Islam Just Fine With Islamists. Ask the Turks.

Happy Islamist, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.

One of the enduring myths and beliefs of the Bush Administration is that the Islamist movement is a representation of a militant minority and given the democratic choice of free elections, a new modernist model will appear and revolutionize the Muslim world. Well the Turks just voted and it appears they are just fine with the Islamists. Imagine that, Muslims are just fine being Muslims.

Ruling party retains power in Turkey with landslide
Gulf News Report
Published: July 23, 2007, 00:13

Dubai: Turkey's ruling AK Party captured 48.1 per cent of the vote in a national election yesterday after two thirds of votes had been counted, CNN Turk television reported.

Two other parties crossed the country's high national threshold of 10 per cent to enter parliament.

The centre-left Republican People's Party (CHP) won 19.4 per cent and the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) took 14.7 per cent, said the private broadcaster quoting partial returns.

"It is clear that we will be in power alone and that Turkey's stability will continue," a senior official of the Islamist-rooted AK Party, Salih Kapusuz, told Reuters.

Seventeen people were hurt yesterday in poll-related violence in Turkey as the country held legislative elections, pitting the Islamist-rooted government against the secular opposition.

Voting mandatory

Opinion polls show the Islamist-rooted AK Party winning a fresh five-year mandate but strong gains by the nationalist and secularist opposition parties could slash its majority and result in slower economic and political reforms.

"Our democracy will emerge from this election strengthened," Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said as he and his wife Emine cast ballots in Uskudar constituency in Istanbul.

Many Turks postponed their holidays or returned home early to vote. Voting is compulsory in Turkey.

Time to Short Apple?

July 20, 2007 11:08 AM PDT
Could Google kill the cell phone industry?
Cnet News

Posted by Don Reisinger

In case you haven't been paying attention, the old 700MHz wireless spectrum is up for auction by the federal government. And under the veil of touting an "open" platform, Google CEO Eric Schmidt announced that the company will participate in the Federal Communications Commission auction for the bandwidth--with a few minor requests for the FCC: open applications for users; open devices that will work with whichever network provider customers choose; open services that would allow for third-party resellers to acquire wireless services on a wholesale basis; and open networks, which would allow third parties, such as Internet service providers, to interconnect at any feasible point within the 700MHz licensee's wireless network. Not bad for a reported $4.6 billion deal, huh?

And while this story has already been skillfully reported on, I couldn't help but wonder what Google has up its sleeve. So, after some deliberation, here are my thoughts (let's see yours in the discussion).

With full leasing ownership of the 700MHz spectrum, Google will try to effectively cripple the cell phone industry. Before you scoff and say this is a bunch of garbage, consider this: Google will offer the $4.6 billion only if the government agrees to the terms above. And perhaps the most compelling of those terms is that Google is requesting "open devices" that will work on the "open networks." In other words, Google wants to create the ability for companies (and most likely itself) to create devices that will seamlessly connect to the broadband spectrum. Why can't one of those devices be a phone?

Whether you realize it or not, Google's bread and butter is advertising. The company doesn't need to charge money for its services because the advertising will bring home the bacon. If you have ever used Picasa or Google 411, you know what I mean. Service plans and contracts are of no use to Google--it doesn't have the time to deal with those petty issues. But if Google is anything, it's competent and self-assured. Not only does the company know what it's doing, it does it better than any other organization.

Even more compelling is the nature of the relationship between Google and telecommunications companies. Not only do they basically hate each other, they sit on directly opposite sides in the debate for Net neutrality. Simply put, I think Google would love to significantly damage these companies.

So you heard my justification, now I'll tell you how it'll work. If the FCC agrees to the terms outlined above, Google will definitely win the auction. Once its wins, its executives will soon realize (as if they haven't already) that this spectrum can go through walls and reach just about anywhere. Even better, it'll create a speedy broadband connection.

Within no time, Google will announce that wireless will be made available to the public through its system. After all, it did it in San Francisco, why won't it do it all over the country? In effect, Google would run a "third broadband pipe."

Once the company announces the wireless broadband to the nation, it will immediately announce that Google Phone everyone has been talking about. The Google Phone will work specifically with the Google system (kind of like Skype) and will be free of charge. The only fee to the consumer is the cost of buying the phone, which can be done over the Google checkout system from online retailers or at fine brick-and-mortar retailers nationwide.

