The Surge Succeeds

From American Thinker: The following are excerpts from an article by J.R. Dunn...

It's now quite clear how the results of the surge will be dealt with by domestic opponents of the Iraq war.

They're going to be ignored.

They're being ignored now. Virtually no media source or Democratic politician (and not a few Republicans, led by Richard "I can always backtrack" Lugar) is willing to admit that the situation on the ground has changed dramatically over the past three months. Coalition efforts have undergone a remarkable reversal of fortune, a near-textbook example as to how an effective strategy can overcome what appear to be overwhelming drawbacks.

Anbar is close to being secured, thanks to the long-ridiculed strategy of recruiting local sheiks. A capsule history of war coverage could be put together from stories on this topic alone - beginning with sneers, moving on to "evidence" that it would never work, to the puzzled pieces of the past few months admitting that something was happening, and finally the recent stories expressing concern that the central government might be "offended" by the attention being paid former Sunni rebels. (Try to find another story in the legacy media worrying about the feelings of the Iraqi government.) What you will not find is any mention of the easily-grasped fact that Anbar acts as a blueprint for the rest of the country. If the process works there, it will work elsewhere. If it works in other areas, that means the destruction of the Jihadis in detail.

Nor is that all. Diyala province, promoted in media as the "new Al-Queda stronghold" appears to have become a death-trap. The Jihadis can neither defend it nor abandon it. The Coalition understood that Diyala was where the Jihadis would flee when the heat came down in Baghdad, and they were ready for them. A major element of surge strategy - and one reason why the extra infantry brigades were needed - is to pressure Jihadis constantly in all their sanctuaries, allowing them no time to rest or regroup.

A blizzard of operations is occurring throughout central Iraq under the overall code-name Phantom Thunder, the largest operation since the original invasion. It is open-ended, and will continue as long as necessary. Current ancillary operations include Arrowhead Ripper, which is securing the city of Baqubah in Diyala province. Operation Alljah is methodically clearing out every last neighborhood in Fallujah. In Babil province, southeast of Baghdad, operations Marne Torch and Commando Eagle are underway. (As this was being written, yet another spinoff operation, Marne Avalanche, began in Northern Babil.)

[...]

The results have begun to come in. On July 4, Khaled al-Mashhadani, the most senior Iraqi in Al-Queda, was captured in Mosul. On July 14, Abu Jurah, a senior Al-Queda leader in the area south of Baghdad, was killed in a coordinated strike by artillery, helicopters, and fighter-bombers. These blows to the leadership are the direct outgrowth of Jihadi brutality and the new confidence among the Iraqis in what they have begun to call the "al-Ameriki tribe".

We will see more of this in the weeks ahead. The Jihadis have come up with no effective counterstrategy, and the old methods have begun to lose mana. The last massive truck-bomb attack occurred not in Baghdad, but in a small Diyala village that defied Al-Queda. An insurgency in the position of using its major weapons to punish noncombatants is not in a winning situation.

You will look long and hard to find any of this in the legacy media. Apart from a handful of exceptions (such as John F. Burns of the New York Times), it's simply not being covered. Those operational names would come across as bizarre to the average reader, the gains they have made impossible to fit into the worldview that has been peddled unceasingly by the dead tree fraternity.

[...]

The situation as it stands is very close to that of the final phase of Vietnam.

[...]

(During the 1970s) the left wing of the Democratic Party, shepherded by people like George McGovern and Mark Hatfield, proceeded to undercut the (Paris Peace) settlement as quickly as they could manage. Two separate appropriations acts passed in June 1973 cut off all further aid to the countries of Southeast Asia. (A third such act passed in August 1974 has gained more attention but it only duplicated the effects of the first two.) From that point on it was a matter of time. Nixon resigned a little over a year later. Less than a year after that, in April 1975, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia all fell.

(The price tag for this, which liberals don't care to bring up, was over 2 million dead in Cambodia, 165,000 dead in Vietnam, another 200,000 plus drowned and murdered on the high seas during the exodus of the boat people. Laotian numbers can only be estimated but must have been in the thousands. The price of Indochinese "peace" was nearly twice that of the war itself.)

