Backign up earlier commentary by MIchael Yon, more good news from the heart of the Sunni insurgency;
The level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me—confirming reports from several other sources—that there have been "a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there." The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters.
In Time magazine, of all places.
this canna be!!!
If its not reported by Peter Pansbridge(head of the fantasy world) or Kneel McDonald( liberal toady) of CBCpravda it just canna be!!!
where is Julie van Dusen of the weedwacker hairdo ?
and where is Borat Dion? have the Libs taken him offline?
CBCpravda should report taliban jacks take on this.
Well thank God it is a start.
The current Sunni-Shia conflict reminds me of the Catholic-Protestant wars of previous centuries.
Sure you fill up the cemetery but it does little to demonstrate the 'rightness' of your cause; nor in any way show devotion to one's religious principles.
In the end you just get a bunch of dead people and bitterness among those who survive. What exactly is the point?
While many may be delighted that Saddam is gone, retreating into insular religious/tribal positions will be counterproductive in the long run.
As noted in the Time article:
'As I reported in September 2005, there is also the scandalous reality that an alliance with the tribes was proposed by U.S. Army intelligence officers as early as October 2003 and rejected by L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority on the grounds that "tribes are part of the past. They have no place in the new democratic Iraq." The damage caused by that myopic stupidity may never be repaired: it gave al-Qaeda a base in the Sunni tribal areas, which enabled the sustained, spectacular anti-Shi'ite bombing campaign, which, along with the Sunnis' historic disdain for the Shi'ite majority, created the conditions for the current civil war. "Just because the Sunni tribesmen have joined with us in Anbar doesn't mean they like the Baghdad government," a senior Administration official told me. "They just hate al-Qaeda more."'
When the Iraqis get an identity beyond merely, the tribalism of the Sunni-Shia (read Catholic/Protestant) divide then real progress will start to be made in Iraq.
If that divide can be bridged in Northern Ireland by having a government jointly shared by Protestant first minister, Ian Paisley, and its Catholic deputy first minister, Martin McGuinness; it would seem the Shia-Sunni divide should be surmountable, though it will take considerable amount of good will on both sides.
The alternative is to let the blood letting continue, which in the end helps no one. Though the analogies used above are inexact they are useful signposts.
As I have posted before, the "Chief Dan George method for muslims" would appear to be the way forward in Iraq.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I'll predict the insurgency will now go all out now seeing that the US congress is no longer demanding a withdrawal date and Bush is planning on staying.
Why would they choose to expend their resources on an enemy who is about to walk away from the fight? Now that the US is no longer on an exit schedule, they will feel it’s time to put them back on a schedule.
Both Bush and the Democrats messed this up.
Napoleon said, "Never interrupt an enemy while he's making a mistake."
Something else not being report by our buddies in the MSM, from Gateway Pundit who also has lots of pretty charts and graphs on this topic...
---
There have been remarkably low fatalities in the Iraqi Freedom campaign- considering it is war. In fact, just this month the losses in Iraq and Afghanistan combined passed the halfway mark of military fatalities during the Clinton Years.
The US has lost 3434 soldiers and marines in Iraq and 390 soldiers and marines in Afghanistan over the past 5 years. This total of 3824 has passed half of the number of soldiers lost during the Clinton years during peacetime- Via Murdoc Online.
** The US has been fighting the War on Terror for over 5 years and has lost just over half the soldiers in battle as the Clinton Administration was losing during peacetime in 8 years.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/05/grim-milestone-war-on-terror-fatalities.html
by: Fritz at May 24, 2007 8:20 PM
Well Fritz people do die naturally but the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are in addition to the natural losses of military members. Another statistic not found in their numbers is the people that were wounded and will never lead a normal life due to this war.
Don’t you find it funny how the death toll is measured in American lives? How many innocent civilian lives were lost in Iraq and are still being lost over this illegal war?
"Well Fritz people do die naturally but the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are in addition to the natural losses of military members"
According to Murdoc, surprisingly, total casualties -combat and otherwise- are lower in the last five years than during any five year period of the Clinton Presidency. Doesn't seem to make sense but I've not seen anyone challenge the figures.
i'm guessing the 80 us deaths in may alone and the fact that another 2 were killed in anbar province yesterday may be the reason so many media outlets can't see that silver lining yet.