"Joe, American" Challenges the Presidential Candidates

In this video we hear some frank and, for the most part, commonsense advice to the Presidential candidates from a guy who calls himself Joe, American. I don't think Joe's plan is perfect but it's worth a spot here on the Travis Monitor.

He's a bit too idealistic and non-partisan for my taste but I'm used to overlooking such "defects" when fighting a common enemy, such as when confronting the US State Department and the Peoples Republic of China over the question of Taiwan's independence.

Since May 28, 2008 when Joe recorded this video Hillary has conceded the Democratic nomination to Obama and kissed and made up with "the Messiah" in Unity, NH. That makes Joe's reference to Hillary as a candidate now a bit dated, but his message is even more relevant now than it was on May 28, 2008. Watch and you'll see what I mean.

Click here to meet Joe, American

Carter Peace More Deadly than Bush War

No, this is not a criticism of President Carter's foreign policy, either as President or loose-cannon ex-President - even though he deserves it. (Yes, he was and is a danger to our national security, then and now.) Rather, I found this statistic on
WND, and found it so surprising, I had to share it:

In 2005, a total of 1,942 U.S. military personnel were killed in all causes, including accidents, hostile action, homicides, illnesses, suicides, etc. That compares to 2,392 in 1980, the last year of President Jimmy Carter's administration. In fact, twice as many U.S. military personnel were killed in accidents in that one year than were killed in hostile actions in any year of the Bush administration.

They show that "Despite suffering 4,000 deaths in Iraq, annual U.S. military casualties overall during the first six years of the Bush administration are well below the average for the 26-year period beginning in 1980."

Accused Saddam Agent Met With Hillary

Accused Saddam Agent Says He Met With Hillary at White House: "A Michigan man facing federal criminal charges of illegally working for Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Intelligence Service says he met with Hillary Clinton at the White House in May 1996." And Hillary then pushed 'oil-for-food' program on the State Dept. This same guy arranged and paid for the junket for 3 Congresscritters to go to Baghdad and pow-wow with Saddam Hussein in 2002. Nice "Sleeping with the Enemy" guys.

WE WON IN IRAQ

Bin Laden Latest Message: Al Qaeda Giving Up on Iraq and Focusing on Afghanistan. And still no sign of recognition of our victory in the media or the Democrats. Sen Reid still hasn't backtracked from his defeatist nonsense earlier this year.

UPDATE 12/4: Bill Roggio reports: Senior Syrian al Qaeda leader confirmed killed - "Abu Maysara killed during raid near Samarra."

Reuters reports: "Forty senior al Qaeda in Iraq members were either captured or killed in November, including a senior adviser to the Sunni Islamist group's leader, the U.S. military said on Tuesday. Violence levels in Iraq have fallen to their lowest levels since January 2006"

More proof that Al Qaeda in Iraq concedes defeat - Freeper jveritas translates the latest Al Qaeda in Iraq missive:

In his speech released yesterday Abou Omar Al Baghdadi the supposed leader of the Islamic State in Iraq which is Al Qaeda in Iraq said that only two hundered Mohajeroon are left in Iraq. Mohajeroon which means immigrants in Arabic are the foreign terrorists who came to fight in Iraq. This is yet the most stunning admission by Al Qaeda in Iraq that they are totally destroyed and from the tens of thousands of foreign terrorists they had, almost all of them are killed and captured and only two hundreds are left.

HOW WE WON - the surge of US support, trained Iraqi forces coming up to speed, and locals turning against insurgents is what has turned the tide and made the pacification of Iraq only a matter of time:

Fallujah was once the backbone of the insurgency. Today, as First Lt. Barry Edwards put it, "They avoid Fallujah now like it's the plague. ... They're afraid of the Iraqis."
"Security is good now because the coalition, Iraqi Army, and Iraqi police all work together," said an Iraqi fruit stand owner. "One hand does not clap."

Another Iraqi who works as a money changer told me, "They are finished. It will be a shame on all of us if the terrorists ever come back."