Dunn suggests that today's Democrats have been trying to find (or manufacture) a scandal against the Bush administration comparable to the Watergate scandal of Richard Nixon...

And that, in case you were wondering, is what Plamegate was about. The Democrats needed a scandal - and not merely a run-of-the-mill, everyday scandal, but a mega-scandal, a hyper-scandal, something that would utterly cripple the administration and leave it open to destruction in detail. The targets were Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, held by the MoveOn crowd to be the actual brains behind Adolf W. Chimp. When nothing at all could be dug up on the administration principals, the scandal was effectively over.

And why?

The American left wants a return to the 1970s -- without Jimmy Carter. (Okay, without disco, either.) They want a cowed GOP. They want control of the institutions and the branches. They want a miserable, defeated country they can manipulate.

But Dunn concludes that...

Bush will have hard days yet, but he will not be Nixonized. He will be able to fight his war as he sees fit.

Let's hope so. And let's pray that victory and lasting peace will soon be realized.

You can read the whole article HERE.

For Freedom

Thanks For "Viewing"

There is something exciting about the realization that one's rants and pitiful attempts at humor may not be merely drifting off into empty cyberspace (like the proverbial tree that falls in the woods). Thanks to "Sitemeter" at the bottom of my right column, I occasionally get a clue as to who is "Viewing". I find the "World Map" feature of particular interest. The following images show recent visitors to "View From Above".



Some of you I know as family; some as friends; some as 'trolls'; and some of you I don't know at all. Whether you stumbled in here by accident, or are a regular visitor, I can only say... "Thanks for Viewing". A warm welcome to the recent visitors from the following locations...

National:
Alameda, California
Mountain View, California
Los Angeles, California
Laguna Niguel, California
Tempe, Arizona
Salt Lake City, Utah
Billings, Montana
Brandon, Minnesota
Knoxville, Iowa
Portales, New Mexico
Montrose, Colorado
Fort Worth, Texas
Dallas, Texas
Belton, Texas
Marshall, Texas
Memphis, Tennessee
Mount Juliet, Tennessee
Hermitage, Tennessee
Chesterfield, Missouri
Oak Park, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Columbus, Ohio
Lorain, Ohio
Florence, South Carolina
Wilson, North Carolina
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Salisbury, Maryland
Riva, Maryland
Arlington, Virginia
Waterford Works, New Jersey
Plainsboro, New Jersey
Somerset, New Jersey
Schooleys Mountain, New Jersey
Newark, New Jersey
Brooklyn, New York
Calverton, New York
New York City, New York
Providence, Rhode Island

Special Recognition:
Centcom, Tampa, Florida
US House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Boeing, Chicago, Illinois
Olemiss, Mississippi University

International:
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
London, Lambeth, UK
Hatfield, Norfolk, UK
Stevenage, Norfolk, UK
Milton Keynes, UK
Derby, UK
Richmond, Darlington, UK
Newcastle, UK
Beijing, China
Singapore
Perth, Australia
Elwood, Victoria, Australia
Sydney, Australia

David Obey: Iraqis Kill Themselves More Efficiently

Lawmakers in Congress, particularly the Democrats, have been pushing President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-WI) has come up with another good reason to pull the troops out: "It's more efficient", he says. "America has been spending billions of dollars to kill Iraqis, but they can do a much better job of it themselves and at a much lower cost... it's a simple matter of economics".

That's why lawmakers leading the legislative campaign to pull out of Iraq have developed no plans to confront the widespread killing that could follow. "I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous," said Obey, who has helped lead the drive against the war. "The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that... nudge, nudge, wink, wink".

At the White House last week, President Bush warned of "mass killings on a horrific scale." To celebrate, the Democrats in the Senate decided to throw an all-night slumber party.

Fresh Air From The UN?

Having listened for 9 years to the anti-American rhetoric coming from the U.N. and Kofi Annan, it was refreshing today to see that the new U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon actually agrees with the Bush administration on something...

U.N. Chief Warns Against Abrupt U.S. Troop Withdrawal

From International Herald Tribune & AP: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned Monday that an abrupt U.S. troop pullout could deepen the crisis in Iraq, and he urged the United States to keep the Iraqi people in mind when making decisions on the increasingly unpopular war. Ban said both the United States and the international community have a responsibility not to abandon the Iraqi people. While he expressed reluctance to jump into Washington's fierce debate over Iraq, he emphasized that the rest of the world has a stake in the outcome of the conflict.

