Milblogger Matt Sanchez is currently at FOB Falcon and has been asking questions at the base about Scotty Beauchamp, whose stories for the New Republic are being investigated by both the Army and the editors at TNR. Sanchez reports:

Despite a full day of dealing with securing a dangerous Baghdad neighborhood, even Lt. Colonel Crider was aware of the recent Beauchamp scandal and could only shake his head at how absurd the initial details of the accounts seemed....

[With calls from the] New York Times, O'Reilly Factor, ABC, CNN, Hot Air, in the past two weeks, Major Luedeke has dealt with more media inquiries over the Beauchamp controversy than any other subject in his entire career.

After several terse conversations, it was obvious soldiers at FOB Falcon took the events described in The New Republic very seriously.

We emailed Sanchez to see if we could get anything more definitive. Sanchez reports that the New Republic has sent "one or two emails" to the PAO at FOB Falcon to ask what were called "lukewarm" questions as part of their effort to "re-report" the stories.

Sanchez added that,

No one has seen or heard of the melting lady. No soldier would confuse an officer with a contractor. It just wouldn't happen. It's a small base and most people have seen each other. I just got back today and all these people I haven't seen in a month are welcoming me back. They don't know me, but they've seen me before.

Today I had the opportunity to listen to Robert 'Prince of Darkness' Novak talk about his new book, and his assorted observations on Washington culled from 50 years of reporting. Novak is entertaining and informative, and he ditched his reputation for negativity long enough to report that his book will be number eight on the New York Times best seller list next week.

Novak devoted some time to his disappointment at modern news coverage--observing that few reporters develop good contacts with members of Congress, and that no one covers the day-to-day happenings on the floor of the House and Senate. While few journalists had college degrees when he started (Joliet Herald, 1948), Novak says all the education that today's reporters have has not made them better newsmen.

When asked about the 2008 Presidential race, Novak compared the GOP to a Rotary Club--which doesn't like uncertainty or contested elections. By tradition, John McCain was to be the next president of the Rotary. But a combination of the war, McCain-Feingold, and immigration brought him down. Now that Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson form the Republican top tier, Novak was reluctant to make a prediction--but he did say that if he was forced to bet, he'd bet on Thompson.

I asked Novak how he would grade the performance of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid at this point. He said that Pelosi was holding her caucus together pretty well and listening to the range of views within her caucus. But of Reid, Novak said "he's the worst Majority Leader since Frist." He later clarified that Reid was worse, saying "he's erratic, he's unpleasant, and he doesn't get anything done."

When I asked whom Novak admired and respected most among those he'd covered, he said that he had admired Ronald Reagan before it became fashionable to do so. He said that Reagan's strength was that he realized that the presidency is not a management position, but a leadership position. He worried about a few big things--reviving the economy, restoring the military, and defeating Communism--and delegated the rest to his team. He said that Reagan was mocked by the press corps and others, but that he understood what mattered better than those who covered him.

Novak donned his 'Prince of Darkness' costume again when asked about the 2008 race. He's not optimistic about the GOP regaining control of Congress because he doesn't see what issues they can run on. He said there must be a message--beyond process complaints. At the same time, he said that while some Republicans seem convinced that the party needs another electoral beating to come back stronger after 2008, "things don't always work that way." He expressed tremendous concern about the possible expansion of government under a second President Clinton, working with Democratic majorities in Congress.

And who would he like to see as president? He expressed a fondness for Ron Paul.

"Can you imagine what he'd do about the UN?"

Also see Michael Barone's review of Novak's book in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The Danger Room posts today on the cost of the surge:

The "surge" of increased troops in Iraq could cost as much as $40 billion to maintain, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

In testimony today to the House Budget Committee, CBO assistant director Robert Sunshine says keeping the 30,000 - 40,000 extra soldiers and marines in Iraq for two years would take $40 billion; a one-year "surge," $22 billion.

$40 billion, it's a lot of money, I know. But the figure had some greater resonance for me--I couldn't place it...but then I remembered, this week's issue of Business Week.

Apples and Oranges? Yes. But if Americans are willing to spend $41 billion on their pets each year, maybe $40 billion for two years of surging against al Qaeda isn't such a bad a deal. Or maybe Scotty Beauchamp and his buddies could kill all the dogs over here and free up some extra coin for the war...

Leafing through the new issue of the New Republic, eyes peeled for word on the progress of the magazine's investigation into Scotty Beauchamp (there's no mention), we came across a riveting series of photographs by Ashley Gilbertson--"An Iraq Album" as the magazine titled it. The magazine further explains:

Gilbertson, a freelance photographer for The New York Times, has been traveling to Iraq since 2002. A compilation of his war photography will be published as Whiskey Tango Foxtrot: A Photographer’s Chronicle of the Iraq War in October.

The pictures all appear to date from 2004, and many feature scenes from the most violent battle of the war--the battle for Fallujah--in other words, as grim as possible. But, unlike Scotty Beauchamp, pictures don't lie, and some of the shots are extremely disturbing.

Still, there was one caption that caused a bit of head-scratching here. The series leads with this picture of an Iraqi who "tried to extinguish a burning van on Baghdad’s Sadoun Street," and clearly failed. The next line: "The
incident appeared to be unrelated to the war..."

From the new issue of the New Republic.

Late last year, Eric Egland wrote a piece for THE DAILY STANDARD titled "Six Steps to Victory". The plan was based on Egland's service in both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as his prior experience in counterterrorism. Egland's strategy focused on increasing the effectiveness of American troops in Iraq and harnessing the vast untapped resource of the American public to support the troops in their efforts. The steps...

1. Encourage innovation by emphasizing small-scale technological solutions and rejecting peacetime bureaucracy.

2. Improve pre-deployment training realism and abandon Cold War-era checklists.

3. Allow local commanders to buy what they need and nationalize the war effort by connecting the American public with the troops and their mission.

4. Strengthen intelligence sharing between tactical and national levels, and develop a national insurgent database.

5. Take the offensive by reducing predictable patterns on the ground while conducting operations that hunt, rather than chase, the enemy.

6. Accept the realities of warfare in the media age by decentralizing the sharing of information with both the Iraqi and the American public.

Egland expanded this plan into a book, The Troops Need You, America!, and he has been working to put his plan into action with public support at his website, troopsneedyou.com.

But yesterday, Egland took the next step--let's call it the Seventh Step. He announced that he's running for Congress from California's Fourth Congressional District. He will be challenging Republican Rep. John Doolittle, who is currently under federal investigation in relation to dealings with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Egland's set up a campaign website, and he's already been the subject of some favorable press in his home district.

Egland may know more about the war in Iraq, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism than the rest of Congress combined, but the best part is...he's running on a platform of fiscal discipline and "ethical leadership based on deeply-held conservative values." The WWS wishes one of our own the best of luck, and we will be keeping a close eye on his campaign.

The Washington Post reports this morning on an interview with House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn. While Clyburn covered a lot of ground, the item that has attracted the most attention is Clyburn's acknowledgment that a positive report from General Petraeus on Operation Phantom Thunder could be "a real big problem" for Democrats:

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

It's unfortunate that it requires political calculation for Clyburn to arrive at the correct position--t should be obvious that the right thing to do is to wait for the assessment of the commander on the ground.

That said, Clyburn's remarks are another indication that the debate on Iraq may be shifting. Some of the Blue Dogs have been consistently reluctant to second-guess the generals on the ground. For example, ten Democrats voted against a resolution calling for withdrawal from Iraq by April. It would take just 16 Democrats--in combination with the entire Republican caucus--to defeat a timetable for withdrawal. And given that even people like Keith Ellison and Jerry McNerney are seeing signs of progress, it might not be difficult for disciplined House Republicans to win a majority.

Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, "we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market..."

Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.

"And they would respond back with smiles and waves," Ellison said. "I don't want to overplay it. There were no flowers. There was no clapping. There was no parade. But there was a general level of respect and calm that I thought was good."

McNerney, the California congressman, also said he saw signs of progress in Ramadi and was impressed by Petraeus, who argued in favor of giving President Bush's troop surge strategy time to work.

And how are Clyburn's comments being greeted on the Left? So far, there's a lot of silence. But one liberal site is ignoring Clyburn's plain words in favor of something that fits the paradigm--where good news from Iraq is impossible, and people like Keith Ellison and David Petraeus can only be liars or dupes:

He's not saying that actual success in Iraq would be "a real big problem" for Democrats. He's saying that a deeply politicized piece of GOP propaganda from Petraeus disguised as an honest report would be a problem, because Petraeus is so well regarded.

Watch the interview and see if you agree.

From National Review: Turning Point?, by John McCain, Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Yon, and others.

From the Washington Post: Clyburn: House Democrats Could Split on War, by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza.

From the New York Sun: Brown Disappoints Critics of Iraq War, by Nicholas Wapshott.

From Michael Yon: Bread and a Circus.

From HughHewitt.com: An Interview with John Burns, by Hugh Hewitt.

The Iraqi soccer team gave the nation a reason to celebrate on Sunday with a victory over Saudi Arabia in the Asia Cup final. There were no major attacks reported during Sunday celebrations, and Iraqi Security Forces killed a suicide bomber and defused another car bomb in Baghdad. Last week's victory in the semifinals was followed by two brutal attacks by al Qaeda in Iraq against civilians celebrating in the streets; over fifty were killed and 130 wounded in twin suicide car bomb attacks. The Iraqi security forces in Baghdad learned the lessons from last week's attacks, and a traffic ban was instituted on Sunday prior to the game's conclusion.

The marketplace in Adhamiya, July 30, 2007.

As Operation Phantom Thunder and the Baghdad Security Plan progress in Baghdad and the Belts, much anecdotal evidence indicates that the surge is having the desired effect--at least in the security sphere. The civilian death rate has been reduced by 36 percent since May, and U.S. combat deaths have dropped to an eight month low. While U.S. combat casualties are not a good indicator of success, they are significant in this instance as there are more troops in Iraq than there have been for the past two years, and U.S. forces are now operating outside their bases and are conducting major combat operations in al Qaeda, Mahdi Army, and insurgent strongholds.

Anbar, Diyala, and Babil

While Multinational Forces West launched a major operation in the Thar Thar and Karma regions in eastern Anbar province, another major operation was launched in the far west. Operation Mawtini was launched on July 26 in the town of Kubaysah near Hit. U.S. and Iraqi forces bermed the city and are now conducting clearing operations. To date, the operation has resulted in the capture of 124 suspected insurgents and the discovery of 38 weapons caches.

In the city of Husaybah in the Al Qaim region on the Syrian border, Iraqi police captured two al Qaeda operatives. One was a cell leader who "runs al Qaeda in Iraq activities in Husaybuh [and] is purportedly involved in the planning of future large scale attacks against Coalition Forces in the western Euphrates River valley." The other was a teacher who incited his students attack the Iraqi security forces. Further east in Habbaniyah, the Iraqi Army captured two insurgents responsible for a series of IED and small arms attacks and kidnappings. The two were also financing and providing intelligence for other insurgents in the area.

In Diyala province, Coalition and Iraqi operations continue to expand outward from the provincial capital of Baqubah, which has been the main focus of Operation Arrowhead Ripper. A two day operation in Miqdadiyah on July 25 and 26 resulted in seven insurgents killed and one captured. Another operation on July 26 to secure the Turki village resulted in eleven insurgents killed and 13 more captured. Al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents struck back in Baqubah, where car bombs killed three civilians and wounded 25 as they lined up to collect food rations. Insurgents also destroyed the tomb of the Prophet Daniel in the village of Wajihiya near Miqdadiyah.

One of the more important post-9/11 reforms was the creation of passenger watch lists and the effort to ensure that the names of all passengers flying to this country were disclosed before arrival. But while important to U.S. security, it has been a significant challenge to induce our partners to compile and transmit passenger lists before each flight arrives in the United States. Some nations threatened to balk, questioning whether the U.S. would really turn back planes whose passengers were not disclosed. And when the European Union signed an agreement to provide the data, it got tossed out by a judge in May.

Now the United States and EU have come to a 7-year agreement that will ensure that Passenger Name Records are transmitted to the Department of Homeland Security as early as 72 hours before scheduled flights:

“I am pleased to have signed an important agreement with the European Union today that will allow the Department of Homeland Security to continue using passenger name record data as an essential screening tool for detecting dangerous transatlantic travelers,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a press release. “Two separate agreements over the past three years have enabled our frontline personnel to rely on PNR data to disrupt terrorist travel, deny admission to individuals presenting security concerns, and dismantle human trafficking and narcotics smuggling networks.”

DHS will collect 19 PNR items from airlines generally 72 hours prior to a flight’s takeoff, with periodic updates coming in as they occur. The PNR items include: All provided contact information; payment and billing details; other names attached to the reservation; date of reservation; travel itinerary; names of travel agents; baggage information; and seat numbers.

According to DHS, this data is collected on about 87 million passengers annually. Information is analyzed to identify high-risk travelers, so that appropriate action can be taken. The agreement with the EU should ensure that this information sharing continues, and is immune to legal challenge.

Most of us remember the joke from the famous Robin Williams film Good Morning, Vietnam.

"Here’s Airman Adrian Cronauer with a little riddle for you. What's the difference between the army and the cub scouts? Ahhhnnn. Cub scouts don't have heavy artillery."

Su-27s fly in formation above the Nashi campgrounds at Lake Seliger.

The latest incarnation of the scouts in Russia does not have its own artillery--not yet, anyway--but they did have several Russian Air Force (VVS) jets at their disposal this past week. A flight of six Sukhoi Su-27 fighters--part of the VVS’s demonstration team--performed Tuesday for thousands of members of the youth group Nashi. The occasion was the group’s annual summer outdoor camp at Lake Seliger, a site some 350 kilometers from Moscow.

The Nashi summer camp has now been turned into campaign stop and political pulpit for major figures in the Russian government--hence the willingness of the powers-that-be in the Kremlin to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost to put on the Su-27 aerial display for the event.

The six aircraft had to fly a full three hours to reach the site of the Nashi camp, put on a one-hour show and then return to their base at Lipetsk. VVS officials would not provide any cost figures for the show they put on, but one of Russia’s most well-known test pilots, Magomed Tolboyev, told Obshaya Gazeta in Moscow that it would cost at least $216,000. This is based on a figure of $12,000 per flight hour to operate the Su-27, which consumes 5 to 6 tons of aviation fuel per hour. Aviation fuel costs about 20,000 roubles ($790) per ton, and this does not include the additional expense of airport landing and takeoff fees and air traffic control charges.

Nashi has been equated by some Russian political spokesmen with this country's Boy Scouts, but the history of the organization suggests that it is every bit the captive youth brigade of the regime in power, just as youth movements were vehicles for political indoctrination during the Soviet period.

Russia is one of the few nations where the scouting movement has never been allowed to establish a branch, having been banished in the early 1900s. During the Soviet era, the equivalent of the Boy and Girl Scouts was the Komsomol. Komsomol was the acronym for the Vsesoyuzny Leninskiy Kommunisticheskiy Soyuz Molodyozhi or VLKSM, which was known in the west as the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, or "YCL" for short.

The YCL was a propaganda organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and was the boot camp on the path to success for those wanting to climb to the top of the political pyramid in the old USSR. Those wanting to become members of the Party had to generally spend a good portion of their youth in the Komsomol--spending hours performing official, unpaid "patriotic activities," such as putting up banners and posters before major holidays, in order to demonstrate their worthiness to become card-carrying Communist party officials.

Since the fall of the USSR and the end of the need for the pervasive indoctrination that goes along with a communist-style dictatorship, the Komsomol has faded into obscurity. It has, however, been somewhat replaced by the Nashi.

Nashi takes its name from the full title of the organisation, Molodezhnoye Dvizheniye, which translates as Youth Movement "Ours!" It was officially created in reaction to the spontaneous and widespread youth movement that took root in Ukraine during the 2004-2006 Orange Revolution, and which brought a pro-western president, Viktor Yushchenko, to power in Kiev at the expense of the candidate backed by Putin, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich.

KGB officers like Vladimir Putin, even when they become presidents, are about controlling events and making sure that political currents do not spin off and develop a momentum of their own. Unpredictability is bad, and solid, reliable support by the public is good. Nashi was created in order to make sure that there would be no repeat of the Ukrainian experience in Russia, and if there was any large-scale youth movement in Russia, that it would be slavishly pro-Putin.

Nashi is more than steadfast in its support of President Putin, but at the same time the group denies that it receives any Kremlin funding. However its finances are opaque at best, and the organization was originally put together by Vladislav Surkov, the deputy head of the presidential administration, and a man with more slush funds at his disposal than a U.S. labor union boss.

When the Columbia Journalism Review solicits donations, it explains its mission like this:

We are dedicated to defending quality journalism, which has many enemies and challenges these days. Our best weapons are deep analysis and investigation, and these tools can be expensive. We rely on people like you to help us produce the kind of magazine and website that can make a difference.

This description is hard to square with CJR's own coverage of the Scotty Beauchamp story, which ran under the headline "Why do conservatives hate the troops?"

CJR does not examine the complexities and challenges of pseudonymous writing, or the fact that the New Republic has failed to produce any corroboration for Beauchamp's account, or the delicacy of fact-checking spouses of your own employee. Instead, CJR writer Paul McCleary attacks milbloggers for being chickenhawks.

How dare a college grad and engaged citizen volunteer to join the Army to fight for his country! (Which is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others.) While there are some very legitimate questions about what Beauchamp wrote, nothing, it's worthy of note, has been proved false yet. But that hasn't stopped the sharp knives of a slew of bloggers from coming out.

McCleary clearly has a lot to learn, starting with an understanding of what a milblog is and the experiences of those who write them. (Hint: mil is short for military.) CJR's donors may want to ask for a refund.