Iraq Mission Is Getting Accomplished

The Media Radio Silence over this Biggest Story of the Season continues.
IBD Editorializes it as "Iraq: Job Won"

War On Terror: With killings of both U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians down sharply, both al-Qaida and Iran may believe they have lost the Iraq War. Thanks to the surge, our mission just might largely be accomplished.

U.S. military deaths were recorded at 36 for October, down from 65 in September, according to an Associated Press count. Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Baghdad, last week said the deaths of coalition forces have declined for five straight months and are now at their lowest in years.

Reported civilian casualties, meanwhile, fell from 1,023 in September to 875 last month — the lowest of the year and well below the 1,216 of October 2006.

This progress comes to light as the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party, part of the Nouri al-Maliki government, declared al-Qaida defeated in Iraq. Independent Iraq-based journalist Michael Yon quoted party spokesman Sheik Omar Jabouri as saying the group is "defeated mentally, and therefore is defeated physically."

UPDATE:
We are winning in Afghanistan too:

“My assessment of the threat in this province is that the insurgency has suffered a total defeat this summer due to the combined efforts of the ANA and coalition forces,” Army Lt. Col. Karl Slaughenhaupt told online journalists and “bloggers” during a conference call from the tiny Afghan town of Qalat.

If I die before you wake...

This slide show and accompanying ballad, "If I Die Before You Wake" is a tribute to our brave soldiers in Iraq, who daily demonstrate their commitment to us and willingness to pay the ultimate price to defend and advance freedom.

Click here: If I Die Before You Wake - Powered by FlashPoint

Lieutenant Colonel Brian Birdwell's speech at the RPT Texas Straw Poll Event

When I first heard Lieutenant Colonel Brian Birdwell speak at the 2006 Republican Party of Texas State Convention last year I was deeply moved. When I heard him again speak, on September 1, 2007, this time to the 1500 delegates of the RPT Texas Straw Poll Event in Ft. Worth, I was inspired. I was inspired with the idea the next President, the next Commander-in-Chief could very well be the most important leadership choice Americans will make in a generation. We must not give in to the Billary hype. We can, we must, make a difference. We must make the right choice this time.

I hope the video log below, helps you know better what kind of leader to choose.

I apologize for the quality of the video. It is my first attempt to get something I videoed posted to YouTube.

Video 1 of 7

Video 2 of 7

Video 3 of 7

Video 4 of 7

Video 5 of 7

Video 6 of 7

Video 7 of 7

Foster Friess on Anti-Iraq Sentiment

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

What opportunities flow from the Jackson demonstration to end the Iraq "War"?

The Surge Is Working

AP reports Iraq residents rise up against al-Qaida, asking U.S. forces for help in a battle that ended up neeting 45 Al Qaeda terrorists killed or captured. Bill Roggio notes progress against Mahdi Army and continuing "Awakening" movements where the Sunnis are peeling away from Al Qaeda insurgency:

"A significant portion of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, in addition to elements of the Islamic Army in Iraq, have turned on AQI in Anbar and other provinces. The two insurgent groups have given substantial support to the Awakening movements spreading throughout Iraq."

An FR commentator notes: The surge is working. More Al QAEDA and Sadr-Madhi Army leaders have been killed or captured in the past two months that were in the previous year.

The main skepticism on the surge is from the media and 'chattering classes'. Will our forces be given the means and the time necessary to win? Our main battlefront there is in DC, not Baghdad.

UPDATE: Major Gerd Schroeder on "Why the Surge Is Working, Yet More Americans are Dying":

The most important factor that has contributed the fledgling success of the surge, and simultaneously to the significant increase in American deaths, is that the Americans began to move into Combat Outposts (COPs) or Joint Security Stations (JSS) starting in February 2007 (BIII, Page 8). The number of JSSs alone has steadily increased from 10 JSSs in February 2007 to 65 as of 23 May, and more will be established in the coming months. In short, our troops have moved and continue to move permanently into the neighborhoods in which they are work. They have increased their visibility, activity, and interaction with the population, while concurrently increasing their contact with the bad guys.