As soon as the phone is released, people will be tossing their iPhones, Razrs and every other cell phone into the nearest river. Why pay all that money for a phone when you can have the same kind of service for free?

Now we have to solve the mystery of how Google will make money. To be honest, I don't think it'll be too difficult. Google thrives on using services it doesn't charge for, and why should this be any different? I'm sure you will see advertising when you start up the phone, but most of the benefits from this system will be earned on the Internet, where people will be lauding the company for all it has done to move the industry forward. In a matter of months, Google would practically control Internet advertising. And by giving people free Internet access on the phones, guess where the default home page will be pointing?

As soon as Google starts this system, AT&T and Verizon will lead the charge against this "anticapitalist" system and lobby the government for all it's worth. But with no debt and coffers of money for rainy days, Google will remind the men and women in Congress to check their pocket and look at the name on their new do-it-all phone. That should change their minds quite quickly.

So there it is--my prediction of what Google will do with the 700MHz spectrum. Not only will I enjoy my free go-anywhere phone use, I'll love it when I walk into Verizon and AT&T to tell them I'll never go back.

Say what you will, but don't be surprised if the cell phone industry starts sweating bullets when Google wins that auction.

Now it's your turn, what do you think Google will do with the spectrum?

Daniel Pipes: On Middle East Red Mosque

If there existed a nascent Nazi Party, that was hijacking airplanes, setting off terroristic suicide bombing missions and meeting in beer halls, the beer halls would be shut down. Mosques are the beer halls of the Islamists. This today:

Three Moroccan terrorism suspects have been arrested in central Italy amid claims a local mosque was being used to recruit and train militants.

Police reportedly believe they have broken up a cell linked to al Qaeda. They are still hunting a fourth Moroccan national who is thought to be abroad. Security forces swooped on a building used as a mosque in the suburbs of the city of Perugia, detaining an imam and two of his aides. It is alleged the mosque operated as a training camp for international terrorism. Materials seized are said to include instructions on how to fly a Boeing 747.

Beer halls or Mosques, shut them down.

Daniel Pipes: On Middle East
Red Mosque In Rebellion In Pakistan
By: Daniel Pipes, The Bulletin
07/17/2007

Imagine that an Islamist central command exists - and you are its chief strategist, with a mandate to spread full application of the Islamic law (the Sharia), through all means available, with the ultimate goal of a worldwide caliphate. What advice would you offer your comrades in the aftermath of the eight-day Red Mosque rebellion in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan?

Probably, you would review the past six decades of Islamist efforts and conclude that you have three main options: overthrowing the government, working through the system, or a combination of the two.
Islamists can use several catalysts to seize power. (I draw here on Cameron Brown, "Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop: How Inevitable is an Islamist Future?")

• Revolution, meaning a wide-scale social revolt: Successful only in Iran in 1978-79, because it requires special circumstances.

• Coup d'état: Successful only in Sudan in 1989, because rulers generally know how to protect themselves.

• Civil war: Successful only in Afghanistan in 1996, because dominant, cruel states generally put down insurrections (as in Algeria, Egypt and Syria).

• Terrorism: Never successful, nor is it ever likely to be. It can cause massive damage but without changing regimes. Can one really imagine a people raising the white flag and succumbing to terrorist threats? This did not happen after the assassination of Anwar Sadat in Egypt in 1981, nor after 9/11 in the United States, nor even after the Madrid bombings of 2004.

A clever strategist should conclude from this survey that overthrowing the government rarely leads to victory. In contrast, recent events show that working through the system offers better odds - note the Islamist electoral successes in Algeria (1992), Bangladesh (2001), Turkey (2002) and Iraq (2005). But working within the system, these cases also suggest, has its limitations.

Best is a combination of softening up the enemy through lawful means, then seizing power. The Palestinian Authority (2006) offers a case of this one-two punch succeeding, with Hamas winning the elections, then staging an insurrection. Another, quite different example of this combination just occurred in Pakistan.

The vast Red Mosque complex, also known as Lal Masjid, is geographically in the midst of Pakistan's ruling institutions, boasts long-standing connections to the regime's elite and includes huge male and female madrasas. But, turning on its benefactors, Kalashnikov-toting students confronted the police in January 2007 to prevent them from demolishing an illegally constructed building.

In April, the mega-mosque's deputy imam, Abdul Rashid Ghazi, announced the imposition of Islamic law (Sharia) "in the areas in our control" and established an Islamic court that issued decrees and judgments, rivaling those of the government.