Update: McCleary has come in for some well deserved ridicule at Little Green Footballs, Blackfive, baldilocks, and Riehl World View.

Update II: Paul McCleary has responded to the WWS and others with this note:

I really walked into this one.

I actually spend a lot of time on milblogs. I was careless in my choice of wording when I wrote the piece. What I meant was the whole community of blogs that have sprung up in the same universe as milblogs -- Hugh Hewitt, etc., who act tough about the war, but have never served, and have never left the comforts of their air-conditioned offices to see what might be going on in Iraq or Afghanistan. I was reacting to the constant drumbeat of personal information they have been posting about Beauchamp, including what he did in college, etc., that don't really have anything to do with the story. That said, my point was pretty sloppy.

I've written a lot about milblogs, actually: Interviewed Matthew Currier Burden for CJR, as well as a couple soldiers who were blogging for the New York Times. I've also spoken to, and exchanged emails with guys like Yon and Roggio and such, and I blogged when I was an embedded reporter in Iraq back in '06, which doesn't make me a milblogger, but hey, it's something, I guess.

Like I said, I really stepped in it because I didn't take the time to clearly define what I was talking about.

Color me unimpressed, but I'll let Mudville Gazette's CDR Salamander respond:

Mr. McLeary is too focused on discrediting the messenger (the old 'Chickenhawk' tactic) than the message. If one served or not makes little difference on the validity of one's argument or story - it is the substance of the product.

Blackfive's Laughing Wolf and baldilocks echo the same sentiment. I'm just enjoying the sweet irony of milbloggers giving the Columbia Journalism Review a badly needed lecture on how one sets about making an argument.

In an attempt to discredit the O'Hanlon/Pollack piece on the success of the surge (commented on here earlier today by my colleague Mike Goldfarb), bloggers on the left are trying to depict the two as long-time supporters of the war. Glenn Greenwald, in particular, assembles an array of quotes (amidst 4 updates and some 4,000 words) from O'Hanlon showing his optimism about the mission in Iraq as late as May, 2004. To give a sense as to just how long ago that was, it was before the rise of Moqtada al Sadr, before the withdrawal of Spanish troops, and before the transfer of authority to the new Iraqi government. In other words, it's been a long time since O'Hanlon could be classed as the sort of supporter that Greenwald seeks to make him out as.

Be sure to read Tom Maguire on this topic. He does a better job than Greenwald in showing how O'Hanlon and Pollack got to where they are today. Maguire notes that with the ever so slight improvement in polls on Iraq, and the good news on the ground, "the Dems need to pin down Bush's defeat before it slips away from them."

In related news, the House will again vote this week on one or more proposals designed to embarrass Republicans with regard to Iraq--without actually withdrawing funds or ending the mission:

The raft of Iraq votes is the latest installment of the Democrats’ political strategy, which calls for using floor votes to demonstrate their commitment to bringing U.S. troops home while forcing Republicans to either support them or risk voters’ anger by voting against the measures. With Democrats’ core supporters restless over the party’s role in ending the war and Congress’ standing with the public at historic lows, the political pressure on Democrats is greater than ever. The pre-recess Iraq votes are an opportunity to relieve it, if only temporarily...

Party unity is under a strain over the Democrats’ latest troop-withdrawal proposal, by John P. Murtha, D-Pa., the outspoken anti-war chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. His measure would require a pullout to begin 60 days after the measure’s enactment but would not set a deadline for completing it.

A number of liberal Democrats are not happy with Murtha’s amendment because it does not establish a firm deadline for the pullout of U.S. troops.

The Congressional leadership could move to rescind the funds they provided for the war earlier this year. Such a measure has as much a chance of being enacted as any other proposal currently put forward, but it would actually accomplish what they claim to favor. The only downside: it would remind the Democratic base that it was this Democratic Congress that funded the war, and thus would expose them to a more obvious charge of hypocrisy.

But ending the war is more or less a moral imperative for the Democratic leadership, right? Surely they won't be scared by the prospect of being labeled hypocrites--or by fact that this is "a war we just might win"?

From the New York Times: A War We Just Might Win, by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.

From the American Spectator: The Peculiar Private, by John Tabin.

From the Wall Street Journal: General Petraeus Needs Time, by Peter Wehner.

From Contentions: Anti-Anti-Anti-Missile Defense, by Gabriel Schoenfeld.

From Middle East Journal: Baghdad Raid Night, by Michael Totten.

Iraqis celebrate their national team's victory in the Asia Cup. Ahmad Al-Rubaye/Agence France-Presse
Lefty blog responds: "the celebration images serve the Administration strategy of justifying an occupation and a war."

Bulgarian medics convicted of infecting Libyan children with
HIV arrive at Sofia airport on Tuesday. (Nikolay Doychinovn/Reuters TV)

During his recent presidential campaign, Nicolas Sarkozy promised to be the candidate of change, someone who was committed to breaking up France’s sclerotic political system and over-regulated economy. In foreign policy, too, Sarkozy vowed to make France "a shining city upon a hill," a beacon of hope and a staunch defender of freedom, democracy, and human rights around the world. In this context, it seemed to be both smart politics and good morals when the media savvy Sarkozy (who never seems to miss an opportunity to make a splash) appointed Socialist politician Bernard Kouchner, the internationally respected co-founder of French humanitarian NGO "Doctors Without Borders," as his new foreign minister in May. However, barely two months into his five-year term, it appears that President Sarkozy is personally committed to a foreign policy agenda primarily driven by narrowly-defined French national interests, thus leaving his more idealistic foreign minister in the dust.

On Wednesday last week, Sarkozy visited with Libyan homme fort (even the French employ this euphemistic code-word for dictator) Col. Moammar Gadhafi and signed various, wide-ranging bilateral cooperation agreements in critical areas such as defense, health, the fight against terrorism, and civilian nuclear power. In fact, Sarkozy’s plane landed in Tripoli less than 24 hours after his wife Cecilia had left the Libyan capital together with six Bulgarian medical workers who were released from a Libyan prison in what turned out to be major photo-op for France’s telegenic first lady.

Under the terms of the Franco-Libyan nuclear deal, Sarkozy has agreed to provide Col. Gadhafi with an atomic reactor to be used for powering a desalination plant. In return, Libya will provide France’s nuclear power giant Areva with much-needed uranium. It comes very handy that Col. Gadhafi has about 1,600 tons of uranium left over from his country’s clandestine nuclear weapons program abandoned in 2004. Sarkozy’s nuclear deal with Col. Gadhafi--for many years a key sponsor of international terrorism--was criticized both in France and abroad. France’s anti-nuclear coalition, "Sortir du Nucleaire," accused Sarkozy of handing over nuclear technology to Libya in exchange for the nurses. "Civilian and military nuclear are inseparable," the French NGO said in a statement. "Delivering ‘civilian’ nuclear energy to Libya would amount to helping the country, sooner or later, to acquire nuclear weapons."

Official Chinese media have been conspicuously silent about a July 9th clash between the Chinese navy and Vietnamese fishing boats near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. The Singapore newspaper the Straits Times reported on July 19th.

From the BBC.

A group of Vietnamese boats fishing in waters near the Spratlys, 350km east of Ho Chi Minh City, came under fire from Chinese naval vessels on July 9. Military sources reported that one of the Vietnamese boats sank after the attack. One fisherman was killed and several others hurt… Military sources say two of Vietnam’s Russian-designed BPS-500 fast-attack craft raced to the scene but kept their distance due to the superior firepower of the Chinese ships.

According to Pham Gia Khiem, the Vietnamese deputy prime minister and foreign minister, the details of the incident are being investigated.

Despite official silence, the news about the shooting has been circulating in Chinese cyberspace, where there have been lively discussions about the latest clash near the Spratlys, the site of a bloody 1988 naval battle between the two countries. Internet bulletin board comments have ranged from smugness over how China “fixed” Vietnam, to calls for stronger military action against “the little apprentice.”

Earlier this year, in April, 41 Vietnamese fishermen were captured by Chinese naval ships in the waters near the Spratlys. They were released after fines were paid to the Chinese government.

Tensions in the area have been running high since March, when Hanoi announced a $2 billion natural-gas project near the Spratlys involving British Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, and Petrovietnam. Beijing stated at the time that Vietnam’s action “infringed on China’s sovereignty, sovereignty rights and administrative rights.”

Chinese media and China’s online community were in agreement that the proposed natural-gas project was a challenge to Chinese sovereignty--a conspiracy by Vietnam to steal energy from China.

An April 22nd article on the Chinese navy's website accused Vietnam of “trying to follow Ukraine’s example” as it “gains Western support and assistance by taking advantage of Western hostility towards China.”

Other Internet postings recalled old grievances over previous Vietnamese “provocations,” including the 2004 Spratly tours organized by Vietnamese tourism officials, the renovation by Vietnam of an old airport on the Spratlys, and the participation of soldiers stationed on islands in Vietnam's 2002 National Assembly elections.

The earlier wave of belligerence in Chinese cyberspace subsided--though did not dissipate completely--with the June announcement that British Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, and Petrovietnam are to halt the US$2 billion project.

As the economies of China and Vietnam continue to grow at breakneck speed, their search for resources to meet escalating domestic energy needs has given unresolved territorial disputes in the South China Sea an added strategic complexity. The fact that official Chinese media have been mum about the July 9th shooting suggests that Beijing may wish to prevent the incident from deteriorating into a threat to regional stability. But with energy security a main objective of China’s current foreign policy, it’s anyone’s guess when the next flare-up will be.

That according to Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack writing in today's New York Times:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

This analysis--that the military is making significant progress in Iraq, and that the political situation remains the major hurdle to success in that country--conforms well with much of the reporting that has come out of Iraq recently. But as Powerline's John Hinderaker points out this morning, the real fear is "that the leadership of the Democratic Party sees progress on the ground in Iraq as bad news, not good. I think many Congressional Democrats are committed to defeat, for political and ideological reasons."

Illustrating that point, one freshman Democrat, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) literally walked out of a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday because she couldn't stand listening to the good news being delivered to that committee by General Keane (Ret.). Here's the transcript of her explaining her tantrum:

And I just will make some statements more for the record based on what I heard from -- mainly from General Keane. As many of us -- there was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while. So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things -- after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.

But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation -- things are going so well -- those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem. And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue.

Dealing with the reality of this issue means acknowledging the significant progress made by American forces under the command of General Petraeus. The only way the Democrats can now avoid that, it seems, is to cover their eyes and ears--or walk out of the room.

The main talking point for Democrats this week was that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales needs to go. After admitting he doesn’t care what David Petraeus has to say about Iraq this September ,Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold had this to say on Fox News Sunday about Gonzales:

“If the attorney general has committed perjury, or has made false statements to Congress, or has obstructed justice, certainly there should be a special counsel to determine if charges should be brought. Why wouldn’t you do this on such an important matter?”

On This Week, Utah’s Orrin Hatch countered that the Democrats should take a deep breadth and get back to the business of passing legislation.

“Look, to have a crime of perjury under the federal code … you’ve got to have a person who makes statements that he really does not believe are true, and frankly, nobody can say that about the testimony of Judge Gonzales.”

And Face the Nation featured two more Senators going on and on about the AG, but Bob Schieffer also helmed a segment on an issue that, if I had to guess, far more Americans actually care about: sports. Talking about the recent spate of scandals in the world of sports (Michael Vick’s indictment on drug fighting charges; Barry Bonds’s steroid-fueled assault on Hank Aaron’s home run record nearing its end; and the NBA official who may have gambled on games he himself was officiating), the Kansas City Star’s Jason Whitlock said that athletes are entertainers nowadays, and we shouldn’t put them on the pedestal that athletes once rested upon:

“I think that perhaps our expectations as fans, as citizens here in America, we have to change our expectations for athletes. They are entertainers and celebrities like the movie stars, and we need to treat them as such and not hold them to pretend like they have some integrity that other celebrities have. It's just not going to happen. I look at Kobe Bryant and the problems he experienced. He's basically a child TV star, and that's why he's been so immature. He got taken off to LA as a 17-, 18-year-old kid, given a bunch of money. What do you expect? This happens in TV, and we see these kids implode, and that's what's happened with Kobe Bryant. So I just think we need to recognize that the days of athletes holding such a high place in our society, those days are over. They've been hijacked by money and fame, and they're not coming back.”

Meet the Press featured a relatively boring all-panel episode, but there was one pretty handy insight offered by the Los Angeles Times’s Ron Brownstein. Speaking of the Democratic primary, Brownstein said,

“I disagree with both Dan [Balz, of the Washington Post] and John [Harwood, of the Wall Street Journal] that John Edwards winning Iowa would fundamentally change the race. It would change the race if he can--if he's able to follow it up in New Hampshire or thereafter, which is a challenge for him in particular, and for Southern candidates historically, in general, have not done well in New Hampshire. The Clinton campaign, I think, would rather have John Edwards do well in Iowa because of the belief that he is less likely to translate that into future success. Now, if Edwards crumbles in Iowa because of the difficulty of sustaining local support when he's not run--polling well nationally, the risk to Hillary Clinton is that Obama could win Iowa, and with the momentum from Iowa, going into New Hampshire, a state where he already leads among independent voters, though he trails among Democrats, that, it would seem to me, is a much greater risk to her than having John Edwards win and, in effect, potentially--unless he can translate it elsewhere--taking Iowa off the table, the way a Tom Harkin did. It--Iowa becomes much more of an all-or-nothing event for Hillary Clinton if John Edwards loses ground.”

When the WWS and others first raised questions about the New Republic's Baghdad Diarist, the lefty blogs were mostly silent. Only one even mentioned the controversy, and that was to say the Beauchamp's story "has a faint whiff of bullshit about it." But the left has since closed ranks--the revelation that Thomas is indeed a soldier seems to be proof enough for them that his stories are true. And they've arrived at this conclusion for two reasons.

First, there was the argument that "by the numbers...it would be shocking if there weren't random acts of cruelty happening in Iraq." In addition, lefty bloggers claimed that "so far, there has been nothing substantial brought forward to doubt his story."

Neither argument is very persuasive given that the question was never 'do bad things happen in Iraq', but rather 'did these bad things happen in Iraq'. And the New Republic, which seemed to do no fact-checking beyond making sure the story "smelled good," has failed to corroborate a single aspect of the piece. Further, the fact that no one has come forward to say they recall a badly disfigured woman at FOB Falcon as described by Beauchamp is substantial reason to doubt the private's account--we've heard from a lot of soldiers who served and are serving at FOB Falcon while Beauchamp's been there.

But now the DailyKos has put forward what is surely the most disturbing defense of the Baghdad Diarist--that those who are questioning Beauchamp's credibility do so as part of a larger effort of "intimidating whistleblowers." But Beauchamp is no whistleblower...he claims to have been a participant in every grotesque tale he recounts. If Lynndie England had penned an anonymous account of her crimes at Abu Ghraib, would the left have defended her as a whistleblower? Of course, not. They'd have demanded that she reveal herself and face the consequences of her actions.

If Beauchamp's story is true--and at this point we have no reason to believe the stories he's told are any different from the vivid fictional accounts of life in Baghdad that he was writing before he was deployed--then he is not a whistleblower, he's a disgrace to the uniform. A whistleblower is an employee who reports the misconduct of his employer--but the Army didn't order Thomas to ridicule an IED victim or to desecrate corpses. If Beauchamp did those things at all, he did them of his own volition.

So one wonders, why is it that the left not only wants the stories to be true, but wants to afford Beauchamp the same status as Joe Darby, the man who blew the whistle on the goings on at Abu Ghraib. The first question is fairly easy to answer--lefty bloggers believe the soldiers are both victims and perpetrators of the violence in Iraq, and Beauchamp's tales perfectly conform to that narrative. But I've failed to come up with an answer to the second question. Whether the stories are true or not, Beauchamp is no kind of hero.

Also read Bryan's column at Hot Air on the importance of this story.

Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus report on progress in Iraq:

He said the troop buildup has clearly established "tactical momentum," meaning its more aggressive efforts to secure volatile neighborhoods in Baghdad and areas around the capital are succeeding. The bigger issue is whether those gains will lead to a stability that can be sustained over time.

"The surge enables us to turn the tide just a bit in key places," the four-star general said in an hour-long interview.

Asked what more the U.S. military needs to accomplish to put Iraq on a steadier track, Petraeus ticked of a list that included furthering the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, which are intended to gradually take over for U.S. forces, beginning in areas where security and political conditions allow.

"We want to make much more progress against al-Qaida. We would like to build on the early momentum from local groups rejecting al-Qaida and militias," Petraeus said. We want to certainly not just sit on the violence in Baghdad neighborhoods and stabilize it but to create a way ahead that can be sustained by the Iraqis over time. We want to, where possible, frankly, to continue the process of handing off to Iraqis."

Crocker spoke more directly of his conviction that the current strategy should be maintained - and about his concern that if the United States were to withdraw now Iraq would be plunged into a humanitarian disaster.

Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi dismissed the possibility that she would hear news from Iraq that changes her mind about withdrawal:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said "the Democratic Congress will go on record--every day if necessary--to register a judgment in opposition to the course of action that the President is taking in Iraq" and to "fight for a redeployment of our forces as the central element of a new-direction strategy for Iraq."

From the Washington Post: Army Private Discloses He is New Republic's Baghdad Diarist, by Howard Kurtz.

From RealClearPolitics: Pvt. Beauchamp: In Big Trouble Either Way, by Jack Kelly.

From TCS Daily: Three Inconvenient Truths About Iraq Right Now, by Peter J. Wallison.

From Middle East Journal: In the Wake of the Surge, by Michael J. Totten.