More interaction means a more effective operation but with greater casualties. The difference is that sectarian violence is down, the coordination and collaboration with Iraqis is up, and the the Al Qaeda terrorists are increasingly under pressure, with more enemy killed and captured than ever before.

Action Alert: Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Declares Iraq War 'Lost'

We finally saw the Democratic Majority leader come clean on where his party really stands on the Iraq War Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, pronounced the Iraq War 'lost' militarily on Thursday, and said it "can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

Please take a moment to shoot an email or make a phone call to our two senators, calling on them to take to the Senate floor and let the country know that the war in Iraq is not lost in any way shape or form, that indeed there are signs of progress as pointed out by Defense Secretary Robert Gates during a surprise visit to Iraq (see article via link), and that irresponsible political statements like the one made today by the Democratic Majority Leader only put our troops at risk by convincing the enemy he need only press his attacks harder and our political resolve will break, and we will run. The country needs to understand that statements like the one by Senator Reid today are not only being heard domestically, but are also heard by our terrorist enemies in Iraq, and no doubt embolden and strengthen their resolve that it will only take a few more bombs, a few more days of blood before our leaders back home capitulate and withdraw our forces from Iraq for good. Ironically, the enemy knows he can't ever hope to defeat us militarily, but only "diplomatically, politically, and economically". With the aide of Senator Reid and other like-minded public statements meant only for political gain, they may just succeed.

It is clear now that Reid and his compatriots have harbored this belief for some time, and that the Iraq Spending Bill they have been holding hostage with their time table for withdrawal is the political tool by which they plan to bring their beliefs to fruition. They know that without body armor, humvees, and ammunition itself that our forces will have no choice to but pull out and give the enemy military victory on the ground. Likewise, they understand that President Bush has said he will never sign a spending bill that includes a time-table for withdrawal. Thus, the Majority Leader and his compatriots are hoping that they have en-snared the President and the Iraq campaign in a no win situation; without bullets and armor the President will have no choice but to pull our troops out (never mind the danger such a Democratically-enforced situation would put our unarmed and un-equipped troops in), and if he wishes to have the bullets and armor, he would theoretically have to agree to allow some sort of time table, thus engendering a sure-fire militarily defeat once the pull out takes place, thereby brining to fruition the 'pronouncement' of Senator Reid today that the war is indeed 'lost militarily.' In the aftermath of this policy campaign, whatever it be, the Democrats are gambling they can convince the American people that the President and the GOP are to blame, despite the fact that the Democrats now control both Houses of Congress. If the President vetoes the Iraq Spending Bill because of a time table for withdrawal that would only pre-plan defeat a little ways down the road, Reid and his allies hope to accuse the President of not funding our troops, even though he would have done so with a political gun to his head. If the President does approve the bill with the time table intact, this is tantamount to admitting defeat and siding with the Democrats, and in reality would doom our troops to failure and Iraq itself to chaos at the hands of the terrorists who would simply bide their time until we are gone, then attack with full force. This is a shrewd plan from the minds of those who hate the President and wish nothing more than to see us fail in Iraq, no matter the cost this would impose upon our brave troops and nation; and they and have carefully constructed their policy to achieve just such a goal.

This uncompassionate and arguably politically criminal plan shows just how out of touch with reality the Democratic Party, or at least its public leaders, have become. From their statements it seems they cannot grasp the fact that if we do not fight the forces of terrorism over-seas, we will end up having to confront them on our own soil once again, just as on the morning of September 11th 2001. It is amazing that Senator Reid, who now says victory in Iraq can only come diplomatically, politically and economically, forgets that prior to 9/11, this was just how numerous U.S. administrations, most notably the Clinton Administration, had attempted to deal with global terrorism; with sustained and decisive military action being almost non-existence despite numerous attacks against our interests. Yet the result of this policy prior to 9/11 led only to the disastrous attacks we are now all so familiar with. Yet Reid and his compatriots now insist that we should go back to just such a policy, believing that if we no longer pursue the terrorists or try to interfere where we don't belong, they will leave us in peace.