"It is not my place to inject myself into this discussion taking place between the American people and the administration and Congress," Ban told a news conference when asked about the U.N. view on a pullout. "However, I would like to tell you that great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people. Any abrupt withdrawal or decision may lead to a further deterioration of the situation in Iraq," Ban said.

It was a rare comment from the U.N. chief on Washington's Iraq policy, and came amid increasing calls by the U.S. Congress and the American public for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. It also came on the eve of Ban's meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush at the White House where the secretary-general said the Iraq conflict would be high on the agenda.

Since taking office in January, Ban has pushed for wider international efforts to stabilize Iraq. Earlier this year, he lobbied world powers to provide financial assistance for a sweeping five-year economic and political reform package, known as the International Compact for Iraq, which was launched in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt in early May. He has also expressed interest in expanding the U.N. role in providing humanitarian assistance to Iraq and promoting political reconciliation, though he has warned the country's insecurity has undermined that goal. "While we know it is a very difficult process, the international community, together with the United Nations should do whatever we can to help the Iraqi people," Ban said.

British Army Lt. Gen. Graeme Lamb, deputy commander of international forces in Iraq, said a swift withdrawal of U.S.-led coalition forces would be a mistake. He said forces were making progress since the course set in January to escalate troop levels and step up operations in Baghdad and surrounding militant strongholds. He said "it would be a shame to change" course. A month of security sweeps, fueled by 28,000 new U.S. troops sent to Iraq this year, have reduced the number of high-profile bombings in Baghdad.

Ban said the Iraqi people are going through a very difficult period and suffering greatly. "It is exactly why the international community, United Nations... should help Iraqi people and government so that they can overcome this difficulty as soon as possible," he said.

A Letter To President Bush

As you probably know, I have been a vocal supporter of President George W. Bush these past 7 years. I am no less a supporter now. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to write him the following letter. Do not think that my words suggest I have turned my back on him. He is still in my thoughts and prayers daily.

Dear Mr. President,

While I am glad that you commuted the sentence of "Scooter" Libby, now it's time to pardon Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean. Scooter Libby actually obstructed justice. Ramos and Compean were just doing their jobs.

With all due respect sir, I cannot understand why you refuse to protect the American people to the best of your ability. You have said that you will protect the United States "on your watch", yet you fail to close the border. By leaving the border open, you allow criminals and terrorists to enter. You talk tough, but we don't see action. You promised to send 6000 National Guard troops to the border. Are they there? You promised to hire 6000 more border patrol agents by the end of 2008. Are we on schedule? You promised to build 700 miles of fence. To the best of my knowledge, we've only built 13 or 14 miles. You promised to implement high-tech surveillance methods including unmanned aerial vehicles to watch the border. How many UAVs are in service? What other high-tech measures have been implemented? You promised us border security, yet you pushed the Immigration Reform bill which would have given amnesty to millions of illegals, including known criminals. To make matters worse, when border patrol agents Ramos and Compean actually did their job, you allowed them to languish in prison for some 169 days now after being sued by illegal alien criminals. Stop me if I'm off-base here. I would be grateful to be proven wrong.

Sir, your record on these issues appears to be dismal. That is very disconcerting. Where is the back-bone you showed after 9/11? Why are you tough on terrorists in the Middle East, but not on the ones trying to sneak in our back door? If you truly believe in protecting the American people, then you need to get tough on border security.

If I may be so bold: What are you thinking, sir? Are you not concerned that terrorists might sneak across the border along with the other illegals? Are you guilt-ridden about the plight of poor Mexicans? Are you trying to buy the Hispanic vote? Are you trying to legitimize "slave labor" for American businesses? Do you really believe that the Senate Immigration Reform bill would have actually "improved security" or "reformed immigration"? (Obviously, I don't.) Or, perhaps you secretly favor a complete opening of the borders from Canada to South America? Perhaps you support eliminating American sovereignty in favor of some Pan-American Union along the lines of the European Union? Many conservatives are of the same opinion as myself... We cannot understand your actions on these issues or the reasons behind them. We can only conjecture. And the conjectures can get wild as you can see.