The mosque then sent some of its thousands of madrasa students to serve as a morals police force in Islamabad to enforce a Taliban-style regime locally with the ultimate goal of spreading it countrywide. Students closed barbershops, occupied a children's library, pillaged music and video stores, attacked alleged brothels and tortured the alleged madams. They even kidnapped police officers.

The Red Mosque leadership threatened suicide bombings if the government of Pervez Musharraf tried to rein in its bid for quasi-sovereignty. Security forces duly stayed away. The six-month standoff culminated on July 3 when students from the mosque, some masked and armed, rushed a police checkpoint, ransacked nearby government ministries and set cars on fire, leaving sixteen dead.

This confrontation with the government aimed at nothing less than overthrowing it, proclaimed the mosque's deputy imam on July 7: "We have firm belief in God that our blood will lead to a[n Islamic] revolution." Threatened, the government attacked the mega-mosque early on July 10. The 36-hour raid turned up a stockpiled arsenal of suicide vests, machine guns, gasoline bombs, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, anti-tank mines - and letters of instruction from Al-Qaeda's leadership.

Musharraf termed the madrasa "a fortress for war." In all, the revolt directly caused over 100 deaths.

Mosques have been used as places for inciting violence, planning operations, and storing weapons, but deploying one as a base to overthrow the government creates a precedent. The Red Mosque model offers Islamists a bold tactic, one they likely will try again, especially if the recent episode, which has shaken the country, succeeds in pushing Musharraf out of office.
Our imaginary Islamist strategist, in short, can now deploy another tactic to attain power.

www.DanielPipes.org.

Remember the Peace Dividend?

What naive fools we were. "The end of History" was another period piece. The West better wake up and wake up fast. Maybe another hit by aQ would be a blessing in disguise. Nothing else seems to work.

Britain almost out of troops, memo reveals

Gen Dannatt: Reinforcements for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan are 'now almost non-existent'

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent Telegraph
Last Updated: 8:35am BST 21/07/2007

The head of the Army has issued a dire warning that Britain has almost run out of troops to defend the country or fight abroad, a secret document obtained by the Daily Telegraph has revealed.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt has told senior commanders that reinforcements for emergencies or for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan are "now almost non-existent".

In the memorandum to fellow defence leaders, the Chief of the General Staff (CGS) confessed that "we now have almost no capability to react to the unexpected". The "undermanned" Army now has all its units committed to either training for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, on leave or on operations.

There is just one battalion of 500 troops, called the Spearhead Lead Element, available to be used in an emergency, such as a major domestic terrorist attack or a rapid deployment overseas.

Gen Dannatt's comments will come as the first serious test of Gordon Brown's policy on defence.

The new Prime Minister has already faced anger over the decision to give Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, the additional part-time role of Scottish Secretary with Tories labelling the move "an insult to our Armed Forces."

Military leaders have privately suggested that a defence review is essential to examine if more money, equipment and troops are needed.


With Britain's military reserve locker virtually empty, further pressure will mount on President George W Bush to review US troop levels in Iraq after fellow Republicans suggesting significant withdrawals.

It also comes at a time when more forces are needed to combat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the lack of reserves was "an appalling situation and damning indictment" of the way the Government handled the Services.

"They are being asked to carry out tasks for which they are neither funded or equipped for. There is an urgent need to review our strategic approach because we cannot continue over-stretching our Forces."

The document said that Britain's second back-up unit, called the Airborne Task Force formed around the Parachute Regiment, was unavailable. It was unable to fully deploy "due to shortages in manpower, equipment and stocks".

Most of the Paras' vehicles and weapons have stayed in Afghanistan with other units using them in intense battles against the Taliban.

Parachute Regiment officers are deeply concerned that with nearly all their equipment abroad they are unable to train properly for future operations.

The Paras also no longer have the ability to parachute as a 600-strong battalion because no RAF planes were available to drop then en-masse, the document said. The situation was unlikely to be resolved until late August.

With the Army significantly under-strength by 3,500 troops – many disillusioned with being constantly on dangerous operations and away from their families – it is now struggling to plug the gaps on the frontline.

"The enduring nature and scale of current operations continues to stretch people," Gen Dannatt wrote.

The Army now needed to "augment" 2,500 troops from other units onto operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring up the total force to 13,000 required. This remained "far higher than we ever assumed," the CGS said.

