbitrary detention. Claims by terrorists that they are simple humanitarians. Sounds like a typical trial in the context of the “war on terror.” Except that this trial didn’t take place in New York or Miami or Chicago. It took place in Paris.
(French Text: Here)
An interesting anti-terrorist trial just finished up. The defendants: at least four men of Arab descent living in a large city, and belonging to a terrorist cell that sent men to Iraq to kill Americans.
The two ring leaders recruited young men with the same objective, according to the prosecutor: making jihad against the Americans in Iraq. They got 8 years in prison, 2/3 of it guaranteed.
One of the men – Mohammen El Ayouni – who managed to reach Iraq and fight against the Marines in Fallouja, lost an eye and an arm there. He claimed to have saved a woman and her children from a bombed house, though, as the prosecutor noted, the house never would have been bombed were it not for the presence of “terrorists” like Ayouni. He got four years in prison.
Two other men were arrested just before their departure for Iraq. Their sentence is three years in prison.
Ayouni’s defense lawyer claimed that these were “above all else, a group of friends who empathized with people who were suffering in a country where American military intervention has killed thousands of civilians.” The defendants claimed without proof that they were tortured while in custody.
The prosecutor, for his part, said there was no doubt about the defendant’s “terrorist motivations” and stressed that “claiming that the American military intervention in Iraq was illegal does not suffice to excuse these men, who adherence to a group that resorted to suicide bombings is incompatible with fundamental international human rights law.”
Prison sentences for men who had not actually picked up weapon. Claims by the defendants of torture and arbitrary detention. Claims by terrorists that they are simple humanitarians. Sounds like a typical trial in the context of the “war on terror.” Except that this trial didn’t take place in New York or Miami or Chicago. It took place in Paris.
(French Text: Here)
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Al Sadr Orders Mahdi Army Cease Fire
By now most people have heard of the renewed fighting between Al Sadr's Mahdi Army and Iraqi government forces (backed up by U.S. forces). The truce he called for at the time of the surge had been called off and the Shiite-led, Iranian-backed terrorist group had been fighting in Baghdad and Basra.
Well today, the NYT is reporting that Al Sadr has issued some conditions for a new truce.
Interesting wording here, especially when you consider the NYT owns the IHT, and the IHT is offering a different wording (which they credit to Reuters and the AP):
This all comes as an interesting twist.
Last week we were hearing President Bush saying things like this was a "defining moment" in Iraqi history, which is precisely why this report of a new truce is makes it even more puzzling. The way things were sounding, the Iraqis (with whatever assistance we needed to provide) were taking charge of the lion's share of their own security. On the surface, it appeared that the final push was on to eliminate all measurable enemies of the new Iraqi state.
Trying to make sense of this is even more difficult, if a person doesn't know the backdrop to this.
From Time Magazine comes this article.
As the article goes on to say, there are still about 4,000 (or so) British forces stationed outside of Basra that have not been fully engaged in this operation. In fact, the implication here is, as British troops draw down, struggles between these three groups are beginning to form. Basra police have been unable to handle this form of urban gang warfare, because they were not adequately trained, nor were they appropriately armed to take on these better trained and armed gangs of thugs.
So by the orders of the Iraqi PM, enter the Iraqi forces to make some headway into this. It had been reported to be a little more difficult than first thought. No doubt some were thinking that it would fail, with others undoubtedly thinking it wouldn't. Who you believe would depend on which view you already subscribe to, the "we cannot win this war" crowd or the ones that believe we can.
With the Sunni supported insurgency and Al Qaida severely crippled in Iraq, it is now important that those in the Shiite factions be disarmed, if Iraq is to have a chance to survive after any form of U.S. withdrawal. But as of this writing, this still hasn't happened.
But what happened? Why has Al Sadr seemingly reversed course, when late last week he seemed so sure he could fight back this response from the government?
The Long War Journal may provide some understanding, in this article.
I think Al Sadr has seen the writing on the wall. He has come to the conclusion that his resistance will not succeed at this point in time, especially when there are rival groups competing for the same disaffected Shiites, with the same stated objectives. If he is to ever wield any influence or power in the new Iraq, he cannot afford to engage the U.S.-backed Iraqi forces at this time. If he does, he could lose a lot more of his followers, rendering him virtually impotent in bargaining chips.
