51 Replies to ““The US military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe.””
Nancy Pelosi is going to be pissed!
Recently, the democratic presidential candidacy chasers have proclaimed that the troops will stay for a while. That must have been the cue for the news manufacturers to somewhat change their spin.
Since Spiegel is one of the most widely read and consistently American Bashing rags in Europe …. this is a big deal!
It is the equivalent of Time Magazine coming out and saying they were wrong about Bush all along!
Could it be that they are positioning themselves at this time to allow a plausible denial of the years of lies and misreporting on the Iraq situation?
Interesting turn of events I think BUT in the longer view of MSM behaviour ….. just another sad evidence of their hypocrisy.
I’m more inclined to think that the next move will be to announce that since the situation in Iraq is improving that the US most be told to leave so that the EU can go in and make sure things turn out “Right” !
People with character are generally optimistic and most often have a good sense of humor. They have proved in their own lives that hard work, tenacity and a positive attitude can usually win the day.
Other people who are generally pessimistic who believe the war on our enemies can’t be won, that the earth is doomed due to climate change. These folks are humorless, have no character and generally a lot of frightened spoiled brats.
Those two groups would be the Right and the Left respectively.
Even simple observations of the two camps regarding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan smacks one in the face with what is right and what is wrong. No sophisticated study required.
The Demoncrats/Liberal-Left will take us down the road to defeat and despair. The forces on the right will leads us to eventual victory even with that great Left wing albatross around our necks.
The New York Time turned their leaf a couple of weeks ago and more and more of the Leftist press will pave the way back for the Demoncrats over the next few weeks so they can slip back into a temporary slot in the real world in the hopes of getting one of their twits elected president.
The more we win the war, more we will re-elect conservative leaders in both the US and Canada.
The same reality will eventually have the MSM turning away from Al Gore after a few more years of no high water and no dramatic rise in temperatures.
It only take time to do anything!
Now is not the time to oversell whatever improvements/progress is being made of late in Iraq.
Let the results speak for themselves as public opinion is very brittle and in flux. Should we suffer a setback – even a temporary one – public opinion could quickly reverse direction unless we have managed expectations so that setbacks are taken in stride.
Having said that, I strongly agree with Victor Davis Hansen that the coalition should start (in fact should have started a long time ago) making incursions into Iran and Syria to chase insurgants and destroy staging bases and arms caches.
Patreous (sp.) has already started to ramp up the talking points regarding both Syria and Iran being sources of manpower and arms and training (Syria providing mostly men and Iran the arms apparently) so perhaps the military action will soon follow – perhaps after his September report to Congress.
Davis thinks that Iran (and presumably Syria) is a “real paper tiger” and that they would do little in retaliation to such acts especially if weapons etc. are found. The impact of a limp-wristed response by those two rogue states on the political environment in Syria and Iran would be positive as it would be in the entire muslim world.
Fascinating. I think Hanson is right – people want to be perceived as ‘on the winning side’ and since the tide may be shifting in Iraq, they want to be on the side of the US.
I think the tide is shifting for a number of reasons –
one- the Iraqi people are slowly moving out of enforced tribalism and becoming aware that they have the right to govern their own country, not some Top Gun Tribe (eg Saddam Hussein).
two- they are getting tired of the violence. What the US did – was to move Islamic fascism back from the west, where it had moved because military dictatorships in the ME prevented its operations there…and moved it back into the ME. That was 100% the correct tactic to take. That’s where it should be. Islamic fascism is an agenda of retaining tribalism in the ME, a religious tribalism.
The externalization of Islamic fascism to the west meant that the ‘evil’ became defined as the west and modernization. Rather than the dictatorships back home. The US moved the fight back ‘home’. And, Muslims began to fight against Muslims. And – they have realized that they don’t want this fight. They don’t want fascism. And, they don’t want tribalism.
It’s slow, it takes time – but, it’s working.
Bush and the US were right. And the left are, in their support for fascism, wrong.
The next thing we’re going to see, is the UN wanting to take over there. Bush has already opened the door for them to consider it. I think it’s still too early. The UN, after all, is corrupt and favors the left and tribalism. Iraq isn’t strong enough to fight against the UN – which would assist fascism rather than assist the Iraqi people.
“Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq –“
This is the most revealing line in the whole article. The MSM has been on spin cycle for years and they’re “irritated” that they haven’t been able to rinse out the damned truth.
Although it’s impossible to know the entire truth of this situation in Iraq, this is the second bit of good news to shatter leftist mythology.
Of course, Speigel is covering their butts because they know Gen. Patreus will be a credible witness at the Congressional hearings.
That would pit the credibility of the person with boots on the ground against the credibility of the detached observers.
Score a win for the people who are actually putting their lives on the line.
Lies exposed, Chapter II, of course is the shaky scientific quicksand of the Global Warming advocates.
This could be one of the shortest cults in human history, which will collapse under both religious and scientific scrutiny.
Be prepared for much more shrillness in the upcoming few months as the deceptions of the left are peeled back layer by layer.
All of the above or they are just shifting it now to setup the iraqi’s as underdogs vs the big bad all winning empire….
Or they are seeing it as it is. I am not there I dont know. I hope they are successful.
Saw an interview with Kristol last night, who has never wavered in his strong support for the war.
His take on it was that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld really were f***ing things up in Iraq with stupid stupid stupid planning (or lack thereof), but that the change in tactics in the last 9 months has turned the tide, slowly but surely.
I’m not sure if that’s it, but it seems to fit the facts more than the simplistic bromide that the right was always right and the left was always wrong on Iraq, or silly statements like the Iraqis are simply getting tired of violence or want to govern themselves. I think fighting tactics actually do matter when you are dealing with a violent enemy in a violent land in the middle of a civil war.
It sure has lasted a lot longer than “ive days or five weeks or five months” though, hasn’t it.
Ted:
What military academy did you attend?
Ted:
Can you please explain for all who are breathlessly waiting for your version of the truth what business al Quaeda has in iraq?
The original conflict was a resoultion of a dispute between Saddam Hussein and the United Nations following the first Gulf War.
The United Nations, in a series of resolutions ending in 1441, demanded Saddam reveal the location of his weapons of mass destruction.
Those documents are easily accessible through the internet.
This is very good news and this success is occurring sooner than I expected. It took the Brits 15 years to kick the communists out of the Malay peninsula and that was no mean feat either.