From the Danger Room: Stealth Jets for Evil Robot Duty: $25,000/hour, by David Axe.

Bonus Audio File: From NPR, New Beijing Exhibit Promotes China's Army.

An Iraqi boy gives a thumbs-up to Coalition and Iraqi Army Soldiers who provided the children in his town with toys and school supplies. (U.S. Army photo by 1st Lt. Bowen, 3-4 Cav.)

When the mainstream press first picked up the story of "Scott Thomas", aka Pvt Scotty Beauchamp, New Republic editor Frank Foer told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that

"The Standard raises some important questions about the piece, and we're investigating them.'

'Who is "Scott Thomas"?' was not one of those questions we asked 10 days ago. Instead, they were as follows:

Does anyone who has served at FOB Falcon remember hearing about or seeing the humiliation of this woman? Do they know her name and how we might get in contact with her to confirm the author's account of the events that day?

Is anyone familiar with a combat outpost a few miles south of the Baghdad airport where a mass grave of Iraqi children was discovered? What about the other parts of the story? And does anyone else know of Bradleys careening wildly through the streets of Baghdad?

Those questions remain unanswered by either the New Republic or the now revealed author of the Baghdad Diarist, Beauchamp. Still, Foer tells Kurtz in today's Washington Post that

"It is really unfortunate that someone like Scott, who was really only trying to tell his particular story, has become a pawn in the debate over the war and the Weekly Standard's efforts to press an ideological agenda."

The only agenda we have as regards Beauchamp is the truth of his allegations. Foer stated a week ago that his magazine had launched an investigation and already had "nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions." But the magazine has yet to produce anything to corroborate Beauchamp's descriptions.

Meanwhile, bloggers and readers have cast further doubt on every element of Beauchamp's narrative, and the military has launched its own investigation. The only question left to be answered is whose rigorous fact-checking will get to the bottom of the story first, the New Republic's or the U.S. Army's?

Recommended reading on Scotty Beauchamp:
Dean Barnett
John Podhoretz
Outside the Wire
Ace of Spades
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs

Charles Krauthammer offers a strong column today on Barack Obama's national security naivety:

For Barack Obama, it was strike two. And this one was a right-down-the-middle question from a YouTuber in Monday night's South Carolina debate: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"

"I would," responded Obama...

Obama enthusiasts might want to write this off as a solitary slip. Except that this was the second time. The first occurred in another unscripted moment. During the April 26 South Carolina debate, Brian Williams asked what kind of change in the U.S. military posture abroad Obama would order in response to a hypothetical al-Qaeda strike on two American cities.

Obama's answer: "Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response -- something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans."

This was a serious mistake. As I pointed out over here though, there's a bigger problem. It's bad if Obama does not understand the significance of having diplomatic relations with the U.S., and engaging in summitry. It is a grave error to believe that our adversaries on the world stage want the same thing the United States wants.

Stepping up our talks with Iran will not boost the cause of stability and democracy in Iraq--at least by itself. Iran does not seek that. Iran likely seeks the establishment of a pro-Iranian Shia-led regime, or it may just seek the status quo: instability. Even if President Obama were to welcome Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Camp David, Iran would still oppose the establishment of a secular, pluralist regime in Baghdad.

And Hugo Chavez seeks to establish himself as leader of an anti-Washington bloc of Latin American countries. This ambition goes beyond George Bush; he disagrees with the U.S. goal of encouraging the continued development of free-market democracies in Latin America. If Obama thinks that Chavez is going to turn over a new leaf merely because leadership in Washington has changed hands, he's in for a disappointment.

And it's mistakes such as these that give the GOP candidates hope for 2008. Each of the leading Democrats has one or more flaws that might prove fatal. For Obama, it's inexperience and a lack of understanding of national security. Expect the Hillary machine--on the strength of articles such as Krauthammer's--to argue that Obama can't win the general election, and to build her advantage over her nearest rival.

Be sure to check out Ed Morrissey as well, who shows why Barack Obama is like Tom Hagen. It could be worse for him of course; at least he's not Fredo.

As usual, Confederate Yankee provides the best wrap-up of the days events. Ace has broken his own major story today, and finds himself in a beef with the Corner's John Podhoretz for his troubles. Hot Air and Michelle Malkin are also digging into Beauchamp's relationship with TNR.

Elsewhere, Riehl World View is putting together a nice collection of Beauchamp's previous clips, which as we pointed out below, do little to support his claim that he now finds himself in "an ideological battle that I never wanted to join." And a veteran of the 1-18th Infantry defends the honor of his former unit from Beauchamp's charges.

Dean Barnett finds something to pity in this "not-particularly-reliable narrator":

The war-bound artiste had a decided predisposition to what kind of stories he was going to tell. Following in Swofford’s and Stone’s footsteps, he was going to document the absurdity and barbarism of war. It’s a measure of Beauchamp’s immaturity that he decided what his autobiographical story would be before he actually lived it. This is one seriously pitiable individual.

And Reason magazine's Hit and Run blog wants to court martial Beauchamp "for pretentious writing unbecoming an enlisted man."

Still, as much information has been brought to light today about the Baghdad Diarist, the most important questions remain unanswered. Did Beauchamp report accurately what he had seen and done in Iraq, or is his work embellished or outright fiction?

We do know that Beauchamp worked on Howard Dean's presidential campaign, that he edited a liberal student magazine in college, and that he marched with pro-choice demonstrators in 2004. Further, we know that he enlisted in the military "just to write a book" about his experience--not the noblest of reasons, but neither does it discredit his work. Writing under a pseudonym, though, did prevent readers from understanding that his perspective was not merely that of a soldier on the ground, but of a political activist.

Still, while Beauchamp is entitled to his opinions, he isn't entitled to his own facts. This cliche is a favorite on the left, and they ought to hold one of their own to the same standard. There remains a shortage of corroborating witnesses or evidence, and his putting his name to the story does nothing to fill that void--if anything, his penchant for creative writing as revealed on his blog only casts further doubt. Beauchamp was, after all, writing vivid accounts of the hardship and suffering on the mean streets of Baghdad before he even arrived in the country...

On the street below the mans brown face dissolves into a thick red mist. The lights in the cities houses shut off in unison. Elecricity rationing. Water rationing too. You ever tried to survive for more than a few hours in hundred and twenty degree weather without water? In the streets the kids bodies start convulsing in semi-orgasmic rhythms. Their pants fill up with shit and piss and the smart ones sneak out to the fields to hidden caches of water jugs and trinkets of candy from the american soldiers.
"See that sarge, kids digging or something?"
"Well, better safe then sorry. Cap his ass Leclaire."
"You sure sarge?"
"Well, im either right or wrong. And if I'm wrong im still right because i could have been right even though i was wrong."
They watch the sliver of red sun fall slower and slower, silhouetting the little barbarians falling bodies. The Chaplain turns and walks back towards the FOB in contemplation. Gotta rack out early tonight. Handing out bibles in the marketplace tomorrow, early. Unintelligible rap blares out of the open doors of the HUMVEE.

Over at NRO, THE WEEKLY STANDARD's own Steve Hayes goes on the record with Kathryn Jean Lopez on the topic of his new book, Cheney:The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President. Here's a sample:

Lopez: Dick Cheney was an ardent Rumsfeld loyalist. Was that all loyalty to a guy who brought him along in the political world with him? Or did he really truly think he was the best defense secretary we ever had?

Hayes: Good question. There is no question that Cheney is filled with intense loyalty to Rumsfeld. After all, Rumsfeld was not only his political mentor (and later a good friend), he may have saved Cheney’s career when the FBI raised concerns with President Ford about Cheney’s two DUIs. But the two men were not always in lockstep on issues. Condoleezza Rice told me that Cheney and Rumsfeld disagreed on policy far more often than one might suspect reading news accounts of the administration. “They don’t always see eye to eye on things,” she said. “Not by any means.”

Go read the whole thing.

Just doing a little digging on Scott Thomas Beauchamp and we stumble across this piece from the Missourian:

“Glenn is completely submerged in politics on campus. It is honestly impossible to think about politics at MU without thinking of Glenn,” says Scott Beauchamp, editor-in-chief of Prospectus, a liberal campus news magazine. Beauchamp and Rehn met one year ago while campaigning for Howard Dean.

Riehl World View has more on the connection to Rehn. But I'd encourage readers to read the whole article from the Missourian, there's a lot more there.

"Scott Thomas" has revealed himself with this statement:

My Diarist, "Shock Troops," and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.

My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.

It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp

The New Republic adds that they will "go back and, to the extent possible, re-report every detail."

It's good to finally know the author's name, but there is nothing here to confirm the events as described by Beauchamp. Right now, we have no reason to believe that his stories are anything other than what we first suspected them to be: a "pastiche of the 'This is no bullshit . . . stories soldiers like to tell."

If the stories are true, we regret that Beauchamp has been forced to take "time out of his already insane schedule" of ridiculing IED victims, desecrating children's corpses, and killing stray dogs to "play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join." But, as Dean Barnett points out this seems more than a little disingenuous considering that his blog reveals that he joined this war "just to write a book" and that he "misses political arguments. There seems to be a consensus with all the boys overseas...we laugh harder at CSPAN than comedy central. Silly republicans."

That Beauchamp chose to reveal himself at this point also seems a bit disingenuous, since the military has already launched an investigation and, courtesy of JD Johannes, we'd already identified his unit four days ago. If we'd gotten that much information, it was only a matter of time before somebody besides his editors started asking him "hard questions."

We still want to know:

1) Dates. When did he mock the woman at the mess hall? When was the soldier wearing and playing with the child's skull? With dates, these incidents can be verified.

2) Names. He can argue that he would get the dog-killer in trouble by naming him, but how about the names of soldiers who witnessed the event at the mess hall and those who saw the guy with the kid's skull? Real live witnesses can verify the incidents.

After a several week lull in major mass casualty suicide attack inside Baghdad, al Qaeda in Iraq struck three times against Iraqi civilians over the past 24 hours. Yesterday's attacks occurred during the celebration of the Iraqi soccer team's victory at the Asia Games, which advanced the club to the finals.

Iraqis celebrate their soccer team's victory over South Korea.
REUTERS/Mahmoud Raouf Mahmoud.

Two suicide bombers, sitting in parked cars, struck within a half hour of each other. At least 50 Iraqis were killed and 130 wounded in the dual attacks in the Mansour district in the west and the Ghadeer neighborhood in the east. Today's car bomb attack in the eastern district of Karradah resulted in at least 20 Iraqi civilians killed and 60 wounded.

The attacks on the Iraqis celebrating the soccer victory are classic terrorist events. Al Qaeda piggybacked off of a rare moment of national unity and grabbed the media headlines by turning a positive story into one of despair. The two suicide bombers sat in parked cars, instead of detonating their bombs remotely. Al Qaeda wanted to put its signature on this attack. Also, al Qaeda in Iraq demonstrated that while its capacity for large strikes may have been diminished, it still possesses the ability to attack inside Baghdad.

Despite al Qaeda's successful attacks, the efforts to degrade al Qaeda in Iraq's command network, as well as the facilitators and IED cells continue. U.S. and Iraqi special operations forces captured 61 suspected al Qaeda in Iraq operatives during targeted raids nationwide over the past two days. Wednesday's raids in Mosul, Tarmiyah, Samarra, and Baghdad resulted 20 al Qaeda operatives detained, including the administrative emir for Mosul and a IED cell leader in Tarmiyah. Iraqi Special Operations Forces also captured a car bomb cell leader in the Jamia neighborhood in Baghdad. Today's raids in Tarmiyah, Taji, and Mosul resulted in 36 operatives detained.

Iraqi and U.S. forces maintain the pressure on the Shia terror cells as well. Two cell leaders were captured over the past several days. A raid near Hillah on July 23 resulted in the capture of the leader of the Mahdi Army "political wing in Al Imam responsible for emplacing improvised explosive devices and explosively formed penetrators along supply routes targeting Iraqi and Coalition Forces."

A raid in southwestern Baghdad on July 25 resulted in the capture of a Mahdi Army cell commander "allegedly responsible for the death squad killings of more than 150 Sunni Arab Iraqis."

In between votes on the war in Iraq, the House is expected soon to consider the fiscal year 2008 defense appropriations bill. While this bill will occasion one or more votes on Iraq, it may also see a floor debate over missile defense. That's because when the House Appropriations Committee approved the bill yesterday, it slashed the president's request for funding to deploy a missile defense system in Eastern Europe.:

Approved during the House Appropriations Committee's markup of the fiscal 2008 Defense spending bill, the cut to the European site is part of the $298 million the panel wants to trim from the Pentagon's $8.8 billion request for the massive missile defense program. The decision closely follows the House-passed fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, which sliced $160 million from the project, and the Senate Armed Services Committee's decision to cut it by $85 million.

These cuts reflect a growing unease in Congress over the sites, which also have generated strong opposition in Russia. The Appropriations panel cut funding intended for construction of a launch site in Poland for 10 missile interceptors but backed spending on an early-warning radar system proposed for the Czech Republic. In its report accompanying the bill, the committee called it "premature" to fully fund the European effort "given the uncertainty surrounding the program."

There's no question that the plans of the U.S., Poland and the Czech Republic have caused some consternation in Russia. In fact, while the Appropriations Committee was slashing missile defense funds, President Putin was talking about the need to build up the Russian military and step up spying on the West:

“One of our absolute priorities is an all-round strengthening of the armed forces,” Mr Putin told the Kremlin gathering. He listed not just terrorism but US military plans among “global threats” to be tackled.

“Both the situation in the world and internal political interests demand that Russia’s foreign intelligence service constantly increases its resources, above all in the field of information and analytical support for the country’s leadership,” Mr Putin added.

While missile defense is clearly an irritant for Rusia, it's difficult to determine how much of Putin's reaction might be attributable to Russia's upcoming presidential election. President Putin rattled the saber at NATO expansion for example, but eventually there was a 'meeting of the minds.' This case might be similar. Further, the planned missile defense system will both enhance U.S. security against rogue nations, and cement ties with important new allies. One strong supporter of missile defense is Congressman Jim Marshall (D-GA), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. When contacted by the WWS for comment, he had this to say:

Continuing development of a missile defense shield should be a priority, not the only priority perhaps, but an important priority nonetheless. I hope the funding for missile defense is restored to the full level requested by the President.

Leadership on this issue from representatives like Marshall will be critical to any attempt to restore funding--particularly since support is weak in the Senate. Given the circumstances, President Bush may not opt for a veto merely to salvage at-risk elements of missile defense.

For more on the Russian reaction to the proposed system, be sure to check out a recent piece by the former spook about the disingenuous nature of Putin's proposed 'compromise' on missile defense.

In response to a request for more information, FOB Falcon PAO Major Kirk Ludeke sent this along:

Mike-

We are in the midst of a formal investigation into the allegations Pvt Beauchamp has made. That's all I can say for now.

Respectfully,

Kirk

Major Kirk Luedeke
Public Affairs Officer
4th IBCT, 1st ID
DRAGONS

Over at Blackfive, Uncle Jimbo writes on Beauchamp's decision to step forward now:

As far as writing under your own name, as I noted above JD Johannes had already identified you down to Company (100+ troops) level and you used your first and middle names as your pseudonym you freakin' pinhead. You were already fronted out and I would assume it was some members of your unit that "politely" invited you to name yourself.

From Bryan at Hot Air:

In hindsight, that he'd call his critics chickenhawks was as easy to predict as the way the left will spin this story now that he's come forward. I'll be interested to see what Yon, Greyhawk, Blackfive, their military readers and the vast majority of Beauchamp's other challengers have to say about their alleged inexperience in Iraq given that their main knock on him all along has been "I've been there and it wouldn't have happened that way" The definition of "chickenhawk" is a wondrous protean creature, able to evolve at any moment to suit the left's tastes, so who knows? Maybe Greyhawk's a chickenhawk now too.

Over at the Corner, Mark Steyn hits Beauchamp for complaining that his "character" has "been called into question.

In English libel law, Private Beauchamp would be regarded as a man with no reputation to defame.

From Powerline's Scott Johnson:

Now that Beauchamp has stepped forward, the issues regarding the veracity of "Shock troops" should be resolved in short order. It is striking that Beauchamp's statement does not add any facts to support the veracity of "Shock troops," although his identity is certainly a start....

In their preface to Beauchamp's statement, "the editors" state that they have thus far found nothing to disprove Beauchamp's article. They do not add, as they did earlier, that they have communicated with soldiers who have done much to corroborate the events recounted by Beauchamp. Indeed, neither Beauchamp nor "the editors" have disclosed a single fact to corroborate the article, although the disclosure of Beauchamp's identity counts for something. I trust that all will become clear in the fullness of time.

From Op-For:

So we know he's a soldier. I never doubted that in the first place, he spoke the lingo well enough. But, as Greyhawk noted, the inquiry has really just begun. Now we have to go about fact-checking his stories, which I suspect will turn out to have been grandly embellished.

So no doubt wheels are turning over in the 1/18's command staff right now. Wouldn't be surprised if Private Beauchamp was standing tall in front of the man at this very moment, under the scruntity of an aggressively curious CO who is demanding details down to the letter about each of his diary entries.

Expect a press release soon. The Army is going to move quick on this, now that they have a face to the name.

Either way, today is going to be a very bad day for Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

More frrom:
The Danger Room
FP Passport
Riehl World View
Mudville Gazette
Jeff Emanuel
Andrew Sullivan
Badgers Forward

And finally, Beauchamp has yet to address this at his own blog, The Sir Real Scott Thomas, but Michelle Malkin is pulling the most 'surreal' bits out for readers.

ABC News has done its own reporting on the "Scott Thomas" mystery and has gotten the New Republic to go on record with some new information about their pseudonymous Baghdad Diarist.