So, what's he do? Why, he does what every great Middle Eastern wannabe does when this happens. He calls for a truce or cease-fire so he can re-arm, readjust, and rethink his strategy. And like a fool, Maliki lets him off of the hook (just like we did, when we had him holed up in a mosque with a significant lesser following).
Some lessons to learn from this are:
1. Withdrawal before Iraq is able to sustain their own security, will guarantee the same reaction nationwide, as what has occurred in Basra after the British turned it over. just think of what is happening in Basra, as a microcosm of the entire nation, if we withdraw our forces prematurely.
2. Making deals with Al Sadr are only temporary, he cannot be trusted to fulfill long term agreements. He is young and has time to wait things out. Leaving his militia alone will only serve as a temporary solution. Either fight them now, or fight them later. But understand that they will need to be fought, if Iraq is to ever be stabilized enough to withdraw the vast majority of U.S forces.
3. Electing Obama or Hillary will screw things up worse than it is now, if they make good on their claim to begin immediate withdrawals after taking office. In effect, Iraq will be turned over to Iran and the proxy groups that are already doing their dirty work, groups like the Mahdi Army.
Well today, the NYT is reporting that Al Sadr has issued some conditions for a new truce.
The Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr on Sunday took a step toward ending six days of intense combat between his militia allies and Iraqi and American forces in Basra and Baghdad, saying in a statement that his followers would lay down their arms providing the Iraqi government met a series of demands.
Interesting wording here, especially when you consider the NYT owns the IHT, and the IHT is offering a different wording (which they credit to Reuters and the AP):
The Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr said Sunday that he was pulling his fighters off the streets of Iraq and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and to free those it had arrested.
"Because of religious responsibility and to stop Iraqi blood being shed," Sadr said in a nine-point statement given to journalists in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, "we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces."
This all comes as an interesting twist.
Last week we were hearing President Bush saying things like this was a "defining moment" in Iraqi history, which is precisely why this report of a new truce is makes it even more puzzling. The way things were sounding, the Iraqis (with whatever assistance we needed to provide) were taking charge of the lion's share of their own security. On the surface, it appeared that the final push was on to eliminate all measurable enemies of the new Iraqi state.
Trying to make sense of this is even more difficult, if a person doesn't know the backdrop to this.
From Time Magazine comes this article.
For much of the past three years, the Iraqi government has had little influence over Basra. As British troops have steadily withdrawn from the city, it has fallen into the control of three major Shi'ite militias — Moqtada al'Sadr's Mahdi Army, the Iran-backed Badr Brigades and a local group associated with the Fadila Party. The three have recently fought turf battles over large swaths of the city, claiming hundreds of lives.
As the article goes on to say, there are still about 4,000 (or so) British forces stationed outside of Basra that have not been fully engaged in this operation. In fact, the implication here is, as British troops draw down, struggles between these three groups are beginning to form. Basra police have been unable to handle this form of urban gang warfare, because they were not adequately trained, nor were they appropriately armed to take on these better trained and armed gangs of thugs.
So by the orders of the Iraqi PM, enter the Iraqi forces to make some headway into this. It had been reported to be a little more difficult than first thought. No doubt some were thinking that it would fail, with others undoubtedly thinking it wouldn't. Who you believe would depend on which view you already subscribe to, the "we cannot win this war" crowd or the ones that believe we can.
With the Sunni supported insurgency and Al Qaida severely crippled in Iraq, it is now important that those in the Shiite factions be disarmed, if Iraq is to have a chance to survive after any form of U.S. withdrawal. But as of this writing, this still hasn't happened.
But what happened? Why has Al Sadr seemingly reversed course, when late last week he seemed so sure he could fight back this response from the government?
The Long War Journal may provide some understanding, in this article.
With the fifth day of fighting in Baghdad, Basrah and the South completed, the Mahdi Army has suffered major losses over the past 36 hours. The Mahdi Army has not fared well over the past five days of fighting, losing an estimated two percent of its combat power, using the best case estimate for the size of the militia.