Do these Democrats and their allies truly think that a terrorist making IEDs today in Iraq will tomorrow, following a total American pullout, simply go back to being a productive and peaceful member of society? Or is it more plausible that on the day following such a pull out, that same terrorist bomb maker would pack up his things and head to the next campaign target, which if Reid and his allies have their way would eventually only be America herself? Find it hard to believe that Democratic leaders could be this blind and out of touch with reality? You need look no further than Senator Ted Kennedy's remarks in response to the GOP's characterization of the Democratic position on troop withdrawal as 'surrender' : "Surrender to who? Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. This is an administration that has never understood the nature of the threat or the way to respond to it." Surrender to who?? How about the hordes of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq who just a short time ago exploded a bomb in the cafeteria of the Iraqi Parliament, with the clear intent of stopping us from setting up a free and democratic government in that nation?? The mere fact that Senator Kennedy would issue such a ludicrous and unbelievable statement is proof of how out of touch with reality he and his Party have become.

My friends, we live in perilous times, and we can only hope to prevail if our leaders are righteous and embrace the realities of this post 9/11 world. Clearly today's pronouncement by the Senate Majority Leader and the campaign that surrounds it proves that the Democratic Party is not the one we need leading our nation for the long term, unless we wish to abandon the people of the world to terrorism and hate, and wait idly by for the terrorists to turn to us at home. Please do what you can to convince our Texas Senators to relay the reality of the situation to the American people via the podium of public office to which we have elected them. Thank you, and Gold Bless America!


PS: This post was put together with the aide of information from an article form FOX News. You can find and read the original article in its entirety at this link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267181,00.html

Democrats leave Troops in Lurch

See also Troop Funding in Limbo

A Gathering of Eagles

A Gathering of Eagles was a patriotic gathering of veterans and others to support the tropps and the mission and protect veteran memorials from desecration by the leftist anti-war protesters. The WashPost reported the Gathering numbered in the thousands, unusual for a 'support the troops' rally:

"As war protesters marched toward Arlington Memorial Bridge en route to the Pentagon yesterday, they were flanked by long lines of military veterans and others who stood in solidarity with U.S. troops and the Bush administration's cause in Iraq."

It was a Miracle in Washington. Here are pictures from the Gathering of Eagles caravan, and report and pics of the rally.

Op-Ed Response: "Bring Them Home" vs "Let Them Win"

The Austin-American Statesman has given up on Iraq:

... The best way forward in Iraq is to start pulling out U.S. troops ...

Along the way to their conclusion, they partake in poor logic, misunderstanding of facts, and strawman arguments:

1. "There are Islamic terrorists involved, too, but take them all out and there is still a civil war." This ignores the repeated provocations of the Al Qaeda insurgents to stoke violence, culminating in the Samarra golden Mosque terrorist bombing of February, 2006, that finally cascaded into the sectarian violence that is observed today. The authors of the bombing were foriegn terrorists associated with (now dead) Zarqawi's Al Qaeda in Iraq group. Three years of terrorism fanning flames of violence finally led to sectarian bloodshed. If the terrorist insurgency in Iraq ended tomorrow, the militias would stand down, Iraq would be more peaceful and Iraq's democratic Government would be secure.
   
2. "The risk of pullout is still more violence, but that very threat might also prompt the various factions to reconsider how they might fare without U.S. troops serving as a firewall." Our enemies and the forces of chaos would fare well, while our friends would fare poorly. It's disappointing that the Iraqi Government and people have not been strong enough to take over security. Training has gone well enough that most of the Iraqi army can stand on it's own, but Iraq's military cannot stand alone to stem the violence. The 'bring them home' approach is to let Iraq drown - in blood.
3. "Some good has come out of the invasion. Saddam has been overthrown and executed, and the Iraqis held their first election." Actually Iraq held 3 national elections: One to form the Constitutional Assembly, one to approve the constitution, and then the national elections.
   