Go get them, Bush!
Ted. There is no elephant. Just keep telling yourself that, and the elephant poo won’t smell so bad.
Give Ted a break. He has a good point here.
whether you were for or against the war from the start, it was full of mistakes on the application side (as all wars inevitably are.)
That new tactics are more effective just means that the US has properly adapted after a too-long period of denial.
This is one of those times where we can agree. There is no denying that the aftermath of the invasion was mishandled and that a re-think was in order. This isn’t a pro or anti war comment from Ted. I think we need to encourage those we debate to reason instead of sneering and attacks.
I hope the surge does prove to be effective. I have my doubts but I hope for the best. In the mean time, lets plan a good bombing of Iran’s nuke facilities and military infrastructure without boots on the ground. They’ve always been the bigger threat.
ted – could you provide some proof that my statements that the Iraqi people are getting tired of internal violence is ‘silly’?? Hmmm? Could you provide some evidence that their current willingness to ‘rat out’ the local al Qaeda gangs to the Americans is ‘silly’? Could you provide some evidence that their current willingness to fight against these internal gangs is ‘silly? Hmmm?
Could you provide some proof that there is something silly about the Iraqi people wanting to govern themselves?
Or, rather than thinking, do you just have an automatic leftist knee-jerk reaction to anything I say? Hmm?
Bush never said it would be short; to the contrary, he said it would take a long time. Of course, as a leftist, your view is that Bush et al, were always wrong. Now, that things are slowly getting better, you’re trying to save face. You have to maintain that Bush was wrong – and are now, only trying to say that things are going OK just because of ‘more forces’. Heh.
Things aren’t as simple as you leftists would like them to be. Life is complex, not mechanically reductionist and you can’t reduce causality to simple one dimensions – aka ‘It’s Bush’s fault’.
Things are getting better in Iraq – and it can’t be reduced to your ‘more troops’. Simplicity is the sign of a simpleton. Try again, ted.
Even if the Democrats take control of the White House and the Congress in 2008, the Americans will stay in Iraq. The reality is they can’t go now, no matter how good or bad things are. Sure the above article indicates progress is made, but the real success will be obtained when Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, can walk the streets of Baghdad freely and safely. As of today, an unguarded American will probably be murdered within 5 minutes there.
Success it at least 10-15 years away, IMHO. And those calling for immediate withdrawal are totally deluded/dishonest/both. If they think it’s bad now, they haven’t a clue on how bad it would get.
As they say in France: The wine is uncorked, now we must drink it.
The GIs will stay.
Well folks, your all missing one very important little something, Professor Ignatieff has come out against the Iraq war, after he was for it.
Being the clever fellow he is, sarc on, would he not be aware if things were starting to turn around for the US in their struggle to bring at least some form of stability to Iraq?
Ah, the musings of a professor, never have to make a hard decision, leave it to the people in the realm of actuality.
greenneck – I think you are exaggerating, to say that an unguarded westerner would be murdered in 5 minutes in Baghdad. Could you provide some proof?
I also think that the definition of ‘success’ isn’t as polarized as your definition. I think the definition of success is if the Iraqi people are in electoral, judicial and economic control of the population, ie, that Al Qaeda or Islamic fascism is not in control but effectively marginalized – and that a middle class has developed. That doesn’t require a US military presence. It does, however, require a change in direction in the ME from a tribal to a democratic system.
Liz j – interesting about Ignatieff. But, he’s not focusing on reality or truth; he’s focused on The Vote of Canadians – those Canadians who are Cloud Dwellers and think that Islamic Fascism is merely a ‘justified reaction to American Imperialism’. There’s a lot of that around…and he’s after them.
“but the real success will be obtained when Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, can walk the streets of Baghdad freely and safely.”
You just set a threshold that isn’t expected of Baltimore.
“Even if the Democrats take control of the White House and the Congress in 2008, the Americans will stay in Iraq. The reality is they can’t go now, no matter how good or bad things are.”
Ironically, in many ways, that would be like the position Nixon was in when he took over the unpopular Democrats’s war in Vietnam. (I note that as a curious parallel and not a partisan dig.)
I was never in favour of the Iraq War, mostly because of the more important need to stay focused and succeed in Afghanistan, but I am certainly of the view that there should be no immediate withdrawal. While the US did not invade Iraq to become a police force in a civil war, having injected themselves rightly or wrongly into the regime change in Iraq, they also can’t simply abandon them right now.
The person I blame the most for the mess in Iraq is our former PM, Mr. Cretin himself. Canadian soldiers could have marched with the coalition into Baghdad, and applied the tactics(that we have learned since Korea)needed to pacify and secure the key institutions. As well, our military’s diplomatic experience and credibility would have ensured a much smoother transition to a peaceful conclusion. Picture the lead convoy, Canadian flags flying, blue berets(UN mandate, after all). Could have been a whole different ballgame if not for mr. no leadership himself playing provincial real politik. How typical of any librano PM.
“I think fighting tactics actually do matter when you are dealing with a violent enemy”
Well Ted you’ve got that right. Unfortunately Rumsfeld had to fight a war with out rattling too many tea cups because the MSM and their lefty supporters like to dine on images of carnage. This benevolent form of warfare encouraged those that have been wreaking havoc on thousands of innocent Iraqis over the last few years.
Congratulations.
“silly statements like the Iraqis are simply getting tired of violence or want to govern themselves.”
Nobody knows silly statements as well as Ted.
“an unguarded American will probably be murdered within 5 minutes there.”
GreenNeck, any evidence to suport this?
Beautiful! Absolutely stunningly beautiful, Kingstontard. I don’t think Mr. Hyper-partisan himself, Stephen Harper, could have done better.
There you have it, folks. The failures of the US and the UK in Iraq, the tens of thousands dead and the hundreds of billions of dollars lost, are the fault of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
Our could of thousand soldiers would have had that big an impact.
That’s confidence. That’s well-placed patriotic bravado. I like your style Kingstontard.
Ted: “That’s confidence. That’s well-placed patriotic bravado.”
That, or a classic case of Liberal Derangement Syndrome.
Ted,
That would have been a better retort if not for the Harper slur as if Dion and the other liberals were less partisan.
Kingstontard,
You give Canada the assumption of far too much clout.
Ted:
Chretien did not committ Canada to Iraq for what reason?