A look at the open source press reports from the US and Iraqi military and the established newspapers indicates 145 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 81 were wounded, 98 were captured, and 30 surrendered during the past 36 hours.
Since the fighting began on Tuesday 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basra.
While the size of the Mahdi Army is a constant source of debate, media accounts often put the Mahdi Army at anywhere from 40,000 to 60,000 fighters. With an estimated 1,000 Mahdi fighters killed, captured, wounded and surrendered, the Mahdi Army has taken an attrition rate of 1.5 to 2.5 percent over the past five days.
I think Al Sadr has seen the writing on the wall. He has come to the conclusion that his resistance will not succeed at this point in time, especially when there are rival groups competing for the same disaffected Shiites, with the same stated objectives. If he is to ever wield any influence or power in the new Iraq, he cannot afford to engage the U.S.-backed Iraqi forces at this time. If he does, he could lose a lot more of his followers, rendering him virtually impotent in bargaining chips.
So, what's he do? Why, he does what every great Middle Eastern wannabe does when this happens. He calls for a truce or cease-fire so he can re-arm, readjust, and rethink his strategy. And like a fool, Maliki lets him off of the hook (just like we did, when we had him holed up in a mosque with a significant lesser following).
Some lessons to learn from this are:
1. Withdrawal before Iraq is able to sustain their own security, will guarantee the same reaction nationwide, as what has occurred in Basra after the British turned it over. just think of what is happening in Basra, as a microcosm of the entire nation, if we withdraw our forces prematurely.
2. Making deals with Al Sadr are only temporary, he cannot be trusted to fulfill long term agreements. He is young and has time to wait things out. Leaving his militia alone will only serve as a temporary solution. Either fight them now, or fight them later. But understand that they will need to be fought, if Iraq is to ever be stabilized enough to withdraw the vast majority of U.S forces.
3. Electing Obama or Hillary will screw things up worse than it is now, if they make good on their claim to begin immediate withdrawals after taking office. In effect, Iraq will be turned over to Iran and the proxy groups that are already doing their dirty work, groups like the Mahdi Army.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Got Hope?
I just read an article by someone who does.
These words were not written by the usual kind of author. It's not John McCain, George Bush, Karl Rove or some other warmongering neocon. The truth is, it was written by Angelina Jolie. In this instance, Ms. Jolie has a good grasp on the situation.
Normally, I wouldn't be so eager to dump a wad of cash like she's wanting, unless the cause is worthy. Like Gen. Powell once said, "If we break it, we pay for it."
By removing Saddam, a vacuum has been created. The vacuum is being filled and gets closer all the time. But looming in the distance, Iran is more than willing to fill that vacuum if we were to leave. This would throw the region into more turmoil than at any time up to this point.
Obama's plans for Iraq are flawed. The outcomes from implementing his immediate withdrawal would recreate this void. And just to pour salt on the wound, he would even sit down with someone that would certainly love to fill it, if we left prematurely.
As Ms. Jolie says in her essay, conditions are getting better and the time is right to begin implementing some initiatives that will further stabilize the Iraqi government, and provide relief for the people.
Folks, like it or not, it's the only way this has a chance to be resolved with true peace as a realistic outcome. This is how you move on. This is the only hope the Iraqis know. In reality, it's the only hope for the world. Fail here, it all goes (even further) south afterward.
Ask yourself as you crawl into your warm bed at night: Do you really want to help these people, or do you hate George Bush enough to tear down whatever good has been done, and in some cases prevent it from ever happening? Obama's plan will do just that.
Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?
What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.
As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.
These words were not written by the usual kind of author. It's not John McCain, George Bush, Karl Rove or some other warmongering neocon. The truth is, it was written by Angelina Jolie. In this instance, Ms. Jolie has a good grasp on the situation.
Normally, I wouldn't be so eager to dump a wad of cash like she's wanting, unless the cause is worthy. Like Gen. Powell once said, "If we break it, we pay for it."
By removing Saddam, a vacuum has been created. The vacuum is being filled and gets closer all the time. But looming in the distance, Iran is more than willing to fill that vacuum if we were to leave. This would throw the region into more turmoil than at any time up to this point.