4. "Keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, however, appears to be aggravating the sectarian violence that has the country in a death grip." When our troops go in force into neighborhoods, they are pacified. It's not the presence of our troops but the absence of reliable Government troops that is the biggest hole for Iraq's security.
   
5. "If the president insists that this nation must remain fully engaged in Iraq, then he ought to lay out the full price of doing so ... Yet he's already ruled out any tax increase." Iraq spending is less than 5% of total Federal Government spending. What about the other 95% of Federal spending? The Medicare drug bill cost much more, did they contemplate that or do they ever criticize domestic spending on the basis of the lack of tax increases to pay for it? And what of the fact that the Bush tax cuts have led to a surge in growth that in effect created a situation where many of hte tax cuts paid for themselves by making future Govt liabilities more tolerable.

Rather than abandon Iraq, we should pursue all possible options to secure Iraq and win a victory. The question then is whether the US can or will do what it takes to win. Some proposals for victory show that it is attainable, albeit difficult. Eliot Cohen and Bing West propose:

We prefer an offensive strategy based on three ironclad principles: take the offense immediately against the death squads in Sadr City, who are now unsettled; arrest and imprison on a scale equal to the horrific situation (or at least equal to New York City!); and insist on a joint say in the appointment of army and police leaders.

We knocked off a terror master and genocidal maniac, Saddam Hussein, and are daily knocking off terrorist wannabes in a small war that will dictate the course of Middle East politics (democracy vs dictatorship) for the next generation and thereby dictate if and how soon we can win the war on terror. This seems a more necessary mission than optional wars like Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia or Bosnia.

Let them win.

Motley on Muslim sectarian violence

Seton Motley, a local essayist, opines eloquently on the "Three Muslim Civil Wars" at NewsOfTheDay:

.. We have been told, about what are in this one sense three fairly similar situations:

“Iraq is a Muslim sectarian war; we need to get out of there.”

“Sudan is a Muslim sectarian war; for what are we waiting? Get in there.”

And, in Gaza, “What sectarian war?”.

... For the Left, to paraphrase George Orwell, all civil wars are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Let us not forget Somalia. Somalia was nearly overrun by the Islamic extremists, but it was recently saved thanks to some Ethiopian troops backing the official Government. The Islamofascists fought in the Islamic way, retreating with tail between legs out of Mogadishu once a strong force showed up and declaring a desire to set up guerilla (viz. terrorist) warfare. The Arab and Muslim way of warfare involved skirmishing back to the days of Mohammed, and little has changed.

It raises the interesting question - if we know this is their way of war, how to defeat it?

Forceful, dynamic, kinetic warfare - mobility with mass - can defeat the Arab way of war. In both the "Thunder Run" to Baghdad and the toppling of the Taliban showed the similar effect to what just happened in Somalia. The Islamofascist response is to wait for fixed targets and attempts at Government and to engage in terrorism to make the situation ungovernable. The response to that response is to add to mobility and mass the key component of intelligence and surgical strikes - the "clear and hold".

The assumption has been that since such operations won't win permanent peace, it is better to focus on training the Iraqis and letting them lead. Sure, but in the interim, sectarian war ensues. We have been able to 'clear' areas but they do stay 'held' when Iraqi forces are too weak or compromised. A better answer is that we need to both train Iraq's army to stand up and secure areas, while applying US forces to securing the neighborhoods.

The weak prescription for Iraq was proposed by the ISG - negotiate your surrender with Iraq's neighbors on your way out - does little to fix Iraq's immediate security. The strong prescription is to put togeher a strong enough force to pacify Baghdad via the mass, mobility and intelligence model; thus, the proposals for a 'surge'. It will likely have the tonic effect desired, for a time, of clearing the insurgents out and changing the balance of security.

The Democrats want none of such practical considerations of how to win the war and to tamp down sectarian violence. They see this conflict not as between Shia and Sunni but between them and Bush, and no matter how important the mission their number one goal will be to ensure Bush (ie American) failure in this project.