Could it be that Saddam gave drilling rights to Total Elf Fina, the French oil company?
And, could it be that one of the company’s major shareholders was Canada’s own Power Corporation?
Or, could it be that the CEO of Power Corporation is Paul Desmarais?
Not just another Quebecker, of course. Desmarais happens to be Chretien’s son-in-law.
Wouldn’t want to harm the future financial security of your daughter, now would he? Any father would have done the same.
Right?
Oh, and Ted:
Did we mention Maurice Strong, the father of Kyoto, who was involved in Saddam’s Oil-For-Food scandal?
Naw, couldn’t have been any of those factors which played into Chretien’s decision.
Set you free:
Not that it is germaine or on topic to this discussion thread, but you happen to be wrong on all counts there, my friend.
Chretien did not commit Canada to Iraq because of a dereliction of duty, in my opinion. He let the UN decide for him.
Repeatedly in 2002 and the early months of 2003, Chretien stated Saddam should go, that there should be consequences to violating UN resolutions, that we should work with Americans (yes, all true, believe it or not), all the time the polls (until March 2003) showing about even support in Canada for going to war against Iraq… but then he said he would defer to the UN’s decision.
If it is the right thing to do like for example intervening in Kosovo, and you say it is the right thing to do, then why allow a foreign body dictate what your foreign policy should be?
If the higher principle is that we should only have wars approved by the UN, then (a) why did you support the idea in the first place (b) why wait for the UN to make the decision for you and (c) why did you not follow that principle in Kosovo?
He allowed someone else to make the decision for all of us. Even if it was the right decision in the end, it is the most underexamined aspect for the “decision” for which he claims to be most proud.
Set you free is right with his reasons chretain did not go to Iraq. OIL, profits for his family.
Kate, Baltimore like Phoenix is perfectly safe so long as one carries heat.
Here in lies the problem with Baltimore. 🙂
set you free – I fully agree with you; Chretien’s personal financial dealings were the reason he kept Canada out of Iraq. That – and his narcissistic hatred of the Americans and Bush. Chretien has and had, only one interest. Himself.
Not Canada or Canadians. Nor any people or nation. Himself. And his obsession, that narcissistic focus on himself – meant that any and all decisions were for his benefit. It’s strange to hear Liberals call Harper ‘controlling’ when Chretien was the ultimate controller – running everything privately from his office. For himself.
But I don’t think that Canada’s participation would have made things better in Iraq! Canadians are hardly any more expert than the military of any other country – and we can’t knock the expertise of the US, UK and Australian military.
As for Chretien waiting for the UN. Hah!!! Chretien didn’t operate by any ethical rules or principles – which the UN lacks anyway – He used the UN as an excuse.
Is this the same Ted? You sound like me! Way to use the brain Ted!
An unstated corollary to your post here is that all the DemocRats and Liberals currently running their mouths on “bringing home our boys!” are doing so dishonestly.
Furthermore, as the military has been learning how to fight this enemy (completely different than the Desert Storm II they were tooled up for) and their results have been improving, why didn’t we all hear about it from any MSM outfit until Der Speigel finally spills the beans?
We don’t even really know what mistakes were made because the ONLY coverage of the war we get is a body count of friendlies when a bomb goes off.
So Mary, Chretien said no to Iraq because of oil money but to imply the same thing in reverse about Bush and Cheney who, you have to admit, have far far more and far more significant contacts with far more powerful oil interests is cause for accusations of Bush Derangement Syndrome?
Being someone with a horrible taste for fashion, I’m just trying to figure out which brand tin foil hat is fashionable this season.
There’s nothing even remotely Pollyanna-ish in Der Spiegel’s story, or in the various war-bloggers’ take on events, just something approaching veracity. Hopefully that approach, wherein the truth supplants craven partisanship, will spill over to more of our Canadian media.
Because in the early days of the war when America was at first glance responsible for carnage, maimed Iraqis were regularly put on display by the prog media as being evidence of what this Republican administration has gone and done. Now that it’s undeniable that the carnage is a product of, uhh, noble foreigners expressing themselves and that — as Ullrich Ficthner wrote, “it’s not a war between Iraqis and Americans…(but) a war of Shiites against Sunnis, Sunnis against Christians, competing terrorist cells fighting for territory, private militias against the Iraqi police, drug gangs, apolitical criminal kidnappers interested purely in ransom money and Iraqi mafiosos” — these same news sources have been going out of their way to withhold evidence of progress, sticking instead to the “everybody knows” anti-American subtext that’s so popular among a particular tribe of Canadians. Sort of, “If we stick to our story long enough, the facts won’t matter. Because we’re right.”
What’s most revolting about this default-setting, all-Canadian editorial antipathy to America and Republicans is that it’s always been tacitly presented as being self-evidently (i.e. needing no further examinations) a just, moral and quintessentially Canadian concern for the well-being of innocents.
We know that now that that’s a profoundly hypocritical load of crap, because even as American soldiers and friendly Iraqi forces, fighting together, are getting the upper hand in many regions, and defeating those who mass-murder men women and children at weddings and at markets and at mosques, the prog media’s didactic moralizers are still trying to undercut the mission.
Why would they do that, when they KNOW that if the Americans were to pull out millions of innocents would be subject to fanatical thugs?
On a happier, more local note, when a farm gal from Saskatchewan with f-a-c-t tattooed on her knuckles punches out like clockwork various gatekeepers’ lights, in front of a crowd of thousands that includes other gatekeepers, I’d say things are looking up.
Over the top! Follow that woman!…Uh-oh, incoming — HIT THE TIP JAR!!
“Furthermore, as the military has been learning how to fight this enemy (completely different than the Desert Storm II they were tooled up for) and their results have been improving, why didn’t we all hear about it from any MSM outfit until Der Speigel finally spills the beans? We don’t even really know what mistakes were made because the ONLY coverage of the war we get is a body count of friendlies when a bomb goes off.
Because that’s all that you look for. I’ve read and watched lots of news from so-called “liberal” mainstream sources – CP, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, Wash Post, NYT, NYT Magazine, The Atlantic – that have highlighted successes, and increasingly so (unlike the conservative mainstream sources – Fox, Wash Times, NYP, National Post, etc. – that have tried to maintain that Iraq has always been improving from day one).