Obama's plans for Iraq are flawed. The outcomes from implementing his immediate withdrawal would recreate this void. And just to pour salt on the wound, he would even sit down with someone that would certainly love to fill it, if we left prematurely.
As Ms. Jolie says in her essay, conditions are getting better and the time is right to begin implementing some initiatives that will further stabilize the Iraqi government, and provide relief for the people.
Folks, like it or not, it's the only way this has a chance to be resolved with true peace as a realistic outcome. This is how you move on. This is the only hope the Iraqis know. In reality, it's the only hope for the world. Fail here, it all goes (even further) south afterward.
Ask yourself as you crawl into your warm bed at night: Do you really want to help these people, or do you hate George Bush enough to tear down whatever good has been done, and in some cases prevent it from ever happening? Obama's plan will do just that.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Tales Of Exaggeration And Extrapolation: Iraqi Death Totals
Hollywood has a way of telling a story. Even in the most factually-based tales, there usually seems to be an element of added drama and exaggeration to make the films more palatable and watchable.
Take actress Sharon Stone's recent complaint to an Arab newspaper, for instance.
I read this and then wondered how so many people, like Ms. Stone could fall for such an outlandish figure as 600,000. So, I typed in a search of "600,000 Iraqi deaths" and here is what I found. In this search, we find articles from the NY Times and USA Today. In all of the articles that turn up in this search, the root of this figure is a study done in 2006 by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
From the the NYT article (emphasis is mine):
The word extrapolate is defined as :
When one sees this word, one must be reasonably cautious of the conclusions being drawn, in a given piece of information. This is especially true when dealing with matters that are presented as fact, with no real hard evidence to support it.
In the case of this study, the NYT ran with this story without much thought as to the reader's ability to put it into the proper perspective. Subsequently, many like Ms. Stone have come away with this as a credible establishment of fact. Granted, the onus of responsibility lies squarely with the reader. But, too many people that are predisposed to believe this study (because they want to) and those that are too busy to do their own research and analysis are going to come away with this as, a firmly established truth.
I doubt the NYT is the only news outlet that did this. But as we can see from the USA Today article covering the same story, there is some reasonable attempt to put this into a comparative perspective with other sources:
The Iraqi and U.S. governments may have reason to skew the number downward, but the Brookings Institute is hardly a tool of either government. And if anything, it may be predisposed to be critical of both.
So, where does one go when one wants better information in this area? The Iraqi Body Count (IBC) website is an objective source of information. Keeping in mind that the articles reporting on the study were written in 2006, the IBC puts today's total in the 80,000 range.
Why is there such disparity in claims?
Again, from the USA Today's article:
The methodology from IBC:
The key word here is documented.
Sampling from Iraqi households is not the preferred method of reaching an established truth for many reasons. The same holds true of any survey, where documentation is not used.
As for the total reached by IBC, 88,000 is still a lot of people. But it does not lie squarely at the feet of the coalition forces. Many of those deaths were caused by the insurgency, Iraqi-led, Al Qaida-led, or others. Even if the Johns Hopkins figures were accurate, it still begs for perspective. One only needs to contrast that number with the 55 million killed in WWII and they can clearly see the difference (if they are truly objective, that is).
So, the next time you hear someone say there has been 600,000 Iraqis killed since the beginning of the war, you can know with some certainty that the person throwing this number out, probably has a pre-disposition to believe the worst case scenario. Maybe you can ask him/her what his/her screen name is, on the Daily Kos.
Take actress Sharon Stone's recent complaint to an Arab newspaper, for instance.
"I feel at great pain when the spotlight is on the death of 4,000 American soldiers, while 600,000 Iraqi deaths are ignored," she said. "War is not a movie, it is a tragedy of dead bodies, victims, the disabled, orphans, widows and the displaced."
I read this and then wondered how so many people, like Ms. Stone could fall for such an outlandish figure as 600,000. So, I typed in a search of "600,000 Iraqi deaths" and here is what I found. In this search, we find articles from the NY Times and USA Today. In all of the articles that turn up in this search, the root of this figure is a study done in 2006 by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
From the the NYT article (emphasis is mine):
It is the second study by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006.
