Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard points out that the 2007 Man of the Year should have been General David Petraeus.
Time ludicrously chose to make Russia's ex-KGB agent-turned president Vladimir Putin its cover boy. They just couldn't make Petraeus man--oops--person of the year. Our liberal elites are so invested in a narrative of defeat and disaster in Iraq that to acknowledge the prospect of victory would be too head-wrenching and heart-rending. It would mean giving credit to George W. Bush, for one. And it would mean acknowledging American success in a war Time, and the Democratic party, and the liberal elites, had proclaimed lost. . . .
The reality is also this: The counterinsurgency campaign that Petraeus and Odierno conceived and executed in 2007 was as comprehensive a counterinsurgency strategy as has ever been executed. The heart of the strategy was a brilliant series of coordinated military operations throughout the entire theater. Petraeus and Odierno used conventional U.S. forces, Iraqi military and police, and Iraqi and U.S. Special Operations forces to strike enemy strongholds throughout Iraq simultaneously, while also working to protect the local populations from enemy responses. Successive operations across the theater knocked the enemy--both al Qaeda and Sunni militias, and Shia extremists--off balance and then prevented them from recovering. U.S. and Iraqi forces, supported by local citizens, chased the enemy from area to area, never allowing them the breathing space to reestablish safe havens, much less new bases. It wasn't "whack-a-mole" or "squeezing the water balloon" as some feared (and initially claimed)--it was the relentless pursuit of an increasingly defeated enemy.
The latest proof of progress in Iraq comes from al Qaeda itself:
The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq called on militants in a new audiotape Saturday to kill Sunnis who have joined forces with the U.S. to battle extremists in the war-torn country.
When Muslims call on Muslims to kill Muslims and not readily available Americans, you know things have changed.
And by the way, the radical terrorist group Islamic State in Iraq has posted a confirmation of Abu Maysara's death on their web site. Maysara is just one of the nine senior al Qaeda members that the US military killed in Iraq during November.
Finally in today's news from Iraq, Christians are returning to celebrate Christmas in a section of Baghdad that was recently a self-declared al-Qaeda caliphate.
Now, in a significant success for the US troop surge, al-Qaeda has been rooted out of Doura and the hundreds of Christian families who left the area are returning. On Christmas Day, they will congregate in battle-scarred St Mary's Church, where part of the crucifix on its tower is still missing after being shot at by terrorists. . . .
Major Kirk Luedeke, a spokesman for the US Army's 1st Infantry Division, confirmed that Christian families were returning. "What is more important is that the Muslim tribal leaders are openly showing support for their Christian neighbours," he added.
As time goes on, tales like this will become the norm. And in turn, Iraq will become every bit a symbol of progress and freedom in the Middle East as is Israel.
It may have taken Bush three long years to find his general, but find him he did. And Petraeus is indeed the 2007 Man of the Year. No matter what Time says.
Mona Charen writing at NRO tells us about Magdi Khalil, an Egyptian political pundit that argues for America in the Middle East media. She includes a few quotes from a debate he participated in on Al Jazeera. When the moderator stated that the US was only interested in stopping the genocide taking place in Dufar because of the oil, Khalil responds:
That’s all nonsense. That deceiving propaganda is all around you — oil and all that. Do you know how much was spent on Iraq? Even if America were to take Iraq’s oil for the next 200 years, it would not compensate for what it has spent on Iraq. You are used to spreading delusions, lies and deceiving propaganda. Give us one example when you supported human rights in any country?
Well put!
The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards says that Iran is "ready to defend itself."
It won't be long before it will be time to give the opportunity to do so.
Tehran will fall faster than Baghdad and order will be restored in a year. After all, Saudi Arabia has a limited supply of foreign terrorists they can ship in and no one will step into Iran's terrorist leadership role.