It’s easy to create a media conspiracy if you ignore any and all counter-examples. “Is this the same Ted?”
There. Does this post reassure you that the planets aren’t becoming misaligned, Phantom?
I think the tide is shifting for a number of reasons –
one- the Iraqi people are slowly moving out of enforced tribalism and becoming aware that they have the right to govern their own country, not some Top Gun Tribe (eg Saddam Hussein).
two- they are getting tired of the violence. What the US did – was to move Islamic fascism back from the west, where it had moved because military dictatorships in the ME prevented its operations there…and moved it back into the ME. That was 100% the correct tactic to take. That’s where it should be. Islamic fascism is an agenda of retaining tribalism in the ME, a religious tribalism. ET
But you admit the Liberals and DemocRats are a pack of liars Ted? That’ll do for now. ~:D
No, ted, that’s not how logic works. Because it is a fact that Chretien stayed out of Iraq because he and his buddies had oil contracts with Saddam Hussein does not, logically, mean that Bush went in to Iraq because he and his buddies had oil contracts with Saddam.
What you are ignoring, in your totally false analogy, is that the USA had been attacked by Al Qaeda, or Islamic fascism – and that the root cause of Islamic fascism, is tribal dictatorships. Therefore, the ME had to be ‘forced’ out of tribalism and enabled to be democratic.
False analogies – a basic fallacy in logic 101.
No, Terry Gain, my support for the US moving out of Iraq – and I still strongly support that move – was my concern that Iraq would slide into a situation where they would not take charge of their own infrastructure but would remain in tribalism – cocooned by the security of the US military and would not take charge of themselves, into enabling the dev’t of a middle class, and, take over their own security. Sort of like Quebec – which for years hasn’t taken control of its own spending and lifestyle, cocooned by the security of having the federal gov’t ‘equalize’ and ‘bribe’ Quebec.
That, so far, hasn’t happened. My concerns haven’t been realized. Instead, the Iraqi people are taking over control for their own security; they are working against Al Qaeda and insurgents both officially – and local civilians are against the insurgents. And, they are enabling a middle class.
So- my worries about Iraq moving into a Cocooned State haven’t, so far, materialized.
But, the US army must leave sooner rather than later, to enable Iraq to be on its own. So, I stand by my concerns – which were and are, valid. That means, as well, that the US must leave in the next year or two. The next problem in the area, is Iran.
Hey Ted. Ever been to the ME, wearing a Canadian uniform? Ever been to Europe, wearing a Canadian uniform? My family has done tours in Cyprus, Golan, Turkey, Somalia, and participated in gulf war 1. I think we may have a little better idea of what respect Canadian troops get overseas. Stick to promoting your librano causes, and keep your moonbat opinions vis-a-vis the effectiveness of Canadian troops in combat to yourself. Moron! GO ARMY!
Kingstontard:
Like I said, I love your style man. Send in the Canadian troops and all of the Iraqi problems that the US + UK + POland + Australia + etc. could not solve would have been solved 4 years ago! Send a few – what? a dozen or so? – into Darfur and bam! another problem site solved. Then send them to Iran and North Korea and two other regimes the US wouldn’t dare to take on and we’ve got ourselves world peace. Who needs more troops in the arctic, what with everyone so afraid of us. Send some – what? maybe a thousand or so – into Afghanistan and then… oh, wait a second. We’ve already done that… actually did that… actually Chretien did that 6 years ago… and then it was that dastard Martin who expanded our role there… those confounded Liberals! How dare they make a fool out of Kingstontard!!!
Wow. If David and Ray are sufficiently freaked out, having combed over every inch of that crap rag for years now, it must be big news.
I must say, I never would have expected to see anything remotely neutral and unbiased from Der Spiegal.
Nice post.
ET
Why don’t you just admit you were wrong when you said you thought the U.S. should leave Iraq. I’d much rather turn my attention to lefties than you.
And there’s no way the U.S. is going to be out of Iraq in one or two years. American forces will still be in Iraq even after Presidents Giuliani and Romney have stepped down.
You are right that the next (and current) problem is Iran. There are many arrows in our quiver that should be employed before military force.
terry gain – because my point about the US leaving Iraq was, I think, a very valid, not wrong, concern that Iraq would move into a ‘comfort mode’ where it relied on the US military to protect its political and economic systems – without changing those political and economic systems to enable a middle class democracy. It would rely on the US to ‘keep the population quiet’ – and that would be disastrous.
That could have happened but I think the ‘threshold’ has been reached, and Iraq will, slowly, move out of its old structure. That means, in a year or two, the US military can leave. I know you think it will take longer, but I think that a longer stay won’t be necessary and that the military focus will turn to Iran next.
BUT – I also think that the US is hoping that the UN, corrupt as it is, will take on more responsibilities in Iraq – and, that the other Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, will confront Iran – rather than the US. And even, that the Iranian people won’t put up with Iran’s theistic fundamentalism.
terry gain – because my point about the US leaving Iraq was, I think, a very valid, not wrong, concern that Iraq would move into a ‘comfort mode’ where it relied on the US military to protect its political and economic systems – without changing those political and economic systems to enable a middle class democracy. It would rely on the US to ‘keep the population quiet’ – and that would be disastrous.
ET
Your point was misinformed. IA and IP casualties have exceeded Coalition casualties for at least the last year. You need to regularly read Roggio and Soldier’s Dad before pronouncing definitively on Iraq.
The world depents too much on a lie a day controled liberal left-wing news media THE ALL READ THE NYTs
Yup, things are going “swimmingly” in Iraq:
3w.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/08/14/iraq-bombings.html
Iran will self-destruct. According to my Iranian friend the government run by the mullahs is very unpopular. Forces are at work within Iran by Iranians to get rid of them. Iran is a problem but one that can be sorted out from afar. Backing and supporting internal forces will probably be the smart thing to do.
Go back 35 years or so and read what the American Gov’t said about Vietnam. Samr rhetoric as today.They will never admit defeat until public humiliation forces them(The USA) to withdraw.
Iberia
I don’t watch anti-American propaganda but I doubt the CBC put it in context for you. The reasons al Qaeda hit an isolated Kurdish village are because it is becoming harder and harder for them to hit targets in Baghdad and they do need to keep the killed count up to give their allies in the U.S Congress more impetus to surrender. Al Qaeda is not winning and this attack will backfire. Not everyone cowers in the face of evil.