The findings of the previous study, published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, in 2004, had been criticized as high, in part because of its relatively narrow sampling of about 1,000 families, and because it carried a large margin of error.
The new study is more representative, its researchers said, and the sampling is broader: it surveyed 1,849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighborhoods across Iraq. The selection of geographical areas in 18 regions across Iraq was based on population size, not on the level of violence, they said.
The word extrapolate is defined as :
1: to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval
2 a: to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown areab: to predict by projecting past experience or known data intransitive verb
When one sees this word, one must be reasonably cautious of the conclusions being drawn, in a given piece of information. This is especially true when dealing with matters that are presented as fact, with no real hard evidence to support it.
In the case of this study, the NYT ran with this story without much thought as to the reader's ability to put it into the proper perspective. Subsequently, many like Ms. Stone have come away with this as a credible establishment of fact. Granted, the onus of responsibility lies squarely with the reader. But, too many people that are predisposed to believe this study (because they want to) and those that are too busy to do their own research and analysis are going to come away with this as, a firmly established truth.
I doubt the NYT is the only news outlet that did this. But as we can see from the USA Today article covering the same story, there is some reasonable attempt to put this into a comparative perspective with other sources:
Iraq's Health Ministry has estimated 50,000 violent deaths since the war began, through June. Last December, President Bush put the figure at 30,000. The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, estimated the death toll at 60,000.
The Iraqi and U.S. governments may have reason to skew the number downward, but the Brookings Institute is hardly a tool of either government. And if anything, it may be predisposed to be critical of both.
So, where does one go when one wants better information in this area? The Iraqi Body Count (IBC) website is an objective source of information. Keeping in mind that the articles reporting on the study were written in 2006, the IBC puts today's total in the 80,000 range.
Why is there such disparity in claims?
Again, from the USA Today's article:
The research relied on random sampling of 1,800 Iraqi households by researchers from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the School of Medicine at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Based on deaths suffered by those households, analysts calculated an average of about 600 deaths a day since the invasion.
The methodology from IBC:
Iraq Body Count restricts its published database to documented (not inferred, extrapolated or otherwise estimated) deaths of civilians from post-invasion violence in Iraq, established to the standard of evidence specified below.
The key word here is documented.
Sampling from Iraqi households is not the preferred method of reaching an established truth for many reasons. The same holds true of any survey, where documentation is not used.
As for the total reached by IBC, 88,000 is still a lot of people. But it does not lie squarely at the feet of the coalition forces. Many of those deaths were caused by the insurgency, Iraqi-led, Al Qaida-led, or others. Even if the Johns Hopkins figures were accurate, it still begs for perspective. One only needs to contrast that number with the 55 million killed in WWII and they can clearly see the difference (if they are truly objective, that is).
So, the next time you hear someone say there has been 600,000 Iraqis killed since the beginning of the war, you can know with some certainty that the person throwing this number out, probably has a pre-disposition to believe the worst case scenario. Maybe you can ask him/her what his/her screen name is, on the Daily Kos.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Unhealthy Analysis In The Equine World
There's only one way to beat a dead horse. The variations come with what you use to do the beating and which horse you actually beat. The only prerequisites necessary are having an object to use and a horse that is dead.
One scenario is found in Brattleboro Vermont.
I am sure the night life in Brattleboro is confined to few small local pubs and there probably isn't much in the way of crime there. So, the pressing issues of the day aren't as big as other localities. But still, I would think there would be more important things on the agenda to discuss than beating a dead horse at the federal level, where their votes mean nothing and they have no jurisdiction. I would think there would be the need for a stop sign at some intersection, somewhere.
Another scenario can be found at The Center for Public Integrity. This is a group self-described as:
Based on this description, you'd think it is without an agenda. So when they decided to publish this example of beating a dead horse, many normally astute and intelligent people might be tempted to fall for it, without question. Some already have.
Here is the crux of their latest argument, which beats the dead horse one more time:
Nothing new here, no surprises. The liberal blogs have been stating this kind of thing since the beginning of the war. And they still are. So then the question becomes, why spend the kind of money they spent and devote the time they did, just to restate what has already been claimed by the Bush-haters, ad nauseum?