"When this is combined with the effects of under-manning (principally in the infantry and Royal Artillery) and the pace of training support needed to prepare units for operations, the tempo of life in the Field Army is intense."

The Army has also been forced to call up almost 1,000 Territorial Army soldiers for overseas operations. The general's concerns came after three RAF personnel were killed in a mortar or rocket attack on the main British headquarters five miles outside Basra bringing the total dead in Iraq to 162.

With the main force pulling out of Basra city to the air station in the coming months there is concern of increased attacks on the large base where some troops are forced to live in tented accommodation.

A lack of vehicles meant that "training is significantly constrained".

Gen Dannatt was also "concerned" that some equipment, particularly Scimitar light tanks that are vital to fighting in Afghanistan but are 40 years old, "may be at the edge of their sustainability".

More needed to be done on housing and pay in order to retained troops because "people are more likely to stay if we look after them properly".

The pressure on numbers was partially being alleviated by bringing in civilian firms to train soldiers and guard bases and by "adopting a pragmatic approach to risk where possible".

While the current situation was "manageable" Gen Dannatt was "very concerned about the longer term implications of the impact of this level of operations on our people, equipment and future operational capability".

It is not the first time Gen Dannatt has raised concerns on Britain's fighting ability. A few weeks into his job last year, Sir Richard said the military was "running hot" and urged for a national debate on defence.

The plain-speaking officer later suggested that the British presence in Iraq was "exacerbating the security problems" and warned that the Army would "break" if it was kept there too long.

Gen Dannatt, who said manning was "critical" in the Army, called for extra infantry units earlier this month following the devastating cuts inflicted by his predecessor Gen Sir Mike Jackson which saw four battalions axed.

"General Dannatt's appraisal means that we are unable to intervene if there is an emergency in Britain or elsewhere, that's self-evident," a senior officer said.

"But this is a direct result of the decision to go into Afghanistan on the assumption that Iraq would diminish simultaneously. We are now reaping the reward of that assumption."

Don Imus to Return to Radio.

Don Imus Is Coming Back
Rod Proctor, NewsMax.com
Monday, July 23, 2007

Radio talker Don Imus, exiled from the airwaves in April after making remarks many saw as racist, will return to the microphone as early as September, industry analysts and observers tell NewsMax — but not all agree that the return will be triumphal.

The industry has been rife with rumors since Imus sidekick Bo Dietl's announcement on an Albany radio show, and picked up by the New York Post, that an Imus comeback was in the works for this September.

But experts explain to NewsMax that events are moving so quickly that the "I-Man" will be back in his broadcast chair by late summer or early fall.

"The I's are being dotted and the T's being crossed," media analyst Brian Maloney tells NewsMax. "When rumors went out, and the station not only didn't deny it but played along, that's key right there."

Radio & Records senior editor Mike Boyle, speaking to NewsMax, echoes that certitude. "The sun, the moon, and the stars seem to be aligning with all of this information — whether rumor or fact," he says.

And Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine — the industry bible — is surprised Imus wasn't rehired sooner. "I always thought he'd be back, even before they fired him."

Even the Rev. Al Sharpton, arguably Imus' most vocal critic in April, has blessed the comeback.

In comments to The Associated Press and Radaronline.com, Sharpton says: "My position is that we never called for him to be permanently barred from being on the air. We wanted him to pay for being a repeat abuser, and he paid. We never said we didn't want him to make a living."

Imus spokesman and attorney Martin Garbus, has refused comment.

The questions now are, Where will Imus land? and, What kind of radio landscape will he find once he gets there?

Boyle and Maloney are convinced he'll be back at his old New York City flagship, WFAN-AM, owned by Viacom and CBS. The reason, says Radio & Records' Boyle: "Money."
"You have to look at how much money that radio station billed. They are definitely one of the top 10, if not top five, billing stations in the country. A large portion of that came from Imus."

Analyst Maloney sees another motivation for CBS to return Imus to the fold.

"I think the reason he's returning so easily is they fear an expensive legal battle over the terms of his contact, which were highly favorable to him and they know it," he explains to NewsMax. "They could have been liable for up to $40 million in a payout were they to lose in court. So the alternative is to put him back on the air. Pay him the regular salary. What's the cheaper option?"

Talkers' Harrison isn't quite so sure of what lies in Imus' future.

"I've heard inside reports both confirming and denying he'll return to WFAN," he tells NewsMax. "Imus has all of radio to choose from. I'm sure there are many, many companies that would love to have his services."