The last UN Resolution demanding the Iran stop enriching uranium expired in May, and Iran remains defiant. This is different that Saddam's behavior before the liberation of Iraq, as he at least pretended to cooperate while leading Hans "Inspector Clouseau" Blix on wild goose chases across the countryside.
This time the member of the axis of evil is out-and-out thumbing his nose at the rest of the world, making just enough concession to draw out the "diplomacy" while continuing to add centrifuges for enriching uranium.
Yet many people put their trust in the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and it's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei.
Newsweek interviewed IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei about his efforts, and ElBaradei made two very concrete claims.
Newsweek: When the plan was announced, critics said it could undermine the Security Council's efforts to pressure the Tehran government.
ElBaradei: There was a lot of commotion and misunderstanding about this plan. It's a litmus test for Iran. In two or three months we'll know if Iran is serious about coming clean. If they do, that obviously will create better conditions for negotiations. If they [don't], then of course we will be in a different ball game altogether.Newsweek: What if in three months Iran hasn't delivered? If this diplomacy isn't backed by a credible threat of force, the Iranians can stall and keep enriching and eventually they will have the material that could go into a bomb.
ElBaradei: If Iran were to prove that it was using this period for delaying tactics and it was not really acting in good faith, then, obviously, nobody—nobody—will come to its support when people call for more sanctions or for punitive measures. That is a point that has been made very clear to them by everybody, including myself. If we come [back] with a negative report after three months, I don't see that anybody will come and say, well, give them another chance.
There you have it. If Iran has not revealed all by the first day of the new year, it is time for action.
After watching "diplomacy" and international politics for a few years, however, there is no doubt that by the first of the year Mr. ElBaradei will be singing a very different tune. One that acknowledges a lack of success but praises imaginary progress and calls for more time and further inspections. We've seen this play out before and I have no doubt that ElBaradei and Blix are cut from the same cloth.
Wait. You'll see.
Quote of the Day:
Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war.
— French President Nicolas Sarkozy to UN General Assembly
The back story:
In mid-September, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was almost Bush-like as he used plain language to warn against a nuclear Tehran, warning the world "to prepare for the worst... and the worst means war". Who would have thought a French diplomat could be so, uh, un-Frenchly plain spoken?
Of course, Kouchner started taking flack immediately. Russian Acting Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov confronted Kouchner, saying that neither military force nor unilateral sanctions were acceptable in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said sanctions must be given time and a war in the region "wouldn't resolve the problem and would only create new tragedies and new dangers." (Coincidently, Italy is Iran's leading trading partner in the EU.)
The head of the French Foreign Affairs Commission declared Kouchner's statement was "inappropriate and untimely" as there are still many economic sanctions that can be imposed before making dire threats (i.e., there's a lot of cajoling and appeasement "diplomacy" that can make it look like they're not total cowards before the stern talk has to start and somebody ends up looking like a "cowboy").
Meanwhile, Middle East pundits are labeling Sarkozy the "new poodle," taking Tony Blair's place (read the article, it's actually quite funny).
Last week, Sarkozy went on French television and appeared to back away from the war-drum beating rhetoric of his foreign minister, stating that while a nuclear-armed Iran was "unacceptable", he hoped a mix of negotiations and sanctions would persuade Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions. But he ratcheted up the sanction rhetoric, declaring that if the UN Security Council can't apply sanctions, then the EU should come up with their own.
The US has been pressing for additional sanctions since June, as the previous UN resolution (demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment) expired in May. So the addition of the French voice to this demand is welcome.
The Economist declares that the French are "palpably impatient" with the Security Council as Russia and China are stalling, supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency's agreement with Iran to complete inspections. This plan, by the way, is really just a series of talks that could stretch into December even as Iran adds centrifuges to its Natanz enrichment plant, nearing the 3,000 needed to start producing usable quantities of nuclear fuel. Nice plan, eh?
Yesterday, Sarkozy gave a long interview to the NYT and IHT, again downplaying the possibility of war. But he again put tough new EU sanctions on the table.