Well, I looked at the financiers of this non-partisan organization and was not at all surprised at the list of wealthy contributors.
Among them is The Streisand Foundation.
And we all know that Babs has never minced words about how she feels about the President. She would never support anything that would give him the benefit of any doubt, on any issue, at any time. Here is a sample of her lack of fondness from the article:
Hyperbole at its best. Look up the word and give the teacher one example and this would qualify. Others can be found scattered about here.
Another prominent contributor you'll recognize right off of the bat, is The Heinz Endowments. You know the one, John and Theresa Heinz-Kerry's group. Need I say more? Do some research on the others and I would bet you'd find the same bias in 9 of 10.
So, what of it? Does it mean as much now, as it did when we were just looking on the surface?
It's really no more or less important than it was when the leftist bloggers started this campaign, from the outset of the war or anytime else, since the day Bush was inaugurated. The words Bush lied will be typed 100's of thousands of times over this article and any other that supports their preconceived notions and "after the fact" analysis.
A lie is something told that is told while knowing it wasn't true. In all of these writings over the past few years, I have tried to uncover strong evidence that he knowingly lied about WMDs. Being wrong, and not knowing is a miscalculation. It is not a lie.
In all of this, Sunday's 60 Minutes gave us something to think about, something that Brattleboro, the Center For Public Integrity, and those that sound their trumpets will not discuss at any length. Aired was an interview with George Piro, a person that spent a long time with Saddam after his capture and had many conversations with him. Here is the portion of the interview which is certainly pertinent to this post:
What? Saddam miscalculated?
He had the power to stop the invasion, but didn't?
Amazing.
I guess Bush should have known that he was bluffing.
No, sorry Bush haters. No lie here. I know Chirac told him and this will be salt the French will pour on wounds, for decades. But far more in the world community believed he had them, because his behavior was designed to create that perception. Fooled yes, Lied no. Another thing I notice about those that continue to beat this dead horse is, I hear no one in these circles holding Saddam accountable for what has transpired, for the false impressions he gave.
There is more than one dimension to a song on a record. But if that record gets stuck in a rut, there's only one part you'll hear. And the song won't make any sense.
Addendum: Thanks to Greg for reminding everyone that this video is pertinent and needs to be looked at again.
One scenario is found in Brattleboro Vermont.
Brattleboro residents will vote at town meeting on whether President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be indicted and arrested for war crimes, perjury or obstruction of justice if they ever step foot in Vermont.
I am sure the night life in Brattleboro is confined to few small local pubs and there probably isn't much in the way of crime there. So, the pressing issues of the day aren't as big as other localities. But still, I would think there would be more important things on the agenda to discuss than beating a dead horse at the federal level, where their votes mean nothing and they have no jurisdiction. I would think there would be the need for a stop sign at some intersection, somewhere.
Another scenario can be found at The Center for Public Integrity. This is a group self-described as:
....a nonprofit organization dedicated to producing original, responsible investigative journalism on issues of public concern. The Center is non-partisan and non-advocacy. We are committed to transparent and comprehensive reporting both in the United States and around the world.
Based on this description, you'd think it is without an agenda. So when they decided to publish this example of beating a dead horse, many normally astute and intelligent people might be tempted to fall for it, without question. Some already have.
Here is the crux of their latest argument, which beats the dead horse one more time:
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
Nothing new here, no surprises. The liberal blogs have been stating this kind of thing since the beginning of the war. And they still are. So then the question becomes, why spend the kind of money they spent and devote the time they did, just to restate what has already been claimed by the Bush-haters, ad nauseum?
Well, I looked at the financiers of this non-partisan organization and was not at all surprised at the list of wealthy contributors.
Among them is The Streisand Foundation.
And we all know that Babs has never minced words about how she feels about the President. She would never support anything that would give him the benefit of any doubt, on any issue, at any time. Here is a sample of her lack of fondness from the article:
"How could such a destructive man be so popular with the American people?" she asks of Bush.
"Not only is he poisoning our air and water - he's poisoning our political system as well."
