We here in the US can toss our opinions on the Iraqi war back and forth but I believe it's helpful to hear from those most affected - the Iraqi citizens. In particular, I'd like to promote this site - Iraq the Model (sorry, dude - no swimsuit pics here). It's mostly the work of Ali Fadhil, a 34-year old Iraqi doctor in Baghdad. A couple money quotes showing Iraqis are better off in most every way:
"Maybe in a real sense, I am less safe than I was under Saddam. But then I never felt safe. We were always in fear of some bad surprise from the authorities. Now, the threat is different, but it is random (he is thinking of the car bombs). Personally I also feel safer because I am free."

He is also better off, making about $200 a month instead of the $3 a month doctors earned under the Baathists. Ali is appalled by the terrorists, but not surprised. "We are at war and the enemy is fighting back, so why be surprised about that?" he asks. "Iran, some in Saudi Arabia, all the Islamist groups, and the former Baathists, of course, naturally are funding the fighting. They want to terrorize us before the elections, so things are going to get worse before then. But when terrorists see that the people demand democracy, they will feel they have lost. Many will leave."
Ali is more worried about the Americans, given John Kerry's talk of setting an announced timetable for the removal of U.S. troops, and he is dismayed by U.S. commentators and career bureaucrats who say that democracy in Iraq is impossible. "What they really are saying is that we are barbarians. There is some racism in that. They despise Islam and think it cannot reform itself or lead to reform. They think we are so ignorant we need a dictator."

But "look at what happened in Najaf when the US chased out al Sadr. The media said the people were angry, but they were only angry with al Sadr. They demonstrated against al Sadr and for the [interim] government. There was very little news on that."

Prognosticating is not my strong point but here's one I feel pretty safe in making (although I sincerely hope I'm wrong on this). France has just expelled the first Muslim girls for wearing their head scarves. My prediction - there will be some terrorist in retaliation for this. I'm guessing (one step removed from prognotication) that this will occur within the next few weeks. What makes me so certain? Remember a few months ago when a French journalist was kidnapped in Iraq? Why would the Iraqi terrorists kidnap a French citizen when France was such a vocal opponent of the US action in Iraq? Their stated reason - the French banning of wearing of head scarves by Muslim female school children. Mind you, this was an internal action by France, not one it was seeking to impose on Iraq.

It appears the hammer is about to fall on one UN official in the UN Oil for Food scandal. Benon Sevan, the former head of the United Nations oil for food programme, is about to have charges filed against him by US prosecutors. According to CIA reports, he collected vouchers from Hussein for approximately 7.3 million barrels of oil in return for campaigning against sanctions on Iraq.

Again, we were supposed to rely on the good will of the UN to resolve the UN situation? It appears to me that the only people who would have been better off had we waited for the UN would be Saddam and those who accepted his bribes. John Kerry often refers to the "coalition of the bribed", meaning our allies in the Iraqi war. It seems clear that there is such a coalition but it's not the US side that deserves the title - it's the UN and those other security council members (China, France, Germany) that lived by the motto "No war, for oil".

Six Nobel-winning economists seem to think John Kerry's economic plan, involving increasing taxes, is "pretty damn stupid".
Most interesting statement of the article: "When you cut tax rates, employment always goes up," said Edward Prescott, the Arizona State University professor who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize for economics.

Second most interesting statement:
Prescott also gave Bush the nod on another controversial campaign issue, dismissing Kerry's claims that outsourcing of jobs is damaging the economy.

"All the rich countries are economically integrated," he said, citing a jump in productivity and wealth in Western Europe after Germany, France and neighboring nations formed the Common Market after World War II.

By contrast, Prescott cited high tariffs imposed by the United States as a "disaster" that exacerbated the Great Depression.

"All economists are for free trade," he said.

Kerry - wrong on outsourcing, whatever the context. No wonder Massachusetts it trying to outsource him on the US.

Sen. John Kerry has, on numerous occasions, claimed the US missed a chance to capture or kill Osama bin Laden due to 'outsourcing' the search to tribal warlords when we had him cornered in Tora Bora. Wrong on both counts, according to retired general Tommy Franks, who should know a thing or two about it. Franks states that a) there was no solid intelligence that ObL was there, and b) US Special Forces were very involved in the engagement.
With the revelations about the UN corruption in the Oil for Food debacle, the expression of European countries that they won't help in Iraq regardless of who the US president is, the elections in Afghanistan, and now the debunking of his outsourcing claim, one wonders what tack Sen. Kerry will take next? Maybe that he would have been MORE pre-emptive? Probably not....