Respectfully sir, you must remember that we conservatives are your base. If you want our loyalty, you need to find out what we're thinking. You need to show us that you hear us. You need to support the positions we take. For example, you could pardon Border Agents Ramos and Compean, who were just doing their job. You could use that pardon to show your conservative base that you support ALL of those who protect our country, not just the military. You could use that pardon to show us that border security is still an important issue for you. You could use that pardon to help persuade people to join the Border Patrol, by proving that you are willing to back them up in tough circumstances. You could show the country that we give more respect to our own citizens than we do to criminal illegal aliens.

Sincerely,

[Hawkeye]**

**The name has been changed to protect the guilty.

Happy Fourth of July!

It’s Not Just Sticker Shock:Edwards Goes AWOL On Terror War

Cartoon Courtesy of Gary Varvel
Indianapolis Star

Story By Michael Graham
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The Boston Herald

The 'war on terror' is a bumper sticker and a political slogan, that's all it is. That’s all it's ever been.
--Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, June 2007

When you're slogging through the security line at Logan (Airport) this summer, the heady scent of strangers' feet wafting about you, try to remember what those cheerful TSA professionals are really looking for... Bumper stickers.

In Scotland, flames billowed from the Glasgow airport after two men plowed their "bumper sticker" into the terminal. In London, two more "bumper stickers" were parked outside nightclubs but, fortunately, failed to detonate. In Yemen, a suicide bomber... er, "sloganeer" blew himself up at the site of an ancient temple, killing eight. In Thailand, police arrested 50 Muslim men found with (ahem) "bumper sticker" making materials in a region where thousands of non-Muslims have been murdered.

Meanwhile, Iranian terror sponsors are using Lebanese Hezbollah to kill U.S. soldiers hunting al-Qaeda in Iraq. All this news from just one weekend. And Edwards says there’s no "war on terror." Edwards' theory isn’t new. Michael Moore has been saying "there is no terrorist threat" since 2001. Our own Sen. John Kerry - whose 1997 book on global threats to the U.S. never mentioned Osama bin Laden - still insists that al-Qaeda terror is a crime problem, not a military one. War? Terror? What are you, a sucker? You probably think the Pentagon got hit by a passenger jet, too.

The enlightened left sees through all this. We knuckle-draggers see yet another attempted bombing of yet another Western target by yet another group of Muslim men, and think "Hey, 'war on terror'." The left sees the bombs, the gas canisters, the nails (in Israel, the "bumper sticker" crowd coats the nails with rat poison) and sees something other than a widespread terror movement inspired by common theology and uncommon hatred.

When Brian Williams asked the Democratic presidential candidates to answer (by a show of hands) if they believe "there's such a thing as a global war on terror," the only top-tier candidate whose hand shot up was Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama reluctantly gave an insincere wave. But Edwards? Never.

So, if there's no global terror threat, how does the left explain the guy on fire climbing out the window of an explosives-laden car as shown on CNN? Spontaneous human combustion?

Poverty.

Poverty causes terrorism, the left insists, despite the fact that: a) there are at least 1 billion impoverished non-Muslims in the world who aren’t blowing up nightclubs; and b) two of the plotters just arrested are doctors. In fact, most of the 9/11 and 7/7 attackers were relatively affluent and well educated.

Advocates of the "bumper sticker" theory sometimes claim that terrorism is the last resort of the desperate. The New York Times calls the latest would-be bombers part of Europe's "disenfranchised South Asian population." Got that? Not "terrorists." Certainly not "Muslims." Disenfranchised.

Tony Blair doesn’t agree. The former prime minister rejects the idea that Muslims who watched teachers executed by the Taliban are “oppressed” by the nations who liberated them. "We need to stand up to these people and say, 'It’s not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn’t justified.' "

How can John Edwards watch the news from London (or Scotland or Yemen or Iraq) and not see that? Why can’t he grasp the notion of Islamist-inspired violence supported by extremist regimes and targeting Western values?

Maybe if we could fit it on a bumper sticker.


Cartoon Courtesy of Michael Ramirez
Investor's Business Daily