According to reporter Marcus Baram, New Republic editor Frank Foer is "absolutely certain" that "Thomas" is a soldier currently serving in Iraq. Further, Foer claims to have "many, many data points to back that up," but Baram adds that an official military email address is not among them.

Foer also told Baram that the story was "rigorously fact-checked" before the magazine published it, and as evidence of that, Foer says,

"We showed the stories to people who'd been embedded in Iraq to make sure that it all smelled good. We talked to one of the members of his unit to confirm the woman, a female contractor. We talked to a medic who'd served in Iraq to make sure that a woman could be in an FOB. We spent a lot of time with him on the phone asking hard questions."

As Riehl World View has already noted, "Thomas" wrote in the initial story that he "couldn't really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor." If this information was gathered beforehand, why wasn't it included in the piece? Also, when pressed on this matter more than a week ago now, Foer insisted to us that he did not know whether the woman was a soldier or a contractor. Now he says that confirming her status as a contractor was part of the fact-checking process that occurred prior to publication.

Finally, a fact-checking process that consists of sending the piece around to other reporters to make sure it "smelled good" is no fact-checking process at all. That the facts as presented by "Thomas" are within the realm of the possible is hardly enough information to support the charges "Thomas", and by extension the New Republic, have made.

At this point, the New Republic has released no more information about the incidents described in the piece than they did last Tuesday when we first raised these questions. As Foer said in yesterday's Times piece, "it’s very difficult for me to get them all on the phone to ask them the questions that I’d like to ask."

We wonder if it's possible that "Thomas" is screening his calls?

There is a lot of speculation surrounding the identity of the New Republic's mysterious, pseudonymous "Scott Thomas", aka the Baghdad Diarist. A semiotics-based analysis by John Barnes has poured fuel on the fire with the conclusion that "Thomas" fits the profile of a creative writing program graduate. Blackfive's Laughing Wolf weighs in on that theory with some thoughts of his own.

Over at Mudville Gazette, Greyhawk comes to a different conclusion. The "exhumation of a graveyard," he says, "leads me to believe Thomas is indeed a soldier." And writing at NRO, Mackubin Owens seems to agree,

Nonetheless, the “Diarist’s” stories remind me of the sort of shocking and outrageous statements young men like to tell to credulous listeners. As the late Harry Summers, a veteran of two wars once remarked, such stories are intended to have the same impact as the sight of two Hell’s Angels French kissing in front of a group of bystanders: shock and awe. They also remind me of the predisposition of the American press to believe the worst about American soldiers, a predisposition that dates to the Vietnam War.

Dean Barnett remains agnostic on "Thomas"'s claim to be a soldier serving in Baghdad,

We still don’t know whether Scott Thomas' biography conforms with what TNR has claimed or whether his tales are rank fiction, embellishments based on a kernel of fact or gospel truth.

But, for Barnett, answering that question seems to be secondary to understanding why the piece was run in the first place:

The purpose in running the Scott Thomas pieces was to explicate ideas, namely the ideas that the troops in Iraq are sociopaths, and that the Bush administration turned them into sociopaths.

Both Ace of Spades and Hot Air, taking Greyhawk's lead, fear that the New Republic will, as Allahpundit says, try and "shift this debate from whether Thomas’s stories are true to whether Thomas is a solder at all."

Over at Confederate Yankee, Bob Owens provides an excellent wrap-up of where the "Scott Thomas" story now stands, and he also addresses the numerous questions surrounding "Thomas"'s two earlier columns for the New Republic, most notably the author's account of changing a flat tire in a river of sewage, and his description of 9mm ammunition "with a square back." We have had firearms experts confirm that the firing pin of a Glock does leave a square mark on the back of shell casings--it's possible that this was just a lost-in-translation moment for "Thomas". Still, "Thomas"'s claim that "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police," is, according to Bob Owens, "so astoundingly incorrect as to be laughable."

Elsewhere, Powerline's Scott Johnson is bothered by the inconsistencies in the statements coming from the New Republic:

Last week "the editors" had "communicated" with several of the soldiers who witnessed the events recounted by Thomas and had done much to corroborate them. Now Foer allows that he has not been able to "get them all on the phone and ask them" the questions he needs to ask. I am in a state of "near certainty" that "the editors" don't have a clue regarding the veracity of Thomas's article.

From ABC News: Who is the 'Baghdad Diarist', by Marcus Baram.

From the San Francisco Chronicle: Anonymous in Iraq, by Kathleen Parker.

From National Review: Stephen Glass Meets the Winter Soldier, by Mackubin Thomas Owens.

From the DEW Line: Big "D's" Top 10: Reyes still leads, but Courtney catches up, by Stephen Trimble.

From the New York Times: On Base, a Plea to Give Each Death Its Due, by William Yardley.

Bonus: From Defense Link: Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About MRAP.

In their continuing effort to end the war in Iraq, the House of Representatives will vote today on legislation to bar the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq:

Instead of embracing bipartisan alternatives, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dropped the Iraq debate altogether. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned her attention to other war-related Democratic bills.

The House is expected to pass a bill Wednesday by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., that would ban permanent bases in Iraq. By week's end, the House Armed Services Committee planned to draft legislation for a vote next week that would insist troops be given sufficient time at home in between combat tours.

Left on the cutting room floor are several bipartisan proposals that could challenge Bush on Iraq and which have attracted GOP support.

But the legislation being considered today is essentially irrelevant, since the U.S. does not maintain 'permanent' bases. As Republican leader Boehner pointed out:

“Instead of wasting time with meaningless stunts and undermining our troops overseas through harmful rhetoric, Members of Congress should be united and focused on preventing al Qaeda from establishing permanent bases in Iraq and using them to stage terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies.”

“The bill brought to the floor by the majority today represents yet another political stunt -- and an intellectually-dishonest one at that, because the United States has never proposed establishing a permanent base in Iraq or anywhere else. ‘No permanent bases’ is already the policy of the United States, and there is no such thing as a ‘permanent’ U.S. military base in foreign countries. All U.S. military bases abroad are subject to cooperative agreements with the respective host countries. The agreements can be altered or eliminated at any time.”

But again, this debate really isn't about the substance of the Iraq war; it's all about the politics.

Yesterday a number of bloggers had the chance to speak with Juan Zarate, deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism. Mr. Zarate was recapping President Bush's speech at Charleston Air Force Base in which the president argued about the centrality of the war in Iraq to the ongoing war on terror:

Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida -- and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check.

You might wonder why some in Washington insist on making this distinction about the enemy in Iraq. It's because they know that if they can convince America we're not fighting bin Laden's al Qaida there, they can paint the battle in Iraq as a distraction from the real war on terror. If we're not fighting bin Laden's al Qaida, they can argue that our nation can pull out of Iraq and not undermine our efforts in the war on terror. The problem they have is with the facts. We are fighting bin Laden's al Qaida in Iraq; Iraq is central to the war on terror; and against this enemy, America can accept nothing less than complete victory.

Echoing the president, Zarate focused on the evidence that Al Qaeda in Iraq works as part of the broader movement. He noted that al Qaeda's senior leadership has described it as the central battleground in the war and that victory there is a central element of bin Laden's vision. Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian, is headed by an Egyptian and takes direction from leaders bin Laden and Zawahiri, he said.

When we turned to the Q&A, NZ Bear of Victory Caucus asked why we are not going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan more aggressively. Zarate said that "we have been going after them"--in close partnership with Pakistan. In cases where they are operating within Pakistan's sovereign territory, the government has worked with the Pakistani army--but the policy has not been "that we don't go after them." Zarate said that our strategy and the policy of the Pakistani government have been extraordinarily successful. At best, that's an 'eye of the beholder' claim, considering the inability of the Musharraf regime to clear some areas of the country of al Qaeda, the regime's reluctance to allow U.S. strikes in those areas, and the overall unstable nature of the Musharraf government.

Blake Dvorak of Real Clear Politics next asked about the influence of Iran in Iraq. Zarate said that the president believes that Iran is a "primary accelerant," and that Iranian involvement in Iraq needs to stop. To that end, the military has detained Iranians in Iraq, including an Iranian intelligence agent who was part of Hezbollah. In the long term, stability in Iraq is to the benefit to Iran, Zarate said, but we wonder if that is true.

Paul Mirengoff asked about the 'diminishing returns' from speeches by the president, and whether the media and the public will see more of Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus making the case for the war. Zarate's response was that they're speaking out on a daily basis. They're making the case that Al Qaeda is growing more marginalized, and is back on its heels with regard to local popular pressure. He reminded us that Zawahiri pressured Zarqawi several years ago not to offend the local population, and that is what we're seeing now.

The WWS asked about the assertion by Congressional Democrats last week that the administration is 'moving the goalposts.' Zarate argued that the White House is doing no such thing -- but said that "weneed time to see the effects of this and we need time to be successful... to simply pull out and not allow us collectively--the American people, the Iraqis and our allies--to bring this to full fruition is a mistake."

McQ asked if we are slowing the ability to bring in foreign fighters across the border from Syria? Zarate really keyed on this question, saying that "the flow through Syria is a major area of focus." He said that Damascus is the only obvious choke point to stop foreign fighters. Because it is critical that they be stopped, the U.S. will increasingly turn to allies in the region as we confront this more aggressively. The U.S. will put more pressure on the Syrian government, as we make the case that Syria will ultimately be threatened by the foreign fighters they are allowing to move through their territory.

The WWS also asked about the NY Times poll showing support for the war climbing slightly, and got the expected response: "we don't track polls." But Zarate said it may be a reaction by the American people to the message about the threat posed by a lethal dictator, who was also a state sponsor of terror. It's all part of the argument according to Zarate, that "regardless of whether you think it was a smart idea to go into Iraq, the reality is that AQ is there now and we cannot simply turn our backs on Iraq and walk away."

A recap of today's New York Times coverage, for those of you keeping score at home. In this morning's paper, the Times runs a story on the questions surrounding the credibility of New Republic's Baghdad Diarist. The last line of that story seems to indicate that New Republic editor Frank Foer is less than 100 percent certain that "Scott Thomas", the pseudonymous author, is even a U.S. soldier:

He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with "near certainty" that he is, in fact, a soldier.

The editors at the New Republic almost immediately--within an hour of the story being published--respond with this clarification at their blog:

TNR readers may have seen this story in the New York Times today. The story says that TNR knows with "near certainty" that Scott Thomas is a soldier in Iraq. In fact, we know this with absolute certainty.

Foer does not claim that the Times had misquoted him, but early this afternoon, the Times story was revised and the "near certainty" quote deleted. The last line of the Times story then read:

He said that he had met the writer and that he knows that he is, in fact, a soldier.

That's version 2.0. When this change was brought to our attention by postings at Hot Air, Ace of Spades, and Little Green Footballs, the WWS placed a call to the New York Times to inquire whether the paper had, in fact, misquoted Foer.

While waiting to hear back, we refreshed our browser and saw that the Times story had reverted to the earlier version that included the quote that Foer knew with "near certainty" that "Thomas" is, in fact, a soldier. Version 1.0 returns.

Then around 5 o'clock this afternoon, the Times changed the piece again, maintaining the integrity of the original piece, but adding a new final line that echoes Foer's blog post from 12:30 am last night:

He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with "near certainty" that he is, in fact, a soldier.

After this article appeared, Mr. Foer said he was "absolutely certain" that the author is a soldier.

Call this Version 3.0

We'll be hitting the refresh button often.

Postscript: Whether "Scott Thomas" is or is not a soldier, the doubts raised about the stories he's told have not dissipated. Earlier today, via Gateway Pundit, MNF-I released a statement about the as yet unidentified "Thomas":

We are aware of what was written under a pseudonym. Its writer is unknown as are his motives. We hold soldiers to the highest standards and the allegations made are completely inconsistent with those expectations. In the absence of any credible information or independent corroboration, we presently have no reason to believe it."

V/r
MAJ Alston

A Soldier from the 3rd Infantry Division and an Iraqi Soldier
prepare to clear a building in Arab Jabour, June 25.

The U.S. military and the Iraqi government continue to court the tribes in the provinces surrounding Baghdad. One day after the tribes in the city of Taji in Salahadin province pledged to fight al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdi Army, a tribal meeting was held in the city of Khalis in Diyala province. Seventy-five tribal leaders gathered and vowed to fight al Qaeda in Iraq, its Islamic State front, and other insurgent groups. “Here, right now, I am denouncing the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Qaeda,” said one sheik in attendance.

As the tribes turn on al Qaeda and its Islamic State of Iraq, the targeted raids against al Qaeda in Iraq's network of facilitators, bomb makes and leadership cells continue. Today's raids by Coalition forces resulted in the capture of 20 al Qaeda operatives. A series of raids near Taji in Salahadin province resulted in 16 al Qaeda captured, including "a foreign terrorist suspected of involvement in the May 2007 Samarra suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device attack," while another four operatives were captured near Balad.

On July 23, Iraqi security forces struck an al Qaeda training facility and safe house at an old Iraqi military base near Karma in eastern Anbar province. The raid resulted in the death of an al Qaeda in Iraq cell leader and the capture of seven insurgents. Karma is one of the few remaining safe havens for al Qaeda in Anbar province.

Two more raids in the north in Niwena province resulted in the capture of six al Qaeda operatives on July 21 and 22. The July 21 operation in the village of Bazran in Mosul resulted in the capture of five suspected terrorists. The July 22 operation resulted in the capture of an IED and kidnapping financier. In both cases, the Iraqi Army worked with U.S. Special Forces.

On July 18, U.S. Special Forces worked with elements of the newly formed 11th Iraqi Army Division and captured two members of al Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq. The two insurgents are believed to have been behind a July 18 roadside bombing that killed U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter in eastern Baghdad.

Elsewhere in Baghdad, U.S. troops killed three insurgents while they were emplacing a roadside bomb in the Rashid district on July 21. U.S. troops are currently in the process of clearing operations in the Rashid district. Also, U.S. forces captured seven insurgents during a raid in the eastern neighborhood of Zafaraniya.

North of Baghdad in the city of Husseiniyah, which straddles the highway between the capital and Baqubah, U.S. forces have cordoned the city, as the Mahdi Army has dug in to fight. While news accounts claim tensions rose after an airstrike over the weekend, Multinational Forces Iraq said the confrontation began on June 13, when al Qaeda attacked the Golden Mosque in Samarra and destroyed the minarets. The Mahdi Army then assembled earthen barriers to prevent Coalition forces from operating in the city. "The dirt mounds block access by [Coalition Forces] into Husseiniyah and interrupt continued assistance of policing, governance and essential services," according to the press release.

South of Baghdad, in the city of Hillah in Babil province, al Qaeda in Iraq conducted a successful suicide car bombing. A suicide bomber detonated his weapon outside of a children's hospital, killing at least 26 Iraqis and wounding over 69. Most of those killed and wounded were women and children, an Iraqi policeman told AFP.

As the Baghdad Security Plan and Operation Phantom Thunder have progressed, the vast majority of mass-casualty suicide attacks have occurred in the provinces. Most of the bombings in Baghdad over the past month have resulted in casualties in the single digits. Part of the goal of the Baghdad Security Plan is to reduce the major attacks in the capital, and the plan has succeeded in this respect thus far.

From THE DAILY STANDARD: Hillary Outflanks Obama, by Fred Barnes.

From the Wall Street Journal: Syria Occupies Lebanon. Again. by Bret Stephens.

From the Los Angeles Times: In Iraq, Liberals Flip on Genocide, by Jonah Goldberg.

From Defense Tech: 82nd on the Hunt in Iraq, by David Axe.

From the New York Times: Poll: Support For War Inches Up, by Megan Thee.

And on the "Scott Thomas" affair:
From the New York Times: Doubts Raised on Magazine’s ‘Baghdad Diarist’, by Louise Story.
From HughHewitt.com: The Grey Lady Waddles In and Waiting on Franklin Foer, by Dean Barnett.
From Powerline: Franklin Foer Talks Again, by Scott Johnson.
From Michelle Malkin: The Scott Thomas Saga Continues.
From Hot Air: A Cemetary, Not a Mass Grave, by Bryan.
From Ace of Spade: Deleted: "NEAR Certainty" Baghdad Diarist Was A Soldier, by Ace.
From Confederate Yankee: Two Questions For Foer, by Bob Owens.

From Boeing: CSAR-X Demonstration. What downwash problem?

The Democratic candidates got together at the Citadel and all we got was this lousy T-shirt. Actually, we got a range of opinions on who won, and a few moments to chuckle at or worry about--depending on how you look at things.

But there is joy on the left as the Democratic base surveys the debating prowess of its candidates. As Pamela Leavey at the Democratic Daily sums it up:

I think by now we’ve all got the clue… We are stuck with what we’ve got

With such a spirited base of volunteers, how can the Democrats lose?

You can read the debate transcript here and here. Allah has also put together a range of highlights, including the Democratic party's global warming crusaders admitting to having come to the debate on private planes.

There were plenty of highlights, but we have to go with Barack Obama's promise to meet with Ahmadinejad, Assad, Chavez, Castro, and Kim Jong Il in the first year of his administration--without any preconditions:

Obama seems to think that once the threat posed by the U.S. is removed, Ahmadinehad and Assad will become responsible parters, and will take on the serious work of maintaining 'stability' in Iraq. His answer shows a Carter-like misperception--that if we just talk to our adversaries, we'll realize that we all want the same thing. Expect Obama to get hammered on this if he wins the Democratic nomination. (Looks like Senator Clinton won't wait for the general election to see him hammered.)

It's worth noting that Obama's answer has earned some applause on the left--notably from the Huffington Post, which admires his plan to 'bridge the gap that divides our countries.' No mention of who'll play the guitar while we all sing kumbaya.