When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the UN General Assembly today, he defiantly declared that Iran would ignore any further UN resolutions. He said that Iran would continue to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency. [Thinking back to the months preceding the liberation of Iraq, I recall my amusement at the IAEA being led around the Iraqi countryside like the Keystone Cops chasing Buster Keaton. No wonder Ahmadinejad wants to work with them.]
When French President Sarkozy addressed the UN General Assembly today, he made a wide-ranging speech, but again stressing the need for action in the form of firm sanctions. While reiterating Iran's right to nuclear energy (he even offered to help Iran achieve that goal), Sarkozy added there would be no world peace if the international community "shows weakness in the face of the proliferation of nuclear weapons."
Newsweek describes recent events as a "revolution in [French] foreign policy that could transform the transatlantic relationship."
What is really playing out is that lines are being drawn in the sand, and they aren't exactly new lines. Gordon Chang at Contentions says it well:
Russia and China this week have made it clear they will side with Iran until the theocrats announce they have the bomb—all the while saying they are defending the concept of joint action. As Thomas Friedman says, we are entering the post-post-cold-war period. And in that period the West has no choice but to realize that the world’s authoritarian nations are banding together, and Russia and China are undermining the concept of collective security. Whether we like it or not, we are now engaged in a series of global struggles, with neither Beijing nor Moscow on our side.
As for me, I'm starting to like France again. I may even start buying French wine again.
Middle East analyst Barry Rubin paints a bleak picture of the state of Arab politics in an article titled Arab Politics: Back to Futility. His premise centers on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad:
The basic approach of Bashar's new Middle East has already permeated throughout the Arab world, from Yemen's president advocating immediate war with Israel, to Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir boasting that he would rather fight the U.N. than let its forces into Darfur. "We've done the math … We've found out that a confrontation is a million times better for us," he explained. Bashir calculates that despite his military weakness, not only does the West lack the will to back its rhetoric with force, but his own demagogic response will win him support at home and among other Arab and Muslim countries. His goal is not war but the fruits of war.
The paper tiger syndrome. The mightiest army is useless unless those who direct it have the will to see through the fight. And we are going to continue paying for our meekness again and again, every time a petty tyrant needs to puff himself up at the expense of a few dollars and even few suicidal terrorists. I blame the media.
Money quote:
"Oh, Master of Resistance," wrote the Syrian state-run newspaper Tishrin on August 3, 2006, in an ode to the man who set Lebanon back twenty years, "You have cloaked yourself in honor merely by writing the first page in the book of deterring and defeating the Zionist-American invaders, along with all those who are hiding behind them. No one thinks that the [war] will be won today, tomorrow, or [even] next year—but it is the beginning of the end, and the road towards victory has begun." And so we are at the start of a long, long road of conflict, just as Arabs stated in the 1950s. Perhaps some time around 2035, a new opportunity will emerge.
Settle in, folks. This is going to be a long fight. But social change comes slow. Patience.
Hat Tip to The Corner, via non-blogging Advised by Wolves.
Today's Quote of the Day comes from former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami as he comments on the "unstoppable" reform movement in Iran:
The cry for freedom and democracy in Iran should be heard even by those who have hearing problems.
Indeed.
But now we know:
ConocoPhillips has announced that, in conjunction with its co-venturers, it has reached agreement with the Libyan National Oil Corporation on the terms under which it will return to its former oil and gas production operations in Libya. ...ConocoPhillips' activities in Libya were suspended way back in 1986. So Bush invades Iraq and deposes a tyrant, which puts the fear of bunker busters into Colonel Gadhaffi, who then becomes a reformed terrorist eager to give up pursuit of WMD and becomes Bush's lap dog — and the ultimate beneficiary is none other than big oil (which must be tied to Cheney somehow).As a result of the transaction and based on the current gross production figure of 350,000 barrels of oil per day provided by the government, ConocoPhillips would expect to add in the range of 45,000 net barrels of oil per day to its production profile.