Nancy Pelosi is going to be pissed!
Recently, the democratic presidential candidacy chasers have proclaimed that the troops will stay for a while. That must have been the cue for the news manufacturers to somewhat change their spin.
Since Spiegel is one of the most widely read and consistently American Bashing rags in Europe …. this is a big deal!
It is the equivalent of Time Magazine coming out and saying they were wrong about Bush all along!
Could it be that they are positioning themselves at this time to allow a plausible denial of the years of lies and misreporting on the Iraq situation?
Interesting turn of events I think BUT in the longer view of MSM behaviour ….. just another sad evidence of their hypocrisy.
I’m more inclined to think that the next move will be to announce that since the situation in Iraq is improving that the US most be told to leave so that the EU can go in and make sure things turn out “Right” !
People with character are generally optimistic and most often have a good sense of humor. They have proved in their own lives that hard work, tenacity and a positive attitude can usually win the day.
Other people who are generally pessimistic who believe the war on our enemies can’t be won, that the earth is doomed due to climate change. These folks are humorless, have no character and generally a lot of frightened spoiled brats.
Those two groups would be the Right and the Left respectively.
Even simple observations of the two camps regarding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan smacks one in the face with what is right and what is wrong. No sophisticated study required.
The Demoncrats/Liberal-Left will take us down the road to defeat and despair. The forces on the right will leads us to eventual victory even with that great Left wing albatross around our necks.
The New York Time turned their leaf a couple of weeks ago and more and more of the Leftist press will pave the way back for the Demoncrats over the next few weeks so they can slip back into a temporary slot in the real world in the hopes of getting one of their twits elected president.
The more we win the war, more we will re-elect conservative leaders in both the US and Canada.
The same reality will eventually have the MSM turning away from Al Gore after a few more years of no high water and no dramatic rise in temperatures.
It only take time to do anything!
Now is not the time to oversell whatever improvements/progress is being made of late in Iraq.
Let the results speak for themselves as public opinion is very brittle and in flux. Should we suffer a setback – even a temporary one – public opinion could quickly reverse direction unless we have managed expectations so that setbacks are taken in stride.
Having said that, I strongly agree with Victor Davis Hansen that the coalition should start (in fact should have started a long time ago) making incursions into Iran and Syria to chase insurgants and destroy staging bases and arms caches.
Patreous (sp.) has already started to ramp up the talking points regarding both Syria and Iran being sources of manpower and arms and training (Syria providing mostly men and Iran the arms apparently) so perhaps the military action will soon follow – perhaps after his September report to Congress.
Davis thinks that Iran (and presumably Syria) is a “real paper tiger” and that they would do little in retaliation to such acts especially if weapons etc. are found. The impact of a limp-wristed response by those two rogue states on the political environment in Syria and Iran would be positive as it would be in the entire muslim world.
Fascinating. I think Hanson is right – people want to be perceived as ‘on the winning side’ and since the tide may be shifting in Iraq, they want to be on the side of the US.
I think the tide is shifting for a number of reasons –
one- the Iraqi people are slowly moving out of enforced tribalism and becoming aware that they have the right to govern their own country, not some Top Gun Tribe (eg Saddam Hussein).
two- they are getting tired of the violence. What the US did – was to move Islamic fascism back from the west, where it had moved because military dictatorships in the ME prevented its operations there…and moved it back into the ME. That was 100% the correct tactic to take. That’s where it should be. Islamic fascism is an agenda of retaining tribalism in the ME, a religious tribalism.
The externalization of Islamic fascism to the west meant that the ‘evil’ became defined as the west and modernization. Rather than the dictatorships back home. The US moved the fight back ‘home’. And, Muslims began to fight against Muslims. And – they have realized that they don’t want this fight. They don’t want fascism. And, they don’t want tribalism.
It’s slow, it takes time – but, it’s working.
Bush and the US were right. And the left are, in their support for fascism, wrong.
The next thing we’re going to see, is the UN wanting to take over there. Bush has already opened the door for them to consider it. I think it’s still too early. The UN, after all, is corrupt and favors the left and tribalism. Iraq isn’t strong enough to fight against the UN – which would assist fascism rather than assist the Iraqi people.
“Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq –“
This is the most revealing line in the whole article. The MSM has been on spin cycle for years and they’re “irritated” that they haven’t been able to rinse out the damned truth.
Although it’s impossible to know the entire truth of this situation in Iraq, this is the second bit of good news to shatter leftist mythology.
Of course, Speigel is covering their butts because they know Gen. Patreus will be a credible witness at the Congressional hearings.
That would pit the credibility of the person with boots on the ground against the credibility of the detached observers.
Score a win for the people who are actually putting their lives on the line.
Lies exposed, Chapter II, of course is the shaky scientific quicksand of the Global Warming advocates.
This could be one of the shortest cults in human history, which will collapse under both religious and scientific scrutiny.
Be prepared for much more shrillness in the upcoming few months as the deceptions of the left are peeled back layer by layer.
All of the above or they are just shifting it now to setup the iraqi’s as underdogs vs the big bad all winning empire….
Or they are seeing it as it is. I am not there I dont know. I hope they are successful.
Saw an interview with Kristol last night, who has never wavered in his strong support for the war.
His take on it was that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld really were f***ing things up in Iraq with stupid stupid stupid planning (or lack thereof), but that the change in tactics in the last 9 months has turned the tide, slowly but surely.
I’m not sure if that’s it, but it seems to fit the facts more than the simplistic bromide that the right was always right and the left was always wrong on Iraq, or silly statements like the Iraqis are simply getting tired of violence or want to govern themselves. I think fighting tactics actually do matter when you are dealing with a violent enemy in a violent land in the middle of a civil war.
It sure has lasted a lot longer than “ive days or five weeks or five months” though, hasn’t it.
Ted:
What military academy did you attend?
Ted:
Can you please explain for all who are breathlessly waiting for your version of the truth what business al Quaeda has in iraq?
The original conflict was a resoultion of a dispute between Saddam Hussein and the United Nations following the first Gulf War.
The United Nations, in a series of resolutions ending in 1441, demanded Saddam reveal the location of his weapons of mass destruction.
Those documents are easily accessible through the internet.
This is very good news and this success is occurring sooner than I expected. It took the Brits 15 years to kick the communists out of the Malay peninsula and that was no mean feat either.