Remember Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector who claimed the US and its allies rushed prematurely into Iraq? Interesting viewpoint, given that he agreed Saddam was a threat and probably had the capability to create nuclear weapons within a few years (Blix stated this in September of 2002, so that would mean Hussein would possibly have had nuclear weapons, oh, somewhere around, ...now. But he wasn't a threat.

We constantly hear how President Bush has caused the economic downturn and rise in unemployment. If that's the case, he must have done so via his time machine because this article shows the downturn in both the economy and jobs began before Bush took office. [Reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine who kept wanting to blame Enron on Bush, despite the fact the illegalities occurred...wait for it....before Bush take office.] I see a pattern here. Anything bad happens, it's Bush's fault, no matter when. "Bush started the Civil War!" "Bush caused the Great Depression!" "Bush environmental policies caused the Dust Bowl!" You get the picture - Bush as scapegoat.

Before and during the latest Iraqi conflict, opponents of our action in Iraq made much about the lack of UN support for what we were doing, suggesting that our action lacked legitimacy because of the lack of support of key nations like France, Germany, Russia, and China. Newly-disclosed documents (likely reliable, as I see no link to Dan Rather) report:
Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.

And...
Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Additionally, Iraq targeted Russian and Chinese leaders for bribery. Can anyone now make the case that we should have waited patiently for a UN approval that clearly was never going to happen? Critics often chanted "No war for oil", implying our motives were all about obtaining cheap oil. The more accurate interpretation of that chant would be for some of our so-called European allies, who evidently were operating under a "No war, for oil" policy.

Furthermore, critics continue to harp on the fact no WMDs have been found. This same report, however, states that as soon as the UN removed sanctions, Hussein was going to resume procurement and production of WMDs.

Clearly, two of the main arguments of opponents of our intervention in Iraq have been shown to be wrong. First, the UN couldn't and shouldn't have been trusted to be an impartial arbiter as to whether the US should take action in Iraq. Secondly, the lack of found WMDs by no means indicates Saddam was harmless. He clearly was going to pursue WMDs as soon as he thought possible.

Let's imagine (shudder) that John Kerry had been president. I believe he might (emphasize, might) have gone into Afghanistan, although he might have followed President Clinton's lead and tried lobbing some cruise missiles instead of committing ground forces. In Iraq, I can only conclude from Kerry's statements that he would have patiently waited for UN approval that would never have come, due to Saddam's bribery of 3 of the 5 Security Council countries. Since it appears Saddam either destroyed his WMDs or moved them out of the country, the UN would have lifted sanctions and Saddam would have restarted his program of WMD development and acquisition. In addition, his torture of his own citizens and support of terrorists would have continued.

It looks like Samarra is being freed. Here's an excerpt:
Though casualty estimates vary, approximately 125 enemy fighters have been killed in Samarra. Scores have been wounded and captured. Most of the city is now in Coalition hands. Iraqi police are directing traffic, and U.S. forces are mopping up the holdouts.

The offensive was launched as part of an overall effort to shutdown the insurgency in guerilla-controlled areas of the country before nationwide elections in January 2005. Though previously planned, timing of the offensive was retaliatory in the sense that it came on the heels of the terrorist bombings that killed 35 children as they gathered for candy from American troops, last week.

"Enough was enough," says Master Sergeant Robert A. Powell, a 1st Infantry Division soldier positioned near Samarra. With fighting raging a few miles down the road, he tells NRO from a satellite phone, "It's time to put this thuggery to an end. Anti-Iraq forces have been targeting both military personnel and innocent civilians, and these acts must be stopped if we're going to continue rebuilding this country."

Will anyone change their mind on Iraq now that there's intelligence indicating that not only did Iraq have WMDs but also that they were actively involved in supporting terrorists targeting the US? Probably not - after all, there's always the argument we did it for oil (except I thought that would drive the price of oil down...oh well, so much for basic economic theory of supply and demand). However, I advise we all take this with a grain of salt until we know for sure the memo, er, intelligence isn't faked.

Here's some good news from Iraq. I'd like to hear from any of you who heard this reported in the MSM (mainstream media). As this post points out, whether American journalists are deliberately omitting good news are not, they're definitely not reporting the whole story. Possible reasons - a) bad news is attention-getting, good news can be, well, mudane, even in a place like Iraq; b) (conspiracy music here) is it possible bias affects reporting?