And Newsday.com's Neil Best reports on that Web site that CBS CEO Les Moonves in June discounted the possibility of a CBS reprieve. Media journalist Ken Auletta asked Moonves whether Imus would return to CBS Radio. Moonves' curt response: "No."

Some question how successful Imus will be upon his return. The New York Post, at the time Imus was fired, reported that his audience had slipped 50 percent over the last 10 years, and had slid a full 25 percent in just the prior six months.

"He will return in a greatly diminished capacity," Maloney tells NewsMax. "If he's syndicated at all, it will be only a handful of stations. On [WFAN] itself, he will not be in the timeslot he has had. There is no way he's going to recapture what has been lost.

"All I see with certainty is a local New York City radio show," Maloney continues. "Keep in mind Imus was not a big syndication star. He was not on that many stations before. The very few big ones he was on were mainly in the Northeast and a few in the Southeast. Nothing in the West. The only other big station he was on is in Boston and that station has already announced a replacement. So where does he go?"

But Talkers' Harrison disagrees.

"[Imus'] ratings were not so terrible, especially when you have a qualitative audience the way he did. Considering more than 5,000 talkers are in America, top 20 is nothing to be embarrassed about," he explains to NewsMax. "That's major league.

"Radio ratings are only one aspect of what makes a host valuable. Loyalty and specifics of demographics. He's a valuable property whether he's 50th, 20th, or first. And now that he's had all this publicity and proved what an important newsmaker he is, I think his appeal as an attraction has been increased."

Indeed, NewsMax Magazine's October 2006 edition put Imus as the 3rd most influential man in radio, due to his high-level demographics in audience, his major newsmaker guests, and his simulcast on MSNBC.

There's no word yet if a new Imus radio show would include a cable simulcast as MSNBC did with his "Imus in the Morning" show.

Another angle of Imus' comeback circulating within the industry has some scratching their heads: Rumors that he has been visiting comedy clubs in search of a black sidekick.

"I think that would be kind of strange," Maloney responds to NewsMax. "You can't predict what Imus will do. He's always been an oddball. If that's the way he returns, that kind of move could backfire. It could be seen as blatant pandering."

Harrison has a different take.

"I don't know how true it is," he tells NewsMax. "But it makes sense. He should work into his routine and repertoire whatever new dimension of understanding he has about race relations.

"The fact is, Imus is not a racist. The whole thing was distorted and trumped up, and he was executed for a crime he really didn't intend to commit."

Boyle also defends Imus: "You only hear about the bad things he's said on the radio. Nobody talks about the things he does for kids with cancer out at his ranch.

"He got railroaded. If there's any chance to bring him back, everybody's going to become a winner."

© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.

al-Qaeda, the HIV of the Internet

Al-Qaeda is back? It never left. It has become the MTV of jihad. The free channel of distribution is the Internet. Leave it to the Islamic world, that produces little in technology, to corrupt the greatest communication achievement in the history of mankind. How did they do it? Some info here.

The return of al-Qaeda
by Hans de Vreij Radio Netherlands
20-07-2007

Al-Qaeda is back and continues to pose a direct threat to the United States and other Western nations. That is one of the conclusions that can be drawn from the public summary of the National Intelligence Estimate, a joint product of all 16 US civil and military intelligence services. The report itself, published earlier this week in Washington, is of course secret. But the public summary does at least put an end to a popular myth that has prevailed over the past few years.

That myth was that, after the US invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 and the worldwide counter-terrorism campaigns against al-Qaeda structures and leaders, the network no longer existed as a centralised organisation able to issue orders to local structures anywhere in the world. Instead, it was portrayed as something of a "franchise", with local branches sharing the ideology and methods of al-Qaeda without necessarily receiving orders from the network leadership.

Central leadership
According to the National Intelligence Estimate, however, al-Qaeda continues to attempt to create global terrorist alliances, raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives. And according to the Dutch-American terrorism expert Glenn Schoen of Ernst & Young, the re-emergence of al-Qaeda as a centrally-led network became visible as early as two years ago:

"It's now pretty clear from a number of bigger plots, really starting back with London in 2005, and the plots against the aircraft out of London to the US from August 2006, that we see more and more clearly a hand of central al-Qaeda leaders under Mr bin Laden and Mr Zawahiri playing a role. And it's become clearer and clearer, apparently, to US intelligence that there is operational direction and control to al-Qaeda and not just ideological and strategic control."