On to other reactions. Marc Ambinder (now of the Atlantic) has a number of interesting comments, including this broad observation:

Barack Obama moves into his comfort zone when the argument is about change; when it's about strength and experience, Clinton (and Biden) excel. Monday night, the argument was about change, and Hillary was peppered with some hard questions, and if there is a disjuncture between the press's evaluation of Obama's performance and the voters' evaluation of his performance, it can probably be attributed a larger change orientation in the Democratic primary electorate. Focus groups conducted by CNN and Frank Luntz gave Obama the win.

Taegan Goddard on the other hand, points out that the polls show Clinton and Biden as the winners. Chris Bowers gives a reaction from the point of view of from the Democratic 'reality-based community,' and says that the group he watched with probably liked Senator Clinton more than they would have wanted to. Ann Althouse noticed that Senator Clinton seemed at pains to avoid mentioning her husband.

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza names John Edwards and Hillary Clinton as the winners among the top 3 Democratic candidates. (Yes, he could have just named Barack Obama the loser--but where's the fun in that?) Jim Geraghty, on the other hand, says Biden, Obama and Dodd won. The Philadelphia Inquirer's Dick Polman argues that the other Democratic contenders better start taking Hillary down a notch, or it will be too late to stop her. And Ryan Sager has a range of trenchant observations, including some analysis of John Edwards's critique of Senator Clinton's dress. And over here, a little item on Joe Biden's fuzzy memory.

I watched the debate last night, and I wasn't impressed. The YouTube format, by allowing the moderators to choose the questions, rather than craft them, totally insulated those moderators from any criticism. But at the end of the day, we still got questions that painted conservatives as fringe, and we were all subjected to John Edwards talking about "wrong touching," which is a moment I'd like to repress as surely as if I'd been wrong touched myself.

The most outrageous moment came Text Peace NOW when a man referred to his firearms as his "babies." I'm passionate about my Second Amendment rights, and, obviously, this guy was too, but when Biden questioned his mental stability, he was only stating the obvious. The guy seemed downright creepy, and the clear implication was that anyone else that protective of their firearms was similarly unhinged.

Of course, most of the questioners seemed like total creeps, but none seemed quite so menacing--if only because none of the others boasted quite as much firepower. I can't imagine that there wasn't a more respectable questioner with similar concerns about the Democratic party's position on the Second Amendment, but I most certainly do not intend to watch any more YouTube videos in a quest to find out. I had more than enough of that last night.

When Anderson Cooper and his buddies saw that video they must have been thrilled by the message it would send. For every other question, the moderators were so deferential to the questioner, no matter how absurd their question--like the one from Planned Parenthood. But in this case, Cooper mocked the questioner, and deservedly so. But if a question is ridiculous Text Peace NOW and worthy of ridicule, why introduce it in the first place? Well, that kind of logic might have disqualified most of last night's questions anyway.

Fred Barnes has declared Hillary the winner of last night's debate. Obama's pledge to have face to face meetings with the leaders of the worst rogue states, without any preconditions, revealed his "his inexperience, and perhaps his naivete as well, in foreign affairs," says Barnes.

On a conference call with bloggers this morning, Senator McCain spoke to that point, saying Obama's pledge was "a bit naive. We've found that face to face negotiations can sometimes enhance the standing and prestige of those we've agreed to sit down with. If they have a serious agenda, that it looks like there's prospects of agreement on, then there could be negotiations. But, by the way, quote face to face negotiations is an overrated aspect of diplomacy, we all have Blackberrys..." McCain also asked what exactly would be the first topic of discussion with the Iranians: their "dedication to the extinction of the state of Israel, their commitment to the continued development of Nuclear weapons, or is it the IEDs that the Iranians are exporting to Iraq?" Unfortunately, McCain did not break out into his remix of Barbara Ann.

He also said that the Democrats were wrong to advocate withdrawal from Iraq without regard to the consequences. "How can we advocate stopping genocide in Darfur and let it happen in Iraq."

More on the call from Captain Ed, eyeon08, and Powerline...
Text Peace NOW

The New York Times runs a piece today examining the questions surrounding the "Scott Thomas" story that appeared in the New Republic last week. New Republic editor Frank Foer told the Times reporter,

“Now that these questions have been raised, we’ve launched an inquiry. We’re putting the full resources of the magazine to look into the story,” Mr. Foer said. “It’s taking me a little bit longer than I wish it did. The author, not to mention some of the participants in the anecdotes he described, are active duty soldiers and they’re on 20-hour active combat missions sometimes, and it’s very difficult for me to get them all on the phone to ask them the questions that I’d like to ask.”...

The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.

Foer has since revised and extended his remarks, posting a note at TNR's blog saying that the magazine does, in fact, know with "absolute certainty" that "Scott Thomas" is a soldier serving in Iraq, but he does not dispute that the Times reported accurately on its conversation with him.

Meanwhile, it's been a week since we first contacted the New Republic with our questions about this piece, and, to date, the magazine has failed to produce a single piece of evidence that corroborates "Thomas"'s account. In that time, not a single person has stepped forward to say that they remember a woman, described by "Thomas" as horribly disfigured by an IED, at FOB Falcon. In fact, many have written in to say that they remember no such woman at the base in the past two years--and one would think that such a woman would be seared into the memory, as it were.

Further, not a single person has come forward to corroborate the existence of a mass grave as described by "Thomas," containing the remains of murdered children. One person reported the possible existence of an unmarked children's cemetery in the area described by "Thomas", but he also reported that the remains were properly handled and reinterred at another site--that the events described by "Thomas" could not have transpired as reported.

And finally, numerous experts and soldiers have written in to question "Thomas"'s account of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle careening around the streets of Baghdad in an attempt to kill as many stray dogs as possible. These experts tell us that the account could not have happened as "Thomas" describes owing to the mechanics of the vehicle and the position of the driver. Do soldiers kill dogs? On occasion, yes. Do they kill them in this fashion, not according to anyone who has come forward in the past week.

Doubts have also been raised about previous stories written by "Thomas" for the New Republic, most notably the claim that his men stopped their Humvee in knee-deep sewage to change a tire. According to experts and soldiers who have written in to us, the Humvee is equipped with run-flat tires that would make such an operation completely unnecessary.

The bottom line is that many legitimate questions have been raised and the New Republic must now provide evidence to support "Thomas"'s charges. We await the results of their investigation.

Two amusing posts over at the American Spectator blog that help set the mood for tonight's Democratic primary debate. The first comes from Jennifer Rubin, who has produced a list of the Top 10 statements we are unlikely to hear at the debate tonight...here's a taste:

1. "I won't engage in class warfare."
2. "Our enemies listen to what we say and act accordingly."
3. "Immigration reform is first and foremost an issue of national security."
4. "You know we voted unanimously against the Kyoto accords so perhaps we should stop pandering."
5. "There are 2 Americas-- John Edwards and everyone else."

Another comes from Shawn Macomber,

Wolf Blitzer, likewise, has been insisting candidates cannot fully prepare for questions born of the wisdom of common people. Common people...with webcams and too much free time on their hands, that is. And earlier this morning Heidi Collins asked a near-giddy John King what kind of hard-hitting questions viewers could expect from real people. His answer was similar to what every other CNN anchor has been saying today: Iraq, global warming, gay rights, Darfur--you know, the kinds of issues Anderson Cooper would never think to ask about unless otherwise prompted.

I can't add anything to that. But CNN had Anna Marie Cox and Glenn Reynolds on to discuss the debate yesterday. Reynolds seemed optimistic that the nature of the debate might, in fact, lead to some revealing moments for the candidates. I'm not sure I'm so optimistic, given the glimpse that CNN provides...

Harper's took a shot at the WWS and others on Friday in the context of a piece about the Pentagon's "Blogger Outreach" program. Author Ken Silverstein writes that the program

arranges regular conference calls during which senior Pentagon officials brief retired military officials, civilian defense and national security analysts, pundits, and bloggers. A few moderates are invited to take part, but the list of participants skews far, far to the right. The Pentagon essentially feeds participants the talking points, bullet points, and stories it wants told.

The funny thing is, Silverstein took a while to arrive at this uninformed conclusion--this was a follow-up web piece to an equally half-cocked piece that appeared two days earlier. That first piece on the Pentagon's "new spin unit" revealed the administration's dastardly plan "to bypass the traditional media and work directly with talk radio and bloggers, mostly those with a heavily conservative tilt." Making the whole thing sound even more scandalous, Silverstein adds that he hasn't "been able to learn which blogs and individuals the unit has been working with, but urge[s] anyone with such information to contact me via email." But even the most cursory Google search for "Pentagon blogger call" turns up dozens of hits from the participants. We invariably include "Blogger's Roundtable" or "Blogger Call" in the titles of our posts, and as he concedes in his second piece,

Some of the bloggers are transparent about taking part in conference calls. Goldfarb took part in a June 26 call focusing on Guantanamo Bay with J. Alan Liotta, principle director for the Pentagon’s Office of Detainee Affairs; when he wrote about it he noted that Liotta’s remarks were made “to a few bloggers on a conference call this morning arranged by the office of the secretary of defense.”

Not only are we clear about who our sources are, we are not always kind to them--I wrote at the time that Liotta's rationale for keeping Gitmo open wasn't "terribly compelling." Posts from other bloggers participating in the calls have been downright hostile--David Axe responded to one call with a post titled "Lies My Leaders Told Me."

The entire program consists of providing an opportunity for new media to speak directly with senior officers in Iraq and policy makers at the Pentagon. As Blackfive's Grim, a frequent participant on the calls, points out in his own response to the piece,

For the one thing, we don't talk to Administration officials, but to career military men. The journalist is the one in error, by treating career servicemen as if they were political figures. The journalist is also in error by suggesting that it is a disservice to the public to let the public read the actual words of military officers, instead of our filtered narrative.

Our readers are quite capable of drawing their own conclusions, I wonder if Silverstein would trust his to do the same. One thing is for sure, reader's of Harper's would be well served by exposure to what this country's military officers have to say about the war--it isn't always positive, and, in fact, the calls typically include frank discussion of the significant challenges the military faces in Iraq. I'd suggest Silverstein interrupt his busy writing schedule to do just a little bit of reporting and join us for a call (anyone 'who needs such information' can contact me via email). He might be surprised to learn what actually goes on: bloggers putting hard questions to commanders in the field and writing up the answers without spin. Scandalous!

There's more on this from Charlie Quidnunc at the Wizbang blog as well.

On July 15th, after nine days of captivity, Zhang Guohua, an executive with the China Nuclear International Uranium Corporation (Sino-U), was released by the Niger Movement for Justice (MNJ). Within days of the abduction, heeding MNJ’s call for foreign companies to withdraw, the China Nuclear Engineering & Construction Corporation, parent company of Sino-U, suspended its uranium-prospecting operation in Niger’s northern Agadez region.

Chinese President Hu Jintao (C) addresses the round table of the Beijing
Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) at the Great Hall
of the People in Beijing, Nov. 5, 2006. (Xinhua Photo)

The kidnapping in Niger is one of a string of attacks on Chinese nationals in Africa this year. In April, in a pre-dawn attack, guerrillas of the Ogaden National Liberation Front killed nine Chinese workers and 65 Ethiopians while they slept on the campground of a Chinese-owned oil exploration field in eastern Ethiopia.

In January, a Chinese engineer was killed and another injured in a Chinese stone materials plant in Kenya. And in three separate incidents in Nigeria this year, a total of 16 Chinese nationals were kidnapped, though all were subsequently released unharmed.

Motivated initially by political ideology, Chinese involvement in Africa began in the 1960s. More recently, the explosion of Chinese investment on the resource-rich continent is driven by China’s energy needs and Beijing’s "go-out" national strategic policy adopted at the 16th party congress in 2002. From Angolan oil to Zambian copper, African-Chinese trade between 2000 and 2006 grew from $10 billion to $55.5 billion. And by 2009, Chinese aid to Africa is expected to reach $10 billion. In the past 12 months, Chinese president Hu Jintao has visited 17 African countries, more than any other head-of-state.

Unlike Western countries, China typically attaches no conditions to its investment in, and economic aid to, Africa. One recent example of the practical effects of this tactic concerns Zimbabwe. In 2005, ostracized by Western governments and investors over human rights abuses in that country, President Robert Mugabe launched a "Look East" policy. China is now Zimbabwe’s second largest trade partner, behind only South Africa.

China’s economic offensive across Africa carries geopolitical implications as well. Since President Bush announced the creation of a unified military command for Africa this past February, Chinese media have been following the development closely.

After the April killing of nine Chinese oil workers in Ethiopia, Chinese media were quick to conclude that the incident was the result of internal strife in that restive country and that the action was not specifically targeted at China’s presence there. It was also noted that with the creation of the Africa Command, the Pentagon is putting the continent on a par with its Pacific Command and that "the unshakable superpower status of the United States has obtained yet another powerful pillar."
In fact, China’s suspicion of U.S. objectives in Africa pre-dates the Africa Command. A 2006 opinion piece in People’s Daily titled "U.S. steps up military infiltration into Africa" underscores Beijing’s concerns over the U.S. presence on the continent:

[The] U.S. military presence in Africa has two obvious tendencies: one is to deepen military cooperation in North Africa and the Horn of Africa for anti-terrorism purposes; and the other is to cooperate with West Africa for oil security. From strategic [sic] perspective, Washington’s Africa policy has combined anti-terrorism, oil and garrisoning.

Operation Phantom Thunder and the Baghdad Security Plan continue to place pressure on al Qaeda in Iraq, allied Sunni insurgent groups, the Mahdi Army and the Iranian-backed Special Group. In Baghdad, junior al Qaeda in Iraq operatives are reportedly cooperating with Coalition forces and a series of car bombs hit a Shia area of the capital. In the Belts, U.S. and Iraqi forces maintain aggressive operations against al Qaeda and insurgent cells as both Sunni and Shia tribal leaders in and around Taji have banded together to fight the Mahdi Army and al Qaeda. Meanwhile, the U.S. captured two more members of the Special Groups and have indicated that Iran is now smuggling Chinese made weapons into Iraq.

A Soldier from the 1st Cavalry Division clears
an al Qaeda prison camp south of Baqubah, Iraq.

Baghdad

The London Times reported that junior al Qaeda in Iraq foot soldiers are turning on their leaders and acting as informants in the Baghdad district of Doura. "The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheiks have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement," the Times said. The low level operatives have become disgusted with al Qaeda's tactics of brutality.

A series of four bombings over the past two days resulted in 14 killed and 37 wounded. Sunday's attack near the al-Khilani square in central Baghdad consisted of a motorcycle bomb; two were killed and 18 wounded in the strike. Three car bombs ripped through Shia neighborhood in Karradah. One bomb was aimed at a police patrol and another hit an outdoor market. Twelve were killed and 19 wounded in the attacks.

Salahadin

U.S. forces continue the process of turning tribal leaders and Sunni insurgent groups against al Qaeda in Iraq. The latest success came in Salahadin province, where 25 Sunni and Shia tribes in and around the city of Taji banded together to fight both al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdi Army. Taji is just 12 miles north of Baghdad and sits along the strategic supply lines to the northern provinces.

Salahadin tribes formed the Salahadin Awakening in late May, and al Qaeda in Iraq has targeted the group in an effort to destroy disrupt its activities. Yesterday, five senior tribal leaders were killed and 12 wounded when a suicide bomber penetrated a meeting of the Taji council. The Mahdi Army has attacked family members of the group as well.

Iraqi army forces are targeting al Qaeda's network in the Taji region. Iraqi troops conducted an air assault northwest of Taji on July 20. The target was "a suspected Al Qaeda in Iraq leader suspected of numerous crimes including a recent attack that destroyed a bridge on a primary Iraqi transportation route" in the Habbaniyah area in Anbar province.

"He is also allegedly responsible for facilitating foreign fighters and the planning and execution of multiple improvised explosive device attacks in Ramadi and other areas. The insurgent leader and his cell are also suspected of murdering and intimidating Iraqi citizens, conducting oil smuggling operations, and committing a string of highway robberies in an effort to fund al Qaeda activities."

U.S. soldiers also freed three Iraqis being held hostage at an insurgent safe house south of Samarra. Four insurgents were captured during the raid.

Diyala, Babil and Anbar

Operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and allied insurgent groups are ongoing in the belts of Diyala, Northern Babil and Anbar province. In the city of Miqdadiyah in Diyala, Coalition forces killed nine insurgents and captured eight during a series of raids and patrols. An insurgent safe house and several weapons caches were also found in the region.

From the Washington Post: Magazine Mystery, by Howard Kurtz.

From THE WEEKLY STANDARD: The 9/11 Generation, by Dean Barnett.

From the Los Angeles Times: Iraq isn't Vietnam, by Max Boot.

From Slate: The Galloway Papers, by Christopher Hitchens.

From the Wall Street Journal ($): China's Space Weapons, by Ashley J. Tellis.

From the DEW Line: Iran says that it will soon unveil -- and fly -- its first domestically manufactured fighter jet.

UPDATED 1:11 pm

We have another statement from Major Ludeke at FOB Falcon regarding the "Scott Thomas" "Shock Troops" story in the New Republic:

I've been watching the events on the New Republic's "Scott Thomas" piece with interest.

As the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Officer- I can tell you unequivocally: there was NO mass grave discovered in this area of operations in conjunction with the building of a coalition outpost anytime in the past 12 months. None. Zero. Zip. And Frank Foer's assertions to the contrary, there is no way that his mystery soldier "Scott Thomas" can prove it. Foer can produce all of the alleged "eyewitnesses" he wants- unless these individuals are willing to back up their claims with real evidence, it's just so much garbage on a computer screen. Some people seem to forget that the burden of proof should be on the New Republic to back up his unsubstantiated claims and not the other way around.