Go get them, Bush!
Ted. There is no elephant. Just keep telling yourself that, and the elephant poo won’t smell so bad.
Give Ted a break. He has a good point here.
whether you were for or against the war from the start, it was full of mistakes on the application side (as all wars inevitably are.)
That new tactics are more effective just means that the US has properly adapted after a too-long period of denial.
This is one of those times where we can agree. There is no denying that the aftermath of the invasion was mishandled and that a re-think was in order. This isn’t a pro or anti war comment from Ted. I think we need to encourage those we debate to reason instead of sneering and attacks.
I hope the surge does prove to be effective. I have my doubts but I hope for the best. In the mean time, lets plan a good bombing of Iran’s nuke facilities and military infrastructure without boots on the ground. They’ve always been the bigger threat.
ted – could you provide some proof that my statements that the Iraqi people are getting tired of internal violence is ‘silly’?? Hmmm? Could you provide some evidence that their current willingness to ‘rat out’ the local al Qaeda gangs to the Americans is ‘silly’? Could you provide some evidence that their current willingness to fight against these internal gangs is ‘silly? Hmmm?
Could you provide some proof that there is something silly about the Iraqi people wanting to govern themselves?
Or, rather than thinking, do you just have an automatic leftist knee-jerk reaction to anything I say? Hmm?
Bush never said it would be short; to the contrary, he said it would take a long time. Of course, as a leftist, your view is that Bush et al, were always wrong. Now, that things are slowly getting better, you’re trying to save face. You have to maintain that Bush was wrong – and are now, only trying to say that things are going OK just because of ‘more forces’. Heh.
Things aren’t as simple as you leftists would like them to be. Life is complex, not mechanically reductionist and you can’t reduce causality to simple one dimensions – aka ‘It’s Bush’s fault’.
Things are getting better in Iraq – and it can’t be reduced to your ‘more troops’. Simplicity is the sign of a simpleton. Try again, ted.
Even if the Democrats take control of the White House and the Congress in 2008, the Americans will stay in Iraq. The reality is they can’t go now, no matter how good or bad things are. Sure the above article indicates progress is made, but the real success will be obtained when Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, can walk the streets of Baghdad freely and safely. As of today, an unguarded American will probably be murdered within 5 minutes there.
Success it at least 10-15 years away, IMHO. And those calling for immediate withdrawal are totally deluded/dishonest/both. If they think it’s bad now, they haven’t a clue on how bad it would get.
As they say in France: The wine is uncorked, now we must drink it.
The GIs will stay.
Well folks, your all missing one very important little something, Professor Ignatieff has come out against the Iraq war, after he was for it.
Being the clever fellow he is, sarc on, would he not be aware if things were starting to turn around for the US in their struggle to bring at least some form of stability to Iraq?
Ah, the musings of a professor, never have to make a hard decision, leave it to the people in the realm of actuality.
greenneck – I think you are exaggerating, to say that an unguarded westerner would be murdered in 5 minutes in Baghdad. Could you provide some proof?
I also think that the definition of ‘success’ isn’t as polarized as your definition. I think the definition of success is if the Iraqi people are in electoral, judicial and economic control of the population, ie, that Al Qaeda or Islamic fascism is not in control but effectively marginalized – and that a middle class has developed. That doesn’t require a US military presence. It does, however, require a change in direction in the ME from a tribal to a democratic system.
Liz j – interesting about Ignatieff. But, he’s not focusing on reality or truth; he’s focused on The Vote of Canadians – those Canadians who are Cloud Dwellers and think that Islamic Fascism is merely a ‘justified reaction to American Imperialism’. There’s a lot of that around…and he’s after them.
“but the real success will be obtained when Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, can walk the streets of Baghdad freely and safely.”
You just set a threshold that isn’t expected of Baltimore.
“Even if the Democrats take control of the White House and the Congress in 2008, the Americans will stay in Iraq. The reality is they can’t go now, no matter how good or bad things are.”
Ironically, in many ways, that would be like the position Nixon was in when he took over the unpopular Democrats’s war in Vietnam. (I note that as a curious parallel and not a partisan dig.)
I was never in favour of the Iraq War, mostly because of the more important need to stay focused and succeed in Afghanistan, but I am certainly of the view that there should be no immediate withdrawal. While the US did not invade Iraq to become a police force in a civil war, having injected themselves rightly or wrongly into the regime change in Iraq, they also can’t simply abandon them right now.
The person I blame the most for the mess in Iraq is our former PM, Mr. Cretin himself. Canadian soldiers could have marched with the coalition into Baghdad, and applied the tactics(that we have learned since Korea)needed to pacify and secure the key institutions. As well, our military’s diplomatic experience and credibility would have ensured a much smoother transition to a peaceful conclusion. Picture the lead convoy, Canadian flags flying, blue berets(UN mandate, after all). Could have been a whole different ballgame if not for mr. no leadership himself playing provincial real politik. How typical of any librano PM.
“I think fighting tactics actually do matter when you are dealing with a violent enemy”
Well Ted you’ve got that right. Unfortunately Rumsfeld had to fight a war with out rattling too many tea cups because the MSM and their lefty supporters like to dine on images of carnage. This benevolent form of warfare encouraged those that have been wreaking havoc on thousands of innocent Iraqis over the last few years.
Congratulations.
“silly statements like the Iraqis are simply getting tired of violence or want to govern themselves.”
Nobody knows silly statements as well as Ted.
“an unguarded American will probably be murdered within 5 minutes there.”
GreenNeck, any evidence to suport this?
Beautiful! Absolutely stunningly beautiful, Kingstontard. I don’t think Mr. Hyper-partisan himself, Stephen Harper, could have done better.
There you have it, folks. The failures of the US and the UK in Iraq, the tens of thousands dead and the hundreds of billions of dollars lost, are the fault of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
Our could of thousand soldiers would have had that big an impact.
That’s confidence. That’s well-placed patriotic bravado. I like your style Kingstontard.
Ted: “That’s confidence. That’s well-placed patriotic bravado.”
That, or a classic case of Liberal Derangement Syndrome.
Ted,
That would have been a better retort if not for the Harper slur as if Dion and the other liberals were less partisan.
Kingstontard,
You give Canada the assumption of far too much clout.
Ted:
Chretien did not committ Canada to Iraq for what reason?