Click to listen to Hans de Vreij's interview with Glenn Schoen

Four elements
According to an official spokeswoman in Washington, elaborating on the National Intelligence Estimate, al-Qaeda has "protected or regenerated three of four key elements in planning an attack on the homeland (USA, ed.): a safe haven in Pakistan, operational lieutenants, and top leadership". Washington remains silent about the fourth element that has been protected or regenerated. According to Mr Schoen, this missing element could be al-Qaeda's public relations machinery:

"One element that is obviously of importance here is the fact that, in terms of its propaganda and the ability to exploit the message, it now has a very strong position. Whenever it carries out a major attack now, we see an awful lot of ability by al-Qaeda to turn even a minor success in a terrorist attack into a major one on the propaganda front."

Propaganda
Maurits Berger of the Clingendael Institute of International Relations in The Hague points out that propaganda or simply information from any radical jihadist network including al-Qaeda is not falling on deaf ears in the Muslim world at large:

"There is a very strong, deep-felt sense of injustice, closely connected to a concern of occupation, which lives in the minds of most Muslims, since most Muslim countries have been occupied for shorter or longer periods of time by Western countries. It is a button that can be pushed with any Muslim. Occupation is something that needs to be resisted, occupation is something that looms over their heads, any time, every time."

Click to listen to Hans de Vreij's interview with Maurits Berger

Young volunteers
Maurits Berger adds that the notion of armed resistance against what is perceived as Western occupation, dominance or imperialism is appealing to many young Muslim men and women. In this sense, he says, the situation is very similar to the one during the Civil War in Spain in the 1930's, when thousands of young foreign volunteers went to Spain to fight for socialism, without necessarily knowing exactly what was going on in that country

Iraq, an Alternate View. US Adapts?

(hat tip: Doug)
The military is often criticized for fighting the last war. In Iraq the military, as always, have been fighting as prescribed by the political thinking of their rulers and masters in Washington. Those ideas included firing the Iraqi army, using too few troops for occupation, allowing the looting to go unchecked for weeks, and worse of all, encouraging some Utopian dream of majority rule that ensures an Iranian client state. There was no last war to fight that compares to the Iraq experiment. Like all experiments, practice makes perfect, or so thinks Krauthammer, who sees some Sunni light at the end of the tunnel.


The 20 Percent Solution
By Charles Krauthammer Wapo
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A19

Amid the Senate's all-night pillow fight and other Iraq grandstanding, real things are happening on the ground in Iraq. They consist of more than just a surge of U.S. troop levels. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have engaged us in a far-reaching and fundamental political shift. Call it the 20 percent solution.

Ever since the December 2005 Iraqi elections, the United States has been waiting for the central government in Baghdad to pass grand national accords on oil, federalism and de-Baathification to unify and pacify the country. The Maliki government has proved too sectarian, too weak and perhaps too disposed to Iranian interests to rise to the task.

The Democrats cite this incapacity as a reason to give up and get out. A tempting thought, but ultimately self-destructive to our interests. Accordingly, Petraeus and Crocker have found a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al-Qaeda.

This has begun to happen in Anbar and Diyala. First, because al-Qaeda are foreigners. So are we, but -- reason No. 2 -- unlike them, we are not barbarous. We don't amputate fingers for smoking, decapitate with pleasure and kill Shiites for sport.

Third, al-Qaeda's objectives are not the Sunnis'. Al-Qaeda adherents live for endless war and a reborn caliphate. Ultimately, they live to die. Iraqi Sunnis are not looking for a heavenly date with 72 virgins. They are looking for a deal, and perhaps just survival after U.S. troops are gone.

That's why so many Sunnis have accepted Petraeus's bargain -- they join our fight against al-Qaeda, and we give them weaponry and military support. With that, they can rid themselves of the al-Qaeda cancer now. And later, when the Americans inevitably leave, they'll be better positioned to defend themselves against the 80 percent Shiite-Kurd majority they are beginning to realize they may have unwisely taken on.

The bargain is certainly working for us. The recent capture of the leading Iraqi in al-Qaeda's Iraq affiliate is no accident, comrade. You capture such people only when you have good intelligence, and you have good intelligence only when the locals have turned against the terrorists.

The place of his capture -- Mosul -- is also telling. Mosul is where you go if you've been driven out of Anbar and Diyala and have no other good place to go. You don't venture into the Shiite south or the purely Kurdish north where the locals will kill you.