If the story *is* true, then "Scott" and whomever else is purporting to back up his assertions should come forward, identify themselves and submit their report through official channels. We are not in the business of suppressing his right to free speech...on the contrary- he's free to submit whatever he wants, so long as it doesn't put others at risk for operational security (OPSEC). Of course- by putting his name on such outlandish claims, he then has to account for what is clearly a series of false statements. So- obviously- it is left to reasonable people to decide who is telling the truth here.

I invite Mr. Foer and the New Republic to actually give us something to go on. Proof. Any kind will do- and something more than one anonymous soldier's claims and a nebulous "we've heard from others who can corroborate it," kinds of responses he provided Howard Kurtz. It's kind of hard to take these allegations seriously, when you're hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. Just about every Soldier these days has his or her own digital camera or video camera. Talk to anyone here- every unit down to squad level in our brigade is *required* to have a camera on every mission. It's all part of being prepared for such a discovery. Surely- there would be photos of the skulls and mass grave if it truly existed, would there not? The reason there isn't any photos, is because simply- the story isn't true.

There may be small grains of truth to what Scott Thomas has written. But, I can tell you that at least one event he's described as "fact" could not have occurred. To claim that an entire chain of command was complicit in keeping quiet such a grisly and important discovery of such magnitude stretches the realm of believability and is a grave insult to the professionalism and dedication of so many fine Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines serving here.

I know that if my organization claimed to have unearthed a sizeable cache of hundreds of explosives, rockets, nitric acid and other key components to make roadside bombs, otherwise known here in these parts as a "good news story," media outlets would rightfully demand some kind of proof to subtantiate our claims. That's why we take pictures of such things and provide them along with our press releases. The inability of the New Republic and Scott Thomas to provide any kind of photographic evidence whatsoever, and the fact that "Scott" isn't willing to come forward and identify himself, pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

If he is in fact speaking the truth- he should have no problem putting his real name next to it. It's called integrity, and it'[s one of the seven Army Values. That neither he nor the New Republic want to do that, and then hide behind the need to protect him from "retribution" (when I would add that he *is* in fact breaking a DoD directive with his actions) merely underscores the dubious nature of this whole story.

I invite Scott Thomas to come by the Dragon PAO shop at FOB Falcon- Bldg 301, Rm 119, and I'd be happy to share the DoD media policy with him. While he's here, I'd love to discuss with him the mass graves, Bradley IFV dog hunting and IED burn victim he's so intent on stating is fact. If he can provide the evidence, I will gladly retract every word I've posted on the subject. If he's not willing to do that, then it kind of makes you wonder about his credibility, and that of the New Republic's doesn't it?

Best regards,
Major Kirk Luedeke
Public Affairs Officer
4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division DRAGONS FOB Falcon

We also have information this morning from another soldier at FOB Falcon who asked that his name be withheld...

I am a U.S. Army officer and have been stationed at FOB Falcon, Baghdad, Iraq since October of 2006. I am currently still here. The stories that "Scott Thomas" describes are completely fictional. From some of the things he talks about I am led to believe that this individual may possibly be in my unit since we are the only ones with Bradley Fighting Vehicles and I recall the child cemetery that was uncovered in our sector while constructing a Combat Outpost.

First: I have never seen a woman on the FOB that was disfigured. FOB Falcon is full of combat Soldiers (men). There are very few female Soldiers on the FOB. After being here a year surrounded by men, I can tell you what every woman on this FOB looks like. IF there had been a woman with burns covering her face, and IF some undisciplined Soldier(s) had done something like described in this guys story, he would have been dealt with swiftly and harshly. The dining facility here is small and usually crowded. Any NCO or officer that had heard or seen someone committing this type behavior would have immediately approached that group and reacted to that situation. Those Soldiers would have had UCMJ actions taken against them. No one I know, NCO, officer, or even lower enlisted, would have tolerated this.

Second: There was a children's cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked cometary where the locals had buried children some years back. There are many such unmarked cemeteries in and around Baghdad. The remains unearthed that day were transported to another location and reburied. While I was not there personally, and can not confirm or deny and actions taken by Soldiers that day, I can tell you that no Soldier put a human skull under his helmet and wore it around. The Army Combat Helmet (ACH) is form fitted to the head. Unlike the old Kevlar helmets, the ACH does not have a gap between the helmet and the liner, only pads. It would have been impossible for him to have placed and human skull, of any size, between his helmet and his head. Further more, no leader would have tolerated this type of behavior. This type of behavior is strictly forbidden in the U.S. Army and would have made the individual involved subject to UCMJ actions.

Third: When the U.S. Army takes to the streets on patrols we do it deliberately, with task and purpose. "Thomas" describes the Bradley slowing down and 'jerking' suddenly to hit dogs. This just isn't possible. If he is slowing down, then the vehicles behind him are slowing down, and there is a gap created between him and the vehicles in front of him. This would violate standard operating procedure (SOP) and make the convoy more susceptible to attack. While no one that has been to Baghdad can deny that there are large packs of wild dogs roaming the streets, to think that that is all a Bradley crew is worried about is absurd. The streets are also filled with IED's and EFP's. They line every street and and every corner. They are the number one killer in Iraq. When we travel in convoys, dogs are not our concern. We watch the streets, we look at curbs, we look at rocks, we look at windows for snipers and trigger men, we don't look at wild dogs. Also, if this guy is driving a Bradley, how is he marking his "dog kill count" in a green book. Again, any leader would have corrected this action immediately, not only because it is subject to UCMJ action, but mainly because it endangers the lives of every man in that convoy.

In a final note I would like to say this. The U.S. Army today is the most disciplined and professional Army in the history of the United States. This is the only war in our nations history where we have not instituted the draft to fill our ranks. Every man in the service today is there because he volunteered. The stood up in the face of danger, knowing we were at war, and said "I'll go". Most of these men are on their second deployment in support of the War on Terrorism, some are on their fourth and fifth. After five years of war with an increasing number of casualties, longer and more frequent deployments, and no end in site, these brave young men continue to volunteer their services, many of them reenlisting. No other Army in our history has been able to do that without the draft. Our military men and women today are true professionals, they are truly America's best and bravest. While there are some bad apples and non-conformist in our ranks, we are quick to identify them and remove them from the service. The author of this story is a bad apple. He is trying to get attention by telling wild stories. He too will be identified and removed from the service.

Ludeke responded to this as well:

The children's cemetery sounds like more of a probable explanation. Something like that is completely different from a "mass grave," where the inference was clearly made that the bodies were murdered. We were not notified of the discovery and movement of the cemetery, but as I said earlier- there is probably a grain of truth to what "Scott Thomas" said. If he was part of the detail, then it would explain the discussion about the bones. But, it still doesn't account for the disrespect allegedly paid to the remains by "Scott's" cohorts.

Also, Gateway Pundit has a statement from MNF-I on the "Scott Thomas" piece.

UPDATE: From a contractor who is currently serving in Iraq and who has spent time at FOB Falcon:

Please withhold my name and position as I am a civilian contractor and do not need to gain any notoriety.

I was at FOB Falcon on and off from 05 through mid 06. While I did not live there, I was a daily guest of the chow hall which was better than the locally procured and prepared Iraqi chow we got provided for us. In addition we usually hung around in between mission times trading pieces of kit and whatnot with the soldiers stationed there.

Not once did I ever notice a female, either active duty or contractor, fitting the rather overblown description in the "Shock Troops" article. Furthermore, even if such a female existed, any Joe would have adjusted the attitudes of those fictional soldiers. Mocking the wounded is simply not done. Period. Full stop. Do not pass "GO". Do not collect 200 dollars. For a soldier to not only mock, but sexually harass a wounded woman would have brought down the wrath of every senior enlisted and officer in the mess hall. Some of us get pretty protective of women over here and the chance of a 4 wall counseling session occurring immediately afterwards is around the 99th percentile.

We contractors hate IEDs as much as the military does, and jokes about them are usually followed by a thorough thrashing somewhere out of sight. For a soldier to be publicly joking about them and the effects on a person is nonsensical. Nobody would have put up with the kind of verbiage attributed to the supposed soldiers at FOB Falcon. Even if the first sentence somehow escaped the brain-mouth checkpoint- he would have been told (and not too politely) to cease and desist.

Bottom line is that this section of the article is total, complete, wholehearted, bovine scatology.

Thomas Enders (left) and Louis Gallois. (DPA)

As we predicted back in May, the power struggle between Paris and Berlin over the restructuring at aerospace and defense company EADS has become a first crucial test of the Franco-German relationship in the wake of Nicolas Sarkozy’s election. In essence, the fight over control at EADS is about securing jobs, preserving key technological capabilities, and national prestige.

On Monday last week, following months of political wrangling, Sarkozy and Merkel met at the headquarters of Airbus (Boeing’s arch rival is 100 percent controlled by EADS) in Toulouse to announce a grand bargain designed to calm the waters, streamline EADS’s cumbersome management structure, and allow the company to go back to business. Starting October 1, Frenchman Louis Gallois, now the Co-CEO of EADS as well as the CEO of Airbus, will become the sole chief executive of EADS. His current German counterpart, Tom Enders, will take over as CEO of Airbus, by far the biggest and most important EADS division. At the same time, Ruediger Grube, a top German executive at key EADS shareholder DaimlerChrysler, will take over as the sole EADS supervisory board chairman (a position that is now shared with a Frenchman).

Merkel coolly described the Franco-German compromise--which needs to be approved at an EADS shareholders meeting later this year--as "balanced, fair and economically sensible." The first reaction of other German political leaders, newspaper commentators, and industry analysts was to hail the deal as a welcome step towards strengthening the position of Germany in EADS. As one commentator put it, Tom Enders and Ruediger Grube can now “squeeze” EADS CEO Gallois, who will be sandwiched between the two German executives. In France, the EADS deal was also seen as welcome news, particularly because Louis Gallois will take over as the sole CEO of EADS. Just a week earlier, alarm bells had gone off in Paris amid growing speculation that DaimlerChrysler had managed to secure the EADS CEO post for Tom Enders. Such an outcome would have been the worst case scenario for Sarkozy, whose government directly controls 15 percent of EADS and which is still eager to sideline Tom Enders because of the German manager’s outspoken opposition to any political interference by Paris in the management affairs of EADS.

In principle, the fact that both the French and the German side welcomed the Toulouse deal could be seen as proof that a fair and balanced EADS compromise has finally been found. However, as so often is the case, the devil is in the details. Late last week, the Financial Times Deutschland reported that Louis Gallois will be able to nominate the four new independent members of the EADS supervisory board "in cooperation with" chairman Ruediger Grube. So far, this important element of the Toulouse deal had not been made public. Initially, the addition of outside directors was seen as another step towards making EADS a more "normal" company. However, in a "normal" company, the German chairman Ruediger Grube alone would have the privilege of nominating his fellow board members.

German EADS insiders have, in off-the-record interviews, expressed concern that it is future Airbus CEO Tom Enders, rather than Louis Gallois, who will be weakened by the new management structure. First off, Enders was demoted from being the Co-CEO of EADS to the position of CEO of the company’s Airbus subsidiary. Second, as head of Airbus, Enders (who speaks no French) will have to move to Toulouse, where he will have to deal with Fabrice Brégier, the current Airbus COO and a close confidant of Louis Gallois, and restive trade unions. Finally, Enders joins Airbus at a time when the European plane maker is in need of a serious turnaround, but he has virtually no experience in commercial aviation.

Between Meet the Press and Face the Nation, viewers of the Sunday morning talk shows were given a glimpse of the deep divisions in the Senate's Democratic caucus. On Meet the Press, Sen. Russ Feingold announced he

“will be shortly introducing a censure resolution of the president and the administration. One, on their getting us into the war in Iraq and their failure to adequately prepare our military and the misleading statements that have continued throughout the war in Iraq. And the second, on this administration's outrageous attack on the rule of law, all the way from the illegal terrorist surveillance program to their attitude about torture, which we heard a little bit about today on this show. This administration has assaulted the Constitution.”

Feingold's resolution seems to annoy Majority Leader Harry Reid, who (after preemptively accusing Republicans of obstructionism on a bill that hasn’t even been introduced yet) announced on Face the Nation that he wouldn’t be throwing the weight of his office behind the effort.

“We have so many other things to do, the president's already--has the mark of the American people that he's the worst president we've ever had, and I don't think we need a censure resolution in the--in the Senate to prove that. We have to do ... at this stage, Russ is going to have to make his case as why we are going--should do that rather than do our appropriation bills, finish the defense authorization bill, homeland security appropriation bill.”

Over at Fox News Sunday, Fran Townsend, the president's Homeland Security advisor, discussed the National Intelligence Estimate and the media's reporting on it.

“I think we need to step back for a moment Chris and understand what the NIE says in the paragraph just before the one you read is that the U.S. worldwide global counterterrorism operations have constrained al Qaeda’s ability to attack and that al Qaeda believes that the homeland is now a more difficult target to attack. That said, there’s no question that as we keep them on the run, we’ve also gotten stronger; we have more capability now to bring them to justice, to capture them, and we’ve enjoyed quite a bit of success working with our allies like Pakistan. There’s no question that they’ve stepped back.”

Also on Fox News Sunday, WEEKLY STANDARD editor Bill Kristol incurred the wrath of the left wing blogosphere when he suggested that the Democratic field had “gone left” by agreeing to appear at YearlyKos.

The Daily Kos, Think Progress, and a host of other lefty blogs seem to be shocked that someone might question the respectability of Markos Moulitsas--the man who, "three or four years ago," was celebrating the deaths of four American contractors in Fallujah:

“I feel nothing over the death of the mercenaries. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”

Is that the kind of thing respectable people say?

The blogosphere is still abuzz with talk of "Shock Troops." Over at Hot Air, Bryan writes that in response to questions about the story from Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz, TNR editor Frank Foer "offers snark instead of substantive answers." Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit sees the response from FOB Falcon as confirmation that the story is a fraud.

Elsewhere, Matthew Yglesias admits he doesn't "really know what to say about the controversy." But that's never stopped him before, and it doesn't now. He concedes that "it's not beyond the realm of the conceivable that The New Republic would be taken in by a fabulist," but he claims that "the specific contentions being made against the piece...are pretty unconvincing." Ultimately he concludes that "it would be shocking if there weren't random acts of cruelty happening in Iraq." It doesn't seem to trouble Yglesias that the acts of cruelty described by "Thomas" remain wholly unsubstantiated and that the evidence against, which he describes as "pretty unconvincing," has been challenged by no one.

Further, new information continues to come in. Embedded reporter JD Johannes, who blogs at Outside the Wire, believes "Thomas" is a member of Alpha 1/18 attached to Combat 1-28 Infanty, which he describes as "the primary unit out of Falcon with Brads." "If my guess is correct, that narrows it down to about 100 guys and your organic C.O. is Captain Robby Johnson."

And the response from FOB Falcon identified the site of this alleged mass grave as Combat Outpost (COP) Ellis--the only COP that fits the description provided by "Thomas" to the New Republic. Riehl World View links to this story from Marine Corps News detailing the recent renovation of COP Ellis, complete with pictures of the Navy's Sea Bees building a new chow hall and storage facility. According to the article, the Marines and sailors of BLT 2/4 came to Ellis in November, when it was "a dusty bare piece of ground in the desert just outside of Barwanah, Iraq." As "Thomas" is described as a soldier, not a Marine, one wonders how he could have been involved in the initial construction of COP Ellis--let alone have discovered a mass grave there and frolicked amongst the remains.That is unless "Thomas" wasn't referring to Ellis, but, again, the PAO at Falcon says this is the only COP that matches "Thomas"'s description. More inconsistencies. But hey, "by the numbers" there have to be American troops somewhere in Iraq doing bad things...so why question the dubious and uncorroborated charges of an unidentified soldier.

More to follow...

Via Matt Sanchez, we've received this statement from Major Kirk Luedeke, the Public Affairs Officer at FOB Falcon, the base where "Scott Thomas" claims that he and his buddies ridiculed a woman who was badly disfigured by an IED blast (no one has yet come forward to claim they either have seen or heard of such a woman at the base, despite "Thomas"'s claim that she was a regular).

Hey Matt:

Here are the facts as best I have established them, along with the actions I have taken here at Falcon.

1. I was notified of the New Republic blog entries yesterday (Friday) by documentarian JD Johannes, who had spent time with us as an embed in May. He was concerned about the reports, but also expressed doubt in their veracity. He provided the New Republic and Weekly Standard response to the blog entry links.

2. I was able to immediately refute the assertion that a mass graveyard of children's skeletons was found; an event such as this would have been reported during the construction of Coalition Outpost Ellis, the only such COP that exists in the area the blogger described (rural, south of BIAP).

3. The stories of the burned woman and hitting dogs with Bradleys can't be as decisively disputed, however, I have not encountered a woman matching that description at any time on Falcon since arriving here on 17 Feb. You would think that someone with such visible wounds would stand out in memorable fashion. This doesn't mean that she wasn't a visitor at some point, but I find the account of Soldiers mocking her dubious at best.

4. I immediately notified MAJ Lamb of MND-B PAO, who advised me to send him the link and pertinent information on the New Republic's blog posts, which I did. He informed me of his intent to engage the CENTCOM blog team to see if they could take action, and at the very least, make them aware of the situation.

5. I contacted the only unit in our brigade that has Bradleys, 1-18 IN, and advised their XO of the situation, recommending that they talk to their Soldiers about Army values and the Warrior ethos, reminding them of the rules for blogging in uniform and also reminding them of integrity and telling the truth. The bottom line: If you put something out there you should be willing to put your name next to it and stand by it. That he and New Rpublic are insisting on anonymity is very telling here.