A snippet from the article:
Rose verified a message I received from another Marine officer in Iraq. He provided perspective missing in the media: ”Those achievements, more than anything else … account for the surge in violence in recent days — especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra, ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again.”

Rose asked: ”Why isn't the media covering Samarra?”

Indeed, why not?

What interesting times we live in. Imagine if these CBS incidents (including this latest one) had occurred a few years ago, in a non-blogging environment. Doesn't it seem curious that many of those defending CBS accuse bloggers of being less than professional journalists - yet it's CBS that keeps violating basic journalistic standards by making claims such as 'fake but accurate' or, in the case of this latest episode, claiming the email may be misleading but reflects the 'feelings' of many people?

It's been over 3 years but this certainly helps remind me that we are indeed in a war worth engaging in... and that we are not the initiators of it.

Throughout the debate on Iraq, one constant theme has been promoted by those opposing the freeing of Iraq. Put simply, it's "Halliburton bad and greedy, UN good and selfless". Hmm... what do you suppose they would be saying if Halliburton had done this....
An example of how the UN administered the corrupt Oil For Food program:
"...every single one of those four baby-formula contracts appeared "potentially overpriced" by about 26%, for a total of $11 million in potential overpayments. On the biggest of these sample contracts, a $26 million deal between Saddam and a Vietnamese dairy company--approved by the U.N. in October 2002, in the thick of the U.N. debate over going to war to remove Saddam--the estimated overpricing of 26% worked out to well over $5 million on that contract alone.

Translation: In late 2002, while Mr. Annan was lobbying against U.S.-led removal of Saddam, he was running a U.N. program in which money meant for baby formula, among other goods, was very likely flowing into the pockets of Saddam and his sons and cronies."

And we're supposed to look to the UN as the moral arbiter of international dealings. Hey, how about Ken Lay for next UN Secretary-General?

Maybe I'm naive, but I never thought I'd see a mainstream media giant like CBS News resort to something like this.
Isn't it a dereliction of journalistic responsibility to provide a political party with 'inside' information (never mind the little detail that it was forged, allegedly by a rabid anti-Bush partisan) prior to the airing of the show? I won't tar all big-media as being "librul" but wow, what an example of partisanship this is!

Remember all the talk about how we shouldn't go to war in Iraq without the Europeans, especially the French? Even though they were financially motivated by multi-billion dollar oil contracts with Hussein to stay out? Well, it seems that when it comes to Iraq there's not much difference between the government and their troops. The article notes the troops are being sent home to France to face disciplinary action. Judging on past French interactions with Iraq, they'll probably be allowed to bring their souvenirs with them.

Agree or not, most people have a sense of what 4 more years of a Bush presidency will be like. What might 4 years of a Kerry presidency bring? Most of us really don't know - as this post points out, the Kerry campaign seems to have focused on two rather irrelevant themes - what he and Bush were doing around 1970 and consistently attacking Bush without providing compelling arguments for what he would do differently.

I won't bother with giving you my opinion on how things are going in Iraq because a) I haven't been there and b) (ignore a) I did that the last post. If you're even a semi-casual consumer of the news, you no doubt have gotten the impression that things are spiralling out of control, a conclusion that some say is bolstered by the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's future. Well, here's an on-the-ground report that sees things a wee bit differently. Who to believe - journalists/academics/politicians who haven't set foot in Iraq recently, or those who live it day to day?
Short quote:
You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a “No-go” area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren’t welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn’t want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.

Polls (and, I think, common sense) indicate that the most important issue in this election is the war on terror. Therefore, getting a handle on how it's going is vital. However, it's also difficult - where's the front-line, what defines a victory, etc. Here and here (scroll down to the Monday, Sept. 13 section for Good News on Iraq) are some posts that try to quantify how the war is going.
Soapbox time for me - this is not a time for our country to lose its focus. Because this is an unconventional war, it's easy to misread events in Iraq. Terroristic violence, such as bombings and beheadings, for some reason register differently with us than 'normal' war-time casualties. But that's what they are - and worse. Our enemy, the terrorists, are targeting mainly civilians in an attempt to destabilize Iraq and weaken our resolve. Each of these attacks should serve as convincing evidence that we are, indeed, correct in pursuing this course. When you read of an attack on civilians in Iraq,
let that serve as a reminder of who and what we're up against - violent thugs with no regard for innocent lives, pursuing the establishment of a way of life that will only ensure the suffering of those unfortunate enough to live under it.