Could it be that Saddam gave drilling rights to Total Elf Fina, the French oil company?
And, could it be that one of the company’s major shareholders was Canada’s own Power Corporation?
Or, could it be that the CEO of Power Corporation is Paul Desmarais?
Not just another Quebecker, of course. Desmarais happens to be Chretien’s son-in-law.
Wouldn’t want to harm the future financial security of your daughter, now would he? Any father would have done the same.
Right?
Oh, and Ted:
Did we mention Maurice Strong, the father of Kyoto, who was involved in Saddam’s Oil-For-Food scandal?
Naw, couldn’t have been any of those factors which played into Chretien’s decision.
Set you free:
Not that it is germaine or on topic to this discussion thread, but you happen to be wrong on all counts there, my friend.
Chretien did not commit Canada to Iraq because of a dereliction of duty, in my opinion. He let the UN decide for him.
Repeatedly in 2002 and the early months of 2003, Chretien stated Saddam should go, that there should be consequences to violating UN resolutions, that we should work with Americans (yes, all true, believe it or not), all the time the polls (until March 2003) showing about even support in Canada for going to war against Iraq… but then he said he would defer to the UN’s decision.
If it is the right thing to do like for example intervening in Kosovo, and you say it is the right thing to do, then why allow a foreign body dictate what your foreign policy should be?
If the higher principle is that we should only have wars approved by the UN, then (a) why did you support the idea in the first place (b) why wait for the UN to make the decision for you and (c) why did you not follow that principle in Kosovo?
He allowed someone else to make the decision for all of us. Even if it was the right decision in the end, it is the most underexamined aspect for the “decision” for which he claims to be most proud.
Set you free is right with his reasons chretain did not go to Iraq. OIL, profits for his family.
Kate, Baltimore like Phoenix is perfectly safe so long as one carries heat.
Here in lies the problem with Baltimore. 🙂
set you free – I fully agree with you; Chretien’s personal financial dealings were the reason he kept Canada out of Iraq. That – and his narcissistic hatred of the Americans and Bush. Chretien has and had, only one interest. Himself.
Not Canada or Canadians. Nor any people or nation. Himself. And his obsession, that narcissistic focus on himself – meant that any and all decisions were for his benefit. It’s strange to hear Liberals call Harper ‘controlling’ when Chretien was the ultimate controller – running everything privately from his office. For himself.
But I don’t think that Canada’s participation would have made things better in Iraq! Canadians are hardly any more expert than the military of any other country – and we can’t knock the expertise of the US, UK and Australian military.
As for Chretien waiting for the UN. Hah!!! Chretien didn’t operate by any ethical rules or principles – which the UN lacks anyway – He used the UN as an excuse.
Is this the same Ted? You sound like me! Way to use the brain Ted!
An unstated corollary to your post here is that all the DemocRats and Liberals currently running their mouths on “bringing home our boys!” are doing so dishonestly.
Furthermore, as the military has been learning how to fight this enemy (completely different than the Desert Storm II they were tooled up for) and their results have been improving, why didn’t we all hear about it from any MSM outfit until Der Speigel finally spills the beans?
We don’t even really know what mistakes were made because the ONLY coverage of the war we get is a body count of friendlies when a bomb goes off.
So Mary, Chretien said no to Iraq because of oil money but to imply the same thing in reverse about Bush and Cheney who, you have to admit, have far far more and far more significant contacts with far more powerful oil interests is cause for accusations of Bush Derangement Syndrome?
Being someone with a horrible taste for fashion, I’m just trying to figure out which brand tin foil hat is fashionable this season.
There’s nothing even remotely Pollyanna-ish in Der Spiegel’s story, or in the various war-bloggers’ take on events, just something approaching veracity. Hopefully that approach, wherein the truth supplants craven partisanship, will spill over to more of our Canadian media.
Because in the early days of the war when America was at first glance responsible for carnage, maimed Iraqis were regularly put on display by the prog media as being evidence of what this Republican administration has gone and done. Now that it’s undeniable that the carnage is a product of, uhh, noble foreigners expressing themselves and that — as Ullrich Ficthner wrote, “it’s not a war between Iraqis and Americans…(but) a war of Shiites against Sunnis, Sunnis against Christians, competing terrorist cells fighting for territory, private militias against the Iraqi police, drug gangs, apolitical criminal kidnappers interested purely in ransom money and Iraqi mafiosos” — these same news sources have been going out of their way to withhold evidence of progress, sticking instead to the “everybody knows” anti-American subtext that’s so popular among a particular tribe of Canadians. Sort of, “If we stick to our story long enough, the facts won’t matter. Because we’re right.”
What’s most revolting about this default-setting, all-Canadian editorial antipathy to America and Republicans is that it’s always been tacitly presented as being self-evidently (i.e. needing no further examinations) a just, moral and quintessentially Canadian concern for the well-being of innocents.
We know that now that that’s a profoundly hypocritical load of crap, because even as American soldiers and friendly Iraqi forces, fighting together, are getting the upper hand in many regions, and defeating those who mass-murder men women and children at weddings and at markets and at mosques, the prog media’s didactic moralizers are still trying to undercut the mission.
Why would they do that, when they KNOW that if the Americans were to pull out millions of innocents would be subject to fanatical thugs?
On a happier, more local note, when a farm gal from Saskatchewan with f-a-c-t tattooed on her knuckles punches out like clockwork various gatekeepers’ lights, in front of a crowd of thousands that includes other gatekeepers, I’d say things are looking up.
Over the top! Follow that woman!…Uh-oh, incoming — HIT THE TIP JAR!!
“Furthermore, as the military has been learning how to fight this enemy (completely different than the Desert Storm II they were tooled up for) and their results have been improving, why didn’t we all hear about it from any MSM outfit until Der Speigel finally spills the beans?
We don’t even really know what mistakes were made because the ONLY coverage of the war we get is a body count of friendlies when a bomb goes off.
Because that’s all that you look for. I’ve read and watched lots of news from so-called “liberal” mainstream sources – CP, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, Wash Post, NYT, NYT Magazine, The Atlantic – that have highlighted successes, and increasingly so (unlike the conservative mainstream sources – Fox, Wash Times, NYP, National Post, etc. – that have tried to maintain that Iraq has always been improving from day one).
It’s easy to create a media conspiracy if you ignore any and all counter-examples.