Hyperbole at its best. Look up the word and give the teacher one example and this would qualify. Others can be found scattered about here.
Another prominent contributor you'll recognize right off of the bat, is The Heinz Endowments. You know the one, John and Theresa Heinz-Kerry's group. Need I say more? Do some research on the others and I would bet you'd find the same bias in 9 of 10.
So, what of it? Does it mean as much now, as it did when we were just looking on the surface?
It's really no more or less important than it was when the leftist bloggers started this campaign, from the outset of the war or anytime else, since the day Bush was inaugurated. The words Bush lied will be typed 100's of thousands of times over this article and any other that supports their preconceived notions and "after the fact" analysis.
A lie is something told that is told while knowing it wasn't true. In all of these writings over the past few years, I have tried to uncover strong evidence that he knowingly lied about WMDs. Being wrong, and not knowing is a miscalculation. It is not a lie.
In all of this, Sunday's 60 Minutes gave us something to think about, something that Brattleboro, the Center For Public Integrity, and those that sound their trumpets will not discuss at any length. Aired was an interview with George Piro, a person that spent a long time with Saddam after his capture and had many conversations with him. Here is the portion of the interview which is certainly pertinent to this post:
"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
"Absolutely," Piro says.
"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.
"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.
What? Saddam miscalculated?
He had the power to stop the invasion, but didn't?
Amazing.
I guess Bush should have known that he was bluffing.
No, sorry Bush haters. No lie here. I know Chirac told him and this will be salt the French will pour on wounds, for decades. But far more in the world community believed he had them, because his behavior was designed to create that perception. Fooled yes, Lied no. Another thing I notice about those that continue to beat this dead horse is, I hear no one in these circles holding Saddam accountable for what has transpired, for the false impressions he gave.
There is more than one dimension to a song on a record. But if that record gets stuck in a rut, there's only one part you'll hear. And the song won't make any sense.
Addendum: Thanks to Greg for reminding everyone that this video is pertinent and needs to be looked at again.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Recommended Reading
The NY Times has a good article on Michael Yon, the online blogger that has logged more hours in a combat zone than any other journalist. (However, according to the article, his background is not in journalism.) His narratives are up close and personal, unlike the hotel room journalists that pay for stories from biased sources that purposely skew the real stories, into some propaganda pieces that advance their antiwar agenda.
Give it a read, if you are so inclined and when you get the time.
Give it a read, if you are so inclined and when you get the time.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The Heart Of The Iraqi People
There are people that constantly see the Iraqis as either terrorists or victims. Often we hear how the Iraqis see Americans as occupiers of their nation and want them out. We also hear how Iraqis are Muslims that hate the American people, because we are rich, greedy, and imperialistic.
They may not use these exact words, but the inferences are there and when they are, they are strong.
The media perpetuates this myth by its often skewed and sensational reporting. Rarely do we hear about the good things that transpire in that nation, but rather we hear about Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and the other things that paint American troops in a bad light. In short, it's the old media adage: If it bleeds, it leads.
This is precisely why you will not likely see this story on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or any of the print media, anytime soon. Give it a look and let's just see if we can see it on the news.
Hat Tip: Greg
UPDATE: Evidently there's an update to this story by Mr. Lowry.
You can read it here.
In closing, I'll say that Iraqi soldiers do not make the best money and for them to come up with $1000, is an amazing gesture within itself. It may not be a lot money from our standpoint, but it's the thought that counts. And in this case, it means everything.
Hat Tip for this one: Mustang of Social Sense. (If you are reading this blog and not reading his, you have to ask yourself -- Why not?)
They may not use these exact words, but the inferences are there and when they are, they are strong.
The media perpetuates this myth by its often skewed and sensational reporting. Rarely do we hear about the good things that transpire in that nation, but rather we hear about Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and the other things that paint American troops in a bad light. In short, it's the old media adage: If it bleeds, it leads.
This is precisely why you will not likely see this story on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or any of the print media, anytime soon. Give it a look and let's just see if we can see it on the news.
Hat Tip: Greg
UPDATE: Evidently there's an update to this story by Mr. Lowry.
You can read it here.