Per COL Boylan's request, I have prepared the following:

1. There was no mass grave found during the construction of any of our coalition outposts in the Rashid District at any time. Such a discovery would have prompted an investigation and close attention paid at levels higher than ours to making sure that the victims were properly interred and attempts would have been made to determine their identities. It is difficult to fathom that a unit's leadership would condone Soldiers disrespecting the remains of anyone in the fashion described.

2. Due to the threat of IEDs, our combat vehicles are driven professionally and in control at all times. To be driving erratically so as to hit dogs or other things would be to put the entire vehicle's crew at risk and would be gross dereliction of duty by the noncommissioned officer or officer in charge of the vehicle. Drivers aren't allowed to simply free-wheel their vehicles however they see fit, and they are *not* allowed to be moved anywhere with out a vehicle commander present to supervise the movement. Therefore- claims of vehicles leaving the roadways to hit animals are highly dubious, given the very real threat of IEDs and normal standards of conduct.

3. As for the alleged woman with severe burn scars, we have nobody matching that description here at FOB Falcon. As Soldiers, we practice the value of Respect: "Treat people as you want to be treated." If the blogger and his friends can't live the Army value of respect, I have little doubt that someone around them who does would have made an on-the-spot correction. The Falcon dining facility is not a spacious one. Anyone being rude, loud or raucous calls immediate attention to himself. It is hard to fathom that anyone would be able to get away with such callous behavior without somebody intervening and stopping it from happening.

Major Kirk Luedeke
Public Affairs Officer
4th IBCT, 1st ID
DRAGONS

The effort to prove or disprove the New Republic's "Shock Troops" story (see here, here, and here for background, or just scroll down) got a bit of a boost today as the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz examined the growing doubts surrounding the "Scott Thomas" piece under the headline "Bloggers Raise Red Flags Over New Republic's 'Baghdad Diarist'."

Here's what New Republic editor Franklin Foer had to say about the questions raised by the WWS and so many others:

"A lot of the questions raised by the conservative blogosphere boil down to, would American soldiers be capable of doing things like the things described in the diarist. The practical jokes are exceptionally mild compared to things that have been documented by the U.S. military. Conservative bloggers make a bit of a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq."

Are the events described by "Thomas" mere "practical jokes"? I'd say they are a little more serious than that. Foer accuses conservatives of routinely denying "any bad news" out of Iraq, but the point here is that the "Scott Thomas" piece isn't news...it's a slander of U.S. troops. Here's what Dean Barnett had to say in response:

This little quote shows just how much we differ. Foer apparently thinks the cruel mocking of an IED victim, the defiling of an Iraqi corpse, and the misuse of a Bradley fighting vehicle to run over dogs all qualify as “practical jokes.” I don’t.

But that’s not all Foer says. He even insists that the “practical jokes” are mild. Scratch that. He says they’re “exceptionally mild compared to things that have been documented.” This wonderful “defense” proves my point that the heart of Foer’s agenda has always been slandering the entire United States military and the 160,000 men and women who are serving in Iraq.

The important thing to remember here is that this isn't a story about shoddy fact-checking or a regrettable lapse of journalistic ethics over at TNR, rather this is indicative of how the left views the American warfighter. To them, he's capable of such savagery that the far-fetched stories related by "Scott Thomas" are not only credible on their face, but "exceptionally mild."

Obviously American troops are every bit as capable of criminal behavior as their civilian peers, and perhaps more so owing to the stress and violence of daily life in Iraq, but misconduct by U.S. servicemen in Iraq has been the exception, not the rule. If the New Republic and its political kin weren't predisposed to view American soldiers as barbaric, than the "Scott Thomas" story would have struck them, as it did everyone else who has since commented on it, as implausible at best. (I think it's worth noting that while the Internet will present two sides to almost any issue, no matter how absurd the opposing view may be--i.e., the charge that it was Bush that brought down the Twin Towers--best I can tell, not a single person has stood up to defend this piece other than Foer, not a singly lefty blog, not a single reader.)

For our part, we are inclined to view our volunteer Army as admirable, and innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, the charges levelled by "Thomas" are serious, and by allowing him to publish the piece psuedonymously, the New Republic, for its part, must be willing and able to prove them true. I have no idea who this "Scott Thomas" is, and I have no intention of giving him and his would-be accomplices the benefit of the doubt.

Update: Poweline's Scott Johnson weighs in on the Kurtz piece as well:

Foer's last point does not come close to doing justice to the questions rasised about the article. And one might respond that the left makes a bit of a living promoting calumnies and hyperbolic condemnations of our armed forces. I trust that the New Republic will at some point supply facts sufficient to verify the anecdotes related in the article or retract it, though the magazine has yet to do either and the hour is getting late.

The first "Scott Thomas" piece for the New Republic, "War Bonds" (February 5, 2007), tells the story of an Iraqi boy whose tongue is cut out for speaking with "Thomas"'s unit. The piece opens with this:

In Baghdad, a busted infrastructure has left entire neighborhoods navigable by vehicle only. The sector we soldiers patrol is known unaffectionately as "Little Venice" because of the dark brown rivers of sewage that backwash from broken pipes. The biggest fear in these parts isn't sniper fire or IEDs, but a flat tire that forces you to wade through the reeking fluids. Occasionally, that fear is realized--like on the day when I met Ali.

WWS pal Stuart Koehl, who is regularly quoted here as an expert on all things technology-related and who first chimed in on this story to explain that there was no way a Bradley driver could see a dog to the right of the vehicle as "Thomas" describes in "Shock Troops," now writes in to cast doubt on this story as well.

Koehl says,

HMMWVs [Humvees] are equipped with a special type of "run flat" tire--there is a solid rubber doughnut wrapped around the rim inside the pneumatic tire. If the inflatable gets punctured, the vehicle settles down on the run-flat insert, which allows it to be driven out of the battle area. The adjustable tire pressure system might keep the tire inflated if it has only a small hole, but its real purpose is to match ground pressure to the road surface for maximum traction. HMMWV tires are huge, heavy, and most vehicles don't carry a spare. A drop-down spare tire carrier has only recently become available as an option on Up-Armored HMMWVs.

He attaches this brochure as evidence, as well as this excerpt from 3-year-old article in National Defense magazine:

Notably, the Humvees are not issued with spare tires. When the Army initially purchased the Humvee, it specified that they would not carry spare tires, because its tires can run flat, at least for a short distance until they can return to base to get replaced.

Once again, soldiers in the field had to work around the system to get what they needed. Units in Iraq and Afghanistan have purchased spare tire carriers that can be bolted on the vehicle. “A run-flat tire doesn’t make it all the way when you are running convoys,” said Kern.

Okay, so maybe the thing had a spare tire, maybe not...we can't say for sure though we doubt that it did. But what we do know, and what has been confirmed to us by two experts, is that Humvees have run flat tires which can go miles without being changed. And no soldier in the United States Army would stop in a river of sh%* to change a tire. Either he would a) hook up a tow line to another Humvee or b) drive until he was on a sh%*-free surface where he could make the change. Our source, and we believe him, says a soldier would sooner drive on the rim, damn the consequences, then change a tire under such conditions. And we suspect "Thomas" and his buddies, lousy soldiers that they are if they exist at all, would sooner abandon the vehicle than get their hands dirty.

New Republic editor Frank Foer has finally responded to questions about the veracity of the "Shock Troops" piece published in the magazine this week under the pseudonym "Scott Thomas". Here's what Foer had to say:

Several conservative blogs have raised questions about the Diarist "Shock Troops," written by a soldier in Iraq using the pseudonym Scott Thomas. Whenever anybody levels serious accusations against a piece published in our magazine, we take those charges seriously. Indeed, we're in the process of investigating them. I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation.

--Franklin Foer

We also await the results of the investigation...

From Stephen Spruiell over at The Corner on some of Thomas's early work for the New Republic:

"Scott Thomas" has written three pieces for The New Republic. In the first of these, he refers to a neighborhood in Baghdad he says all the soldiers call "Little Venice" because the sewage pipes are always broken, flooding the streets with canals of sewage.

But the only references to a "Little Venice" in Baghdad that I can find on the Internet refer to a neighborhood in the Green Zone where a number of Iraqi officials live (see this article in The American Surveyor or this one on MSNBC.com). This "Little Venice" apparently has real canals, not rivers of sewage.

Of course, it's possible that there are two Little Venices in Baghdad — a neighborhood in the Green Zone that's officially called that and a dilapidated area given that nickname by the soldiers — anything's possible, I guess. But then there's this odd detail in the story. Thomas writes that, as he and several other soldiers were changing a tire on their Humvee, "a short but unusually healthy-looking Iraqi kid approached out of my periphery wearing an Adidas hat and snowboarding t-shirt, his lower torso swallowed by one of Little Venice's excrement canals."

So this kid allegedly approached the men changing the flat through sewage that came up to his waist. Wouldn't waist-deep sewage make changing a flat tire a little difficult? Was this Humvee crew equipped with scuba gear?

And correct me if I'm wrong...but aren't Humvees equipped with a centralized mechanism to pump air into punctured tires so that they can still drive with a blow out (say from a bullet hole). Is it possible they really couldn't drive on this tire long enough to pull out of a three foot deep river of sh%*.

And Spruiell has just linked to this piece from the American Thinker that takes a stab at determining the identity of the mysterious Mr. "Thomas".

UDATED 3:02 pm
UPDATED 3:57 pm
The blog at the American Spectator has some great stuff on "Shock Troops." John Tabin finds more suspect information in a previous story by "Scott Thomas". In his second piece for the New Republic titled "Dead of Night," "Thomas" had written,

Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.

Tabin writes, "I've Googled in vain for evidence of 9mm cartridge that features a "square back." As far as I can tell, 9mm Glocks fire the same type of ammo as the Beretta M9 -- the standard-issue Army sidearm. Am I missing something?" Apparently not. A reader at that site responds:

I know for sure that the round fired by the Glock 17 (their standard 9mm service pistol) fires the same round as the 9mm Beretta, the M9 (known in the civilian world as the 92... I know quite a bit about guns, and I have NEVER heard of a 9mm round with a "square back". In fact, I've never heard of ANY centerfire cartridge with a squared-off rim. A square rim would screw up how the round would sit in the magazine, and how it would feed into the chamber. The only "square" "cartridges" I've ever heard of came with caseless rounds, and weapons using caseless ammunition is so complex that it has yet to be fielded in any form.

And another interesting post comes from the lefty blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money, which as far as I can tell is the first lefty blog to seriously take up the issue...and, we were pleasantly surprised to see that Scott Lemieux also finds something fishy about the whole thing:

The story in the new anonymous New Republic article is similar [to Stephen Glass]; not facially inconceivable (most people who aren't conventionally attractive, especially women, will be no strangers to some kind of casual cruelty), and yet there's something about the details that has a faint whiff of bullshit about it. It's all just a little too After School Special-y.

Other blogs that are all over this today:
Powerline
Michelle Malkin
More from Hot Air
Instapundit
Little Green Footballs, which did so much to debunk the "Fake but Accurate" 60 Minutes story.
Confederate Yankee
The Bullwinkle Blog
The Tank, which smelled something fishy with this even before the WWS.
The Jawa Report
Villainous Company

So how long can the New Republic hold out without bowing to the legitimate questions raised by the best and brightest of the blogospehre, and how long can the mainstream media avoid taking this issue up for themselves?

UPDATE: A reader writes in to shed further light on this--it sounds like "Thomas" may have been describing the "somewhat rectangular firing pin mark" that a Glock leaves on the casing:

Just my 2 cents, it appears the author incorrectly described what was seen. 9mm rounds are not square backed for Glock pistols, they use NATO standard 9mm ammunition, which has a round base. What I believe he was referring to is that ALL Glock pistols impart a somewhat rectangular firing pin mark to the primer on the back of the spent round. Generally speaking, and there may be some exceptions, all other firearms impart a round firing pin mark to the primer. This unusual characteristic allows one to preliminarily identify spent brass as having been fired from a Glock pistol.

UPDATE 2: More readers chime in on the Glock issue:

"Square-backed" absolutely does not equal "with a square marking."

It looks very much like "Scott Thomas" garbled some technical advice he got from someone who actually is familiar with bullets and casings. Given the other implausibilities and impossibilities in the "Shock Troops" stories, however, at least this one suggests that the author at least put some effort into verisimilitude.

And from Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee:

I just wanted to concur with your previous reader who commented on the shape of the primer mark on the spent 9mm cartridges. The striker of a Glock can leave these squared-off dimples, as opposed to the more rounded firing pins if many weapons systems.

But far more damning is the unsupported assumption Thomas made that "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police."

Glock pistols have been on the commercial market for decades, and there are literally dozens of stories of Glock pistols being recovered from the insurgents, in weapons caches or other raids, and on the black market for the past four years. This claim simply isn't supported by reality, and shows the author is only interested in libeling the Iraqi police.

Iraqi and Coalition forces remain on the offensive in the Baghdad Belts of Eastern Anbar province, Northern Babil and Diyala, as the bulk of the major suicide and bombing attacks have shifted to the northern regions of Iraq. Kirkuk has seen a massive suicide attack over the past week, while insurgents targeted two bridges in western Anbar province, where U.S. and Iraqi forces have launched a multi-brigade sized operation.

Diyala

Operation Arrowhead Ripper in the provincial capital of Baqubah has now expanded into the eastern sector of the city, called Old Baqubah. The eastern portion of Baqubah has been cordoned, and Iraqi and U.S. forces are conducting "a deliberate, house-to-house search there for al-Qaida operatives." Multinational Forces Iraq reported that 67 insurgents have been killed, 253 captured and 151 improvised explosive devices and 24 booby-trapped buildings have been dismantled. Iraq's Ministry of Defense reported 67 insurgents have been killed and 50 captured during ongoing operations throughout Diyala province.

Al Qaeda continues to strike in the rural regions of Baqubah. On July 17, an assault on the town of Duwailiyah resulted in 29 civilians killed and four wounded. Al Qaeda fighters attacked while wearing military styled uniforms, and killed women and children. Several Kurdish villages along the Iranian border have been hit in similar assaults over the past month, and al Qaeda has conducted mass casualty suicide attacks in an effort to stir up sectarian violence. Elements of the Kurdish Regional Guards, which are the Kurdish provincial security forces, are deploying to the northern regions of Diyala in an attempt to curb attacks in the area.

North

The provinces of Salahadin, Tamin and Niwena have seen an increase in activity since the launch of the Baghdad Security Plan and Operation Phantom Thunder in the Belts. Al Qaeda and allied insurgent groups are believed to be stepping up operations in the region as their traditional safe havens in Baghdad and the Belts are under assault.

In the wake of a mass casualty suicide attack in the city of Kirkuk which killed over 80 and wounded hundreds, Iraqi and U.S. security forces have launched operations in the north. On July 17, Iraqi police arrested 28 suspects in southern and eastern Kirkuk. Twenty-one of those arrested are said to have come from outside the province.

Al Qaeda's network in Mosul has received special attention from Iraqi and Coalition forces of late. Khalid Al Mashadani, the senior-most Iraqi leader in al Qaeda and the founder of the Islamic State of Iraq, al Qaeda's political front, was arrested in Mosul on July 4. On July 17, Coalition forces captured three more al Qaeda operatives in Mosul, one "who is believed to have been promoted within the organization after recent Coalition operations created numerous vacancies in the terrorist leadership structure."

Questions about the New Republic's "Shock Troops" story that were raised at THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD late Wednesday continue to go unanswered. In fact, active duty soldiers and various experts have raised further doubts about almost all elements of the "Scott Thomas" account.

What we do know, according to the responses we've gotten so far, is that the badly burned woman described by Thomas does not seem to have served at FOB Falcon in the last 14 months. One active duty soldier who asks that his name be withheld writes in:

I was based at Falcon last year for six months with the 101st Airborne. I never saw a woman who fits Thomas's description. That's not conclusive since I haven't been there for almost eight months. But I can say this. The dining facility at Falcon is not large (maybe 200 yards by 50 yards) and the tables are very close together. I cannot remember eating a meal without having an officer or a senior NCO in earshot -- none of whom would tolerate such cruelty for a moment. Moreover, Falcon isn't that large and the faces become familiar quickly. One gets used to and comes to know everyone pretty easily.

Another active duty reader writes in:

In the 11 months I've been here [at FOB Falcon] I've never once seen a female contractor with a burned face. In a compact place like this with only one mess hall I or one of my guys would certainly have noticed someone like that. There are a few female contractors, I think maybe a dozen, but none fit the horrific description given in that article. Further, I've personally seen guys threatened with severe physical harm for making jokes of any kind about IED victims given the number of casualties all the units on this FOB have sustained. It is not a subject we take lightly. Gallows humor jokes do get told, but extremely seldom and never about anyone they actually know or are in the presence of.

Interestingly, it's the story Thomas tells of a soldier using his Bradley to kill stray dogs that has led vets and experts most confidently to assert that this is a work of fiction. Stuart Koehl, an expert on military hardware at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, writes in:

But even assuming that this guy was the world's greatest track driver, I still think the story as presented is pure BS. According to the story, the dog is on the right side of the vehicle, because the driver turns right to run it down.

I am looking now at a 1/32nd scale model of a Bradley, and I can say with some assurance that the driver's hatch is on the left side of the vehicle. Immediately to the driver's right is the engine compartment, the cooling grill of which rises above the level of the driver's hatch, making it impossible to see anything on the right side of the vehicle. Even if the driver was head-out, he still couldn't see anything to his right below the level of the top deck (all armored vehicles have significant blind spots close in, which is why they need dismounts to protect them from RPG guys in foxholes). So, if, as the blog says, the driver "twitched" the Bradley to the right, he must have used extrasensory perception in order to catch the dog. Because there's no way he knew the dog was even there.