Man, that Karl Rove is a genius!
Technorati Tags: Conspiracy Theory, Big Oil, Libya, Bush.
Pictured are Saudi businesswomen Lama al-Suleiman, a 39-year-old mother of four (at left), and Nashwa Taher, 44 (on right). They made history today by being the first two women elected in the conservative Muslim kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And they were elected by men:
Two Saudi businesswomen swept to an unprecedented victory in elections to the board of the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry Wednesday in the first polls in which women stood as candidates in the conservative Muslim kingdom. ...It was expected that at most one woman might win, but the winds of change are blowing through the Middle East a little harder than previously thought.Suleiman and fellow female winner Nashwa Taher ran on a list of heavyweight business people and industrialists which clinched the 12 board seats up for grabs, according to results released early Wednesday.
With only 100 women among the some 3,880 chamber members who cast ballots, the pair's victory was effectively handed by men.
A U.S.-backed conference to promote Middle East democracy ended in chaos yesterday, with Egyptians leaving early after blocking Bush administration proposals to subsidize groups that promote political reform.The reason for the withdrawal is that Egypt, which has been ruled by the same party for decades, refused to include language in a declaration that pledged support for expanding the role of NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) in the political process. And no wonder:
Egypt wanted the statement to stipulate that those organizations be "legally registered" under each country's laws. U.S. officials said the requirement would undermine the purpose of the statement.Look for some pressure to be applied by Ms. Rice in the next few months.Groups covered in the disputed language increasingly are active in Egypt, and they often find themselves at odds with the government.
Jordanian-born terrorist mastermind al-Zarqawi made a strategic mistake when he bombed three hotels in Jodan frequented by westerners.
Thousands of Jordanians rallied in the capital and other cities shouting "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!" a day after three deadly hotel bombings that killed at least 59 people. Officials suspected Iraqi involvement in the attacks, which were claimed by al-Qaida's Iraq branch. ...Al-Qaida justified the attacks by claiming that they were "confident that [the hotels] are centers for launching war on Islam and support the crusaders' presence in Iraq and the Arab peninsula and the presence of the Jews on the land of Palestine." But this was a difficult claim to make, given that the majority killed were Jordanian.The main demonstration in Amman lasted for more than an hour. But honking vehicles, decorated with Jordanian flags and posters of King Abdullah II, cruised Amman's streets until late in the night, as passengers chanted "Death to al-Zarqawi, the villain and the traitor!" and anti-terrorism slogans.
Jordan has played a dangerous game with terrorists for years, providing a safe haven for operations planning, not to mention a friend to the tyrant of Baghdad:
In 1990, the late King Hussein opposed the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. That encouraged Saddam to use Jordan as an extension of his Iraqi hinterland: He and his henchmen created shell companies in Jordan to beat the U.N. sanctions, taking over a couple of Jordanian banks, investing in real estate and laundering vast sums of money."Reaping the whirlwind" comes to mind.After Iraq's liberation, Jordan became a refuge for Ba'athist criminals and their families — who brought with them some of the estimated $500 million that Saddam's Vice President Izzat Ibrahim reportedly stole from the Central Bank in Baghdad before the regime's fall.
Since then, Jordan has emerged as a center for anti-Iraq — and, more specifically, anti-Shiite — propaganda.
Besides putting the writer in jail for four months, Al-Mizeini’s sentence would have banned him from writing in the media and given him two hundred lashes. The crown prince, however, set aside the sentence handed down by the judge in the Shariah Court on the grounds that it ran counter to a royal decree which directs that all matters concerning publications or the media must be dealt with through the Ministry of Information. As Dr. Al-Mizeini himself said, had it not been for the royal decree, “Harm would have come to many Saudi writers and intellectuals.”This action sends a clear message to the religious courts that they are not above the law, and it reassures the Saudi media that freedom of the press will continue to be encouraged by the Saudi government.