In closing, I'll say that Iraqi soldiers do not make the best money and for them to come up with $1000, is an amazing gesture within itself. It may not be a lot money from our standpoint, but it's the thought that counts. And in this case, it means everything.
Hat Tip for this one: Mustang of Social Sense. (If you are reading this blog and not reading his, you have to ask yourself -- Why not?)
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Why Iraq Is Not Stable
Before anything else, I will warn my readers that the video I have linked to contains graphic images of two Iraqi men being executed.
Their crime? Working for the Iraqi government, trying to make Iraq a better place to live.
Watch it if you want to, don't watch it if you don't. But regardless of your choice, know that no real peace can come to Iraq until these thugs are all hunted down and either imprisoned or killed. They are killing their own, all in the name of their sick and perverted ideology.
VIDEO
The Jawa report has more on this heinous act of barbarism.
Their crime? Working for the Iraqi government, trying to make Iraq a better place to live.
Watch it if you want to, don't watch it if you don't. But regardless of your choice, know that no real peace can come to Iraq until these thugs are all hunted down and either imprisoned or killed. They are killing their own, all in the name of their sick and perverted ideology.
VIDEO
The Jawa report has more on this heinous act of barbarism.
Waiting For Murtha
The title should read Waiting For Godot, because that's what waiting for an apology from Rep. John Murtha is like. Let's take a look at a short video and see how the Congressman from Pennsylvania tap dances his way out, when confronted:
(Hat Tip: Greg)
Note how when he is pressed, Murtha gets angry and asks the young reporter if he had been in the service; then he invokes his own military service as some justification for making himself judge, jury, and executioner, when this case first came to light. Well Mr. Murtha, I have been in the service. I, too, served my country honorably. Will you take the same question from me?
What Murtha and many others had hoped in the case was for this to become, Iraq's My Lai. But one by one, charges are being dropped. So, it appears there is less of a "there" there, certainly less than when they came into the airwaves last year accusing young men assigned an incredibly difficult task, of horrendous crimes.
It wasn't that they asked for the investigation, that's perfectly within their rights. But, they made it sound like it had been established as fact, before any of the judicial proceeding or investigation results were even known. They presumed guilt before innocence and in my view, violated these men's constitutional rights, before God, man, and the media.
Note this performance:
There are two lines of investigation going on here, the alleged crime itself and the alleged cover-up. You can read a brief review of the latest charges to be dropped in this case, here in the AFP.
No folks, these people like Murtha sing a good song for the cameras, when they want to play politics. But they cannot even bring themselves to issue an apology, when they are wrong. And these are the people that are serving us in such a vital capacity. These are the people that represent us.
All he has to do is apologize, I'll You Tube it right here, and we'll move on.
So, come on Congressman. What's the song going to be? Silence Is Golden? Or I'm Sorry?
(Hat Tip: Greg)
Note how when he is pressed, Murtha gets angry and asks the young reporter if he had been in the service; then he invokes his own military service as some justification for making himself judge, jury, and executioner, when this case first came to light. Well Mr. Murtha, I have been in the service. I, too, served my country honorably. Will you take the same question from me?
What Murtha and many others had hoped in the case was for this to become, Iraq's My Lai. But one by one, charges are being dropped. So, it appears there is less of a "there" there, certainly less than when they came into the airwaves last year accusing young men assigned an incredibly difficult task, of horrendous crimes.
It wasn't that they asked for the investigation, that's perfectly within their rights. But, they made it sound like it had been established as fact, before any of the judicial proceeding or investigation results were even known. They presumed guilt before innocence and in my view, violated these men's constitutional rights, before God, man, and the media.
Note this performance:
There are two lines of investigation going on here, the alleged crime itself and the alleged cover-up. You can read a brief review of the latest charges to be dropped in this case, here in the AFP.
No folks, these people like Murtha sing a good song for the cameras, when they want to play politics. But they cannot even bring themselves to issue an apology, when they are wrong. And these are the people that are serving us in such a vital capacity. These are the people that represent us.
All he has to do is apologize, I'll You Tube it right here, and we'll move on.
So, come on Congressman. What's the song going to be? Silence Is Golden? Or I'm Sorry?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)