The charge against our previous war strategy was that we were playing whack-a-mole: They escape from here, they reestablish there. Petraeus's plan is to eliminate all al-Qaeda sanctuaries.

You hardly hear about that from the antiwar Democrats in the Senate. But you did hear it from someone closer to the scene: Shiite lawmaker and close Maliki adviser Hassan al-Suneid. He is none too happy with the new American strategy. He complained bitterly about the overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala. "These are gangs of killers," he told the Associated Press. Petraeus is following a plan according to a "purely American vision."

How very true and very refreshing. We had been vainly pursuing an Iraqi vision that depended on people such as Suneid and Maliki to make the grand bargain. So now, the American vision. "The strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaeda in the early period, but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," said Suneid.

Again, he is precisely right. His coalition would not or could not disarm the militias. So Petraeus has taken on the two extremes: (a) the Shiite militias and their Iranian Revolutionary Guard enablers, and (b) al-Qaeda, with the help of local Sunnis.

For an interminable 18 months we waited for the 80 percent solution -- for Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-Kurdish coalition to reach out to the Sunnis. The Petraeus-Crocker plan is the 20 percent solution: peel the Sunnis away from the insurgency by giving them the security and weaponry to fight the new common enemy -- al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Maliki & Co. are afraid we are arming Sunnis for the civil war to come. On the other hand, we might be creating a rough balance of forces that would act as a deterrent to all-out civil war and encourage a relatively peaceful accommodation.

In either case, that will be Iraq's problem after we leave. For now, our problem is al-Qaeda on the Sunni side and the extremist militias on the Shiite side. And we are making enough headway to worry people such as Suneid. The Democrats might listen to him to understand how profoundly the situation is changing on the ground -- and think twice before they pull the plug on this complicated, ruthless, hopeful "purely American vision."

with all the links here

Let's Kill Waziristan

The free pass given to al Qaeda in Western Pakistan is proving to be an expensive ticket. I realize that Waziristan has a special relationship with everyone in the region and their sensibilities are such that they require treatment in a culturally sensitive manner, however all things being equal, I think it is past time for us to start killing them anyway, just to show we care. Besides, I find those turbans particularly irritating.

41 killed in Pakistan attacks
AP Independent
Published: 19 July 2007

Militants bombed a Pakistan army convoy then hit it with gunfire, killing 17 soldiers and continuing a wave of violence that has seen 41 deaths in the past few days.

At least five suspected militants also died in clashes with security forces in North Waziristan, a Taliban and al-Qa'ida stronghold on the Afghan border where a disputed peace deal has collapsed and Pakistani troops have moved in.

Today, a suicide car bomber attacked a police academy in another frontier area in the north-west, killing up to six people, officials said.

Academy chief Attaullah Wazir said the blast in the town of Hangu, 45 miles south-west of Peshawar, killed two policemen. However, an official at Hangu's hospital, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said five policemen and one passer-by had died.

In southern Pakistan, assailants detonated a bomb and fired on a convoy carrying Chinese workers near the port city of Karachi, police said. At least 13 Pakistanis were killed and 30 others were injured, but none of the Chinese was hurt.

The dead included police guards and civilians in the area. The motive was unclear.

Pakistan stepped up security for the estimated 2,000 to 3,000 Chinese nationals in the country after Beijing protested against the killing of three Chinese men in the north-western city of Peshawar.

The three are among more than 240 people killed this month in suicide attacks, bombings and shootings blamed on Islamic extremists and in a bloody army siege of radicals in Islamabad's Red Mosque.

President General Pervez Musharraf urged moderate Pakistanis, many of whom are pressing him to stand down and restore civilian rule, to help him take on the extremists. Still his military-led government today also challenged US claims that al-Qa'ida was regrouping near the Afghan frontier.

Adding to the tension, a suicide bomber killed 16 people on Tuesday at a rally for Pakistan's suspended chief justice, whose legal battle with Musharraf has galvanised opposition to military rule. A verdict in the case is expected as early as tomorrow.

Critics accuse Musharraf of leading the country toward civil war and using the crisis to shore up US support for his eight-year-old military regime. There is growing concern that this year's elections will be postponed.

However, Musharraf insisted yesterday that the vote would go ahead and dismissed speculation he would declare a state of emergency. He also claimed that al-Qa'ida was on the run.