“Is this the same Ted?”
There. Does this post reassure you that the planets aren’t becoming misaligned, Phantom?
I think the tide is shifting for a number of reasons –
one- the Iraqi people are slowly moving out of enforced tribalism and becoming aware that they have the right to govern their own country, not some Top Gun Tribe (eg Saddam Hussein).
two- they are getting tired of the violence. What the US did – was to move Islamic fascism back from the west, where it had moved because military dictatorships in the ME prevented its operations there…and moved it back into the ME. That was 100% the correct tactic to take. That’s where it should be. Islamic fascism is an agenda of retaining tribalism in the ME, a religious tribalism. ET
But you admit the Liberals and DemocRats are a pack of liars Ted? That’ll do for now. ~:D
No, ted, that’s not how logic works. Because it is a fact that Chretien stayed out of Iraq because he and his buddies had oil contracts with Saddam Hussein does not, logically, mean that Bush went in to Iraq because he and his buddies had oil contracts with Saddam.
What you are ignoring, in your totally false analogy, is that the USA had been attacked by Al Qaeda, or Islamic fascism – and that the root cause of Islamic fascism, is tribal dictatorships. Therefore, the ME had to be ‘forced’ out of tribalism and enabled to be democratic.
False analogies – a basic fallacy in logic 101.
No, Terry Gain, my support for the US moving out of Iraq – and I still strongly support that move – was my concern that Iraq would slide into a situation where they would not take charge of their own infrastructure but would remain in tribalism – cocooned by the security of the US military and would not take charge of themselves, into enabling the dev’t of a middle class, and, take over their own security. Sort of like Quebec – which for years hasn’t taken control of its own spending and lifestyle, cocooned by the security of having the federal gov’t ‘equalize’ and ‘bribe’ Quebec.
That, so far, hasn’t happened. My concerns haven’t been realized. Instead, the Iraqi people are taking over control for their own security; they are working against Al Qaeda and insurgents both officially – and local civilians are against the insurgents. And, they are enabling a middle class.
So- my worries about Iraq moving into a Cocooned State haven’t, so far, materialized.
But, the US army must leave sooner rather than later, to enable Iraq to be on its own. So, I stand by my concerns – which were and are, valid. That means, as well, that the US must leave in the next year or two. The next problem in the area, is Iran.
Hey Ted. Ever been to the ME, wearing a Canadian uniform? Ever been to Europe, wearing a Canadian uniform? My family has done tours in Cyprus, Golan, Turkey, Somalia, and participated in gulf war 1. I think we may have a little better idea of what respect Canadian troops get overseas. Stick to promoting your librano causes, and keep your moonbat opinions vis-a-vis the effectiveness of Canadian troops in combat to yourself. Moron! GO ARMY!
Kingstontard:
Like I said, I love your style man. Send in the Canadian troops and all of the Iraqi problems that the US + UK + POland + Australia + etc. could not solve would have been solved 4 years ago! Send a few – what? a dozen or so? – into Darfur and bam! another problem site solved. Then send them to Iran and North Korea and two other regimes the US wouldn’t dare to take on and we’ve got ourselves world peace. Who needs more troops in the arctic, what with everyone so afraid of us. Send some – what? maybe a thousand or so – into Afghanistan and then… oh, wait a second. We’ve already done that… actually did that… actually Chretien did that 6 years ago… and then it was that dastard Martin who expanded our role there… those confounded Liberals! How dare they make a fool out of Kingstontard!!!
Wow. If David and Ray are sufficiently freaked out, having combed over every inch of that crap rag for years now, it must be big news.
I must say, I never would have expected to see anything remotely neutral and unbiased from Der Spiegal.
Nice post.
ET
Why don’t you just admit you were wrong when you said you thought the U.S. should leave Iraq. I’d much rather turn my attention to lefties than you.
And there’s no way the U.S. is going to be out of Iraq in one or two years. American forces will still be in Iraq even after Presidents Giuliani and Romney have stepped down.
You are right that the next (and current) problem is Iran. There are many arrows in our quiver that should be employed before military force.
terry gain – because my point about the US leaving Iraq was, I think, a very valid, not wrong, concern that Iraq would move into a ‘comfort mode’ where it relied on the US military to protect its political and economic systems – without changing those political and economic systems to enable a middle class democracy. It would rely on the US to ‘keep the population quiet’ – and that would be disastrous.
That could have happened but I think the ‘threshold’ has been reached, and Iraq will, slowly, move out of its old structure. That means, in a year or two, the US military can leave. I know you think it will take longer, but I think that a longer stay won’t be necessary and that the military focus will turn to Iran next.
BUT – I also think that the US is hoping that the UN, corrupt as it is, will take on more responsibilities in Iraq – and, that the other Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, will confront Iran – rather than the US. And even, that the Iranian people won’t put up with Iran’s theistic fundamentalism.
terry gain – because my point about the US leaving Iraq was, I think, a very valid, not wrong, concern that Iraq would move into a ‘comfort mode’ where it relied on the US military to protect its political and economic systems – without changing those political and economic systems to enable a middle class democracy. It would rely on the US to ‘keep the population quiet’ – and that would be disastrous.
ET
Your point was misinformed. IA and IP casualties have exceeded Coalition casualties for at least the last year. You need to regularly read Roggio and Soldier’s Dad before pronouncing definitively on Iraq.
The world depents too much on a lie a day controled liberal left-wing news media THE ALL READ THE NYTs
Yup, things are going “swimmingly” in Iraq:
3w.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/08/14/iraq-bombings.html
Iran will self-destruct. According to my Iranian friend the government run by the mullahs is very unpopular. Forces are at work within Iran by Iranians to get rid of them. Iran is a problem but one that can be sorted out from afar. Backing and supporting internal forces will probably be the smart thing to do.
Go back 35 years or so and read what the American Gov’t said about Vietnam. Samr rhetoric as today.They will never admit defeat until public humiliation forces them(The USA) to withdraw.
Iberia
I don’t watch anti-American propaganda but I doubt the CBC put it in context for you. The reasons al Qaeda hit an isolated Kurdish village are because it is becoming harder and harder for them to hit targets in Baghdad and they do need to keep the killed count up to give their allies in the U.S Congress more impetus to surrender. Al Qaeda is not winning and this attack will backfire. Not everyone cowers in the face of evil.