And over at The Corner, a Desert Storm vet had this to say:

The article makes it sound like the BFV (Bradley Fighting Vehicle) is some sort of Klingon warship with a cloaking device and a sound silencer, capable of sneaking up on sleeping dogs and running them over before they can get up and move the 2 feet they'd have to get out of the way.

There's a whole lot more like that from vets and active duty personnel whose experience with that particular vehicle informs their judgment that the story "Thomas" tells stretches beyond implausible and into fiction.

And finally, there is the story of the mass grave, which is nearly impossible to prove or disprove without the assistance of the military, but which readers point out is strangely reminiscent of a story that came out of Germany last year that had German soldiers in Afghanistan desecrating remains there.

The uniformed men are seen holding up the skull and posing with it on a military vehicle. Another is seen exposing himself next to the skull. Bild's headline declares: 'German soldiers desecrate a dead person.'

Other pictures show soldiers simulating oral sex with the skull, and one shows the troops having secured the skull to their vehicle like a bonnet mascot.

Suspiciously similar, but "Thomas" takes the story even further...his men were playing with the remains of children and one soldier, he says, wore a skull all day and night.

Of all the hundreds of comments and posts that have percolated throughout the blogosphere, to our knowledge not a single one is able to confirm a single aspect of "Thomas"'s account. For example, no one who has served at FOB Falcon recalls the woman at the chow hall. And the latest email to come in, just two minutes old:

I was actually in Camp Falcon earlier this month and I'm heading back from Afghanistan. I've contacted Captain Carson, the Public Affairs Officer for Falcon and I'll work on proving this Fact or Fiction.

Frankly, I don't believe ANY of this story. I've eaten in the Falcon chow hall and never saw anyone like the woman described.

And the man who wrote that...he stands behind his work: he keeps a blog at MattSanchez.typepad.com.

The New Republic has so far failed to address any of these questions.

Greyhawk over at the Mudville Gazette has chimed in with his thoughts on the "Shock Troops" controversy:

Not until the second sentence does his story completely and totally fall apart:

She wore an unrecognizable tan uniform, so I couldn't really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor.

And that pretty much finishes that. Hint: military people wear military uniforms - the service uniform or the Physical Training uniform, AKA PT gear. and ALWAYS HAVE THEIR WEAPONS. Contractors wear civilian clothes and are rarely armed. (This has something to do with something called the Geneva Conventions, and also common sense.) Anyhow, this makes readily apparent who is military and who is not. In fact, it is the very reason MILITARY PEOPLE IN IRAQ ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO WEAR THEIR UNIFORMS AND NOTHING BUT THEIR UNIFORMS. Again, this doesn't prove Scott Thomas is a liar, only that if he is who New Republic claims he is, his ignorance exceeds that of any soldier of any rank I've ever met.

And there's more where that came from...go read the whole thing, as Greyhawk has done as good a job as anyone of putting together all the pieces here.

Also, see what formerspook has to say at In From the Cold...

I think I can safely say that Michael Yon is the most highly regarded combat reporter the Iraq war has yet produced, and he writes the WWS today in response to the New Republic's "Shock Troops" story:

That story about American soldiers at FOB Falcon sounds like complete garbage. I spent time with them this year, and in fact keep them on the front page of my site. 1-4 CAV is an excellent unit. I emailed the commander, LTC James Crider, about the story.

Please put that horrible reporting into context of something accurate. I humbly submit this: Desires of the Human Heart, Part One

V/r
Michael Yon
Baqubah, Iraq

I hope we will hear more from him on this subject, and will post an update when we do. In the meantime, go read his piece, and I'd also encourage you to support his highly-reliable reporting with a donation.

Sioux City, Iowa, July 18, 2007
Former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani told THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an interview here that he is currently reading American Islam: The Struggle for the Soul of a Religion, former Wall Street Journal reporter Paul M. Barrett’s heavily reported look at the American Muslim community.

“It’s very, very good,” said Mayor Giuliani, who confessed he wasn’t exactly sure how he came across Barrett’s book, released at the end of 2006. Giuliani speculated he had bought the book at a Borders bookstore.

According to reviews, American Islam is a broad look at Muslims living in the United States. Publisher’s Weekly called the book “remarkably evenhanded.” Indeed, Barrett’s occasional criticism of the Patriot Act and U.S. policy in the Middle East was cause for criticism from Hudson Institute scholar Paul Marshall, who wrote in the February 2007 issue of Commentary that it was “a pity” that American Islam’s “conclusions and recommendations should not only be at such variance” with the diversity of American Muslims “but should contribute so little to solving the very real problems that it brings to light.”

In the interview, Giuliani also mentioned he had seen Borat, the 2006 Sacha Baron Cohen mockumentary that follows the American travels of a Kazakh journalist. Giuliani’s law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, has offices in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

“I did laugh,” Giuliani said. “I probably shouldn’t have laughed. And I think it was insensitive in many ways. But I can’t help it, it was funny.”

Giuliani has never been to Kazakhstan. “I was going to go, but something went wrong,” he said.

Giuliani’s law firm has been in the news recently. A New York Daily News study of recent Federal Election Commission reports found that “nearly one third” of Bracewell & Giuliani’s “roughly 400” attorneys have given money to candidates other than hizzoner. Giuliani has received donations from 20 Bracewell & Giuliani lawyers.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Giuliani devoted his recent trip to western Iowa to his “Ninth Commitment to the American People”: “I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.” For Giuliani “legal reform” means instituting “loser pays” rules where a plaintiff who loses a suit and is found to have not had a rational basis for bringing the suit in the first place is forced to pay at least some of the defendant’s legal costs, and capping damages in tort and contractual suits.

You should take the time to read Hugh Hewitt's interview with General David Petraeus, who gives an excellent assessment of where Operation Phantom Thunder stands right now. He covers both the successes and the challenges. Some highlights:

HH: Do you think al Qaeda in Iraq is buckling, General Petraeus?

DP: Well, it’s probably too soon to say that, but we think that we have them off plan. Now having said that, they clearly retain and have demonstrated, tragically in recent, the past week or so, the ability to continue to carry out sensational attacks. They continue to demonstrate the ability to counterattack against our forces, and those of our coalition partners. But the detention, or the capture or killing of the number of leaders that we have taken out in recent months, and weeks, actually, and the progress in terms of just clearing areas of them…as you know, Anbar Province has really become quite relatively clear of al Qaeda. Eastern Anbar still has some, and we are working in that area. We have recently cleared Western Baquba, which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq. So there has been considerable progress against them, but they do continue to receive foreign fighters through Syria, who become suicide bombers in many cases, and they do certainly have an ability to regenerate, to regroup, and to come back at us...

HH: Do you see any evidence, General, that al Qaeda is now operating jointly with the Iranian regime? There’ve been some reports that in fact, they are now based, in some respects, within Iran and operating across the border with Iran.

DP: Well, there is an al Qaeda affiliate, I think is the best way to put it. Certainly, they’re under the overall banner of al Qaeda, an element formerly Ansar al Sunna, some of their members, another group affiliated with al Qaeda, that is located in Northwestern Iran, just east of the Iraqi border, east of the Iraqi-Kurdish province of Sulaymaniyah. They have come into Iraq. Our operators and Iraqi operators have conducted strikes against them. And we believe, in fact, that Iran may have actually taken some steps against them as well...

HH: Some have warned that a genocide of sorts, or absolute terms, would follow a precipitous withdrawal of coalition forces. Do you agree that that is a possibility, or a…and a significant one?

DP: Well, obviously, it depends on the conditions when we withdraw. I mean, eventually, we are going to withdraw. We cannot maintain the surge forever, as everyone knows. There’s always been an intention that the surge would be a somewhat temporary endeavor. So it has to do with the conditions at that time. I mean, we saw the sectarian violence of late 2006 and early 2007, and obviously, that was very tragic, and really quite horrific in a number of Baghdad neighborhoods. It literally changed the face of Baghdad. It struck at the very fabric of Iraqi society in places like Baghdad, and in other mixed, sectarian areas. And again, unless the conditions are sustainable by the Iraqis, one would certainly expect that sectarian violence would resume at a very high level...

Many of our readers note the progress of Operation Phantom Thunder and are optimistic that Petraeus will recommend continued commitment to supporting the government and people of Iraq in their efforts at stabilizing the security situation there. It may therefore be worth pointing out that Petraeus isn't telegraphing such a recommendation. He seems to be stating pretty clearly that there are some real successes with 'the surge' and, at least on the military side, it's accomplishing what it ought to.

But that's not the same as recommending that the mission continue. Rather, such a determination is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition to recommend continued commitment. Petraeus says that when he reports in September, he will present a 'comprehensive and forthright assessment' of the progress that has been achieved, and where we’ve fallen short. He's said elsewhere that he will lay out potential options and consequences. Since political progress is necessary as well, this interview doesn't give us too much to go on with regard to any recommendations he may make.

On a minor point, it's worth noting that this interview does not seem consistent with what Armed Services Committee Member Jack Reed said Petraeus told him. Reed said that he was surprised when Petraeus volunteered that he would probably be able to make a recommendation on the surge in August, and that he was prepared for a 'change of direction.' To put it mildly, one of these two accounts has to be wrong.

I'm trolling through the comments at other blogs to see what other useful information we can dig up...

Over at Ace of Spades, commenter PJ (#39) writes:

36 I have been awarded the Army Tracked Driver's Badge for driving a Bradley. It's not a common award (or wasn't in my day). I know what I am talking about.

There is no way this story is true. A Bradley cannot routinely bust through concrete. It would have a bit of trouble destroying a car (though it would succeed). It is loud and cannot pivot as quickly and easily as a M113 or M2a1 because of the steering system. There is no way that this story is true.

I think it's interesting that many of our informed readers have more trouble with the Bradley story than anything else--perhaps because it is the most easily debunked element of the story given the milblog communities intimate knowledge of the vehicle. We also had our pal Stuart Koehl write in yesterday ( you can read his comment beneath the original post) to say that there is simply no way that a driver would be able to see a dog off to the right of the vehicle, and further, that the vehicle would not be able to pivot as the author, "Thomas", describes.

I also thought this comment reflected a pretty common reaction, again from ACE, comment #54:

Also, with the disfigured woman, its incredulous to me that she would just sit there and take it. As if being injured is a mark of shame. And in this warrior society, she must sit and meekly cry in her tea. Its as if the reporter thinks that this is some high school cafeteria where the nerds have to take being talked down to, if injuries were actually something be ashamed of. Sorry, one word to someone's superior from corporal all the way to a 3 star general (and if she is a contractor, its more likely that she has access to high level brass than not) and that soldier's life and career are in the shit.

Another common reaction, this one from a commenter at Op-For:

"The private wore the skull for the rest of the day and night."

Sorry, as a former NCO and combat veteran I call BS. No one told him told him to stop!! Not one NCO or officer?

We keep hearing this, that an NCO or officer would at some point have intervened, to stop a PFC from wearing a skull around, to stop a soldier from driving over animals, to reprimand the soldiers for ridiculing a disfigured woman...

WWS pal Dean Barnett continues to pound away at this, with another post this morning:

It’s a common trope on the left that they support the troops. Those of us who have read the leftwing blogs and the New York Times editorial page the last four years have found it impossible not to get the sense that even though they purportedly support the troops, they sure do seem to relish every setback the troops incur. Some members of the American left have conjoined every car bomb and every casualty with a tiresome political agenda.

With this piece, you have one of the most respected bastions of liberal opinion bending journalistic rules to publish a story that paints our soldiers as sadistic sociopaths. If TNR had run the story by a single person familiar with the military situation in Iraq prior to publication, that person would have called into question their correspondent’s reporting. And yet a story like this one was apparently too delicious to subject to any intellectual or factual scrutiny.

Seriously, go read the whole thing, and it sounds like Dean will be discussing this extensively on the Hugh Hewitt show tonight... Again, one reader said he'd been at FOB Falcon the last eleven months and had not seen this woman, another said he'd been there for six months but had left the base eight months ago. He also said he hadn't seen this woman.

So what we need is someone who can push that date back even further...anyone who served at FOB Falcon before summer 2006 and can provide information as to whether this woman was, in fact, at the base.

More to follow...

We're getting huge amounts of feedback on this, and the story continues to spread in the blogosphere. But we're going to post updates throughout the day as more comes in. If you haven't read the original story, click here.

Here's the latest list of blogs covering this, which we will keep updating as things progress:

The Corner
Ace of Spades
Blackfive
Hot Air
Dean Barnett
Powerline
Op-For
Dadmanly
Haft of the Spear
QandO

And here are some of the comments that are pouring in, (again click here to read the original post and more comments):

I served 4 years in the Army, including service in Desert Storm, and was in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle battalion, the 1/9 Cav Regiment out of Ft. Hood.

As with most things written by the the traitorous media, the Shock Troop story is a collection of lies, complied by sissy leftist who don't even do enough research to make their lies believable. Sort of like the story of flushing a Koran down a toilet.

I've been in the drivers seat of a Bradley, and as Stuart Koehl says, you have terrible visibility on the right hand side. The engine is over there, and it's like trying to put a Ford Excursion in a parking space for a compact car.

The closest you can see on the right side is probably 15 feet away, and that would be with the seat all the way up, and the hatch fully opened back. No trooper is going to ride down a road in Iraq sitting that high, he'd be a sitting duck for a sniper. They either roll with the hatch fully shut, looking through the periscopes for visibility (think driving a sub down the street), or at most, with the hatch at half-cock, where you look though a slit (think sitting in a trash can with the lid on your head).

You're not going to be able to see a dog over there, so that's one lie.

Another lie is running things over with the Bradley. Take a look at the front it. The first thing that sticks out is the tracks, which are also the most vulnerable part of it. If you went around running into buildings or concrete barriers with your Bradley, you'd throw a track, and after your BC (Bradley commander) put his boot up your ass for being a dumb-ass, you'd spend the rest of your tour demoted down to sitting in the dreaded side turret jump seat between the driver and the rest of the crew, breathing diesels fumes, mixed in with BO and MRE gas from the dismount team.

Other lies - how does a dog sit in the road and get run over by an armored vehicle? How many dogs have you ever seen run over like this? Dogs aren't dumb, they get out of the way of a 23 ton armoured vehicle. The Bradley is not a Formula 1 race car either - the usual rolling speed is about 20-30 MPH. The article makes it sound like the BFV (Bradley Fighting Vehicle) is some sort of Klingon warship with a clocking device and a sound silencer, capbale of sneaking up on sleeping dogs and running them over before they can get up and move the 2 feet they'd have to get out of the way.

Then there's the story of a dog getting run over, with the two sections twitching around. Notice how it's written for shock value, with some lie about the head just staying there. The tracks of a Bradley are pretty wide - it's not a tire, it's a track. That would have to be one damn big stray dog to be cut in two by a Bradley, and still have identifiable parts on either side. Besides, how did he know what happended after he had run it over? Did he stop, get out of his vehicle, and walk over to it to take a look? You don't have real view mirror on a BFV.

Ian Kress
US Army, 1989-1993
MOS 11H (Infantry - Anti-Armor)
1/9th Cav Regiment, 1st Cav Division, Ft Hood.

FWIW: I hold rank of Major in the Judge Advocate General Corps, U.S. Army Reserve. From first week of October 2005 to first week of September 2006 I served with the 3d Corps Support Command at LSA Anaconda (@40 miles north of Baghdad, our Army's chief logistic "rear" base). 3d COSCOM ran primary logistics for Iraq--we had people all over the country.

I ran the Legal Assistance Office/Client Services. My sole contacts with FOB Falcon amounted to drawing some LAO clients from that post. But down the hall to our East from LAO you'd find Military Justice (Prosecution). To West of LAO sat the Trial Defense Service boys (Defense attorneys). Around two corners the Administrative Law attorney reviewed and advised investigations. All these men were friends of mine. From neither office did I ever hear word of any legal discipline taken against anyone, for any such actions as your story relates. And we Client Services attorneys often heard scuttlebutt through the other offices of what was going on around Iraq.

Now, from the description I'd say that "Scott Thomas" (*IF* he's really a soldier) belongs to a combat unit. So he would not come under 3d COSCOM direct authority, to include military justice issues. 3d COSCOM would have no command & control (C2) responsibilities over combat units, to include military justice issues. So I can't say with absolute certainty that none of the incidents occurred. As you say, the depths of man's total depravity allow any and every conceivable evil... The Lord Jesus Christ may forgive, but the Army won't. I agree with your posters: Soldier stupidity committed in public WILL get out--even if no one stopped such actions right away, you may be sure that even private soldiers GOSSIP.

David James Hanson
MAJ, JA, USAR
formerly of 3d COSCOM, LSA Anaconda, Balad, Iraq

More after the jump.

UPDATED 12:37 pm

A mission for milbloggers:

The New Republic runs a piece in this week's issue titled "Shock Troops" (sub. req.) and authored by Scott Thomas--described by the magazine as a "pseudonym for a soldier currently serving in Baghdad." "Thomas" is the author of two previous dispatches from Iraq for the New Republic, both of which recount deeply disturbing anecdotes (in one, an Iraqi boy who calls himself James Bond has his tongue cut out for talking to Americans; in the other, dogs feast on a corpse in the street). His latest piece is even more disturbing. It recounts several instances of gross misconduct by the men in his unit, some of which are, to echo the title of his piece, deeply shocking--If they are true--a big if, according to several people with experience in Iraq. One described it to me as sounding like a "pastiche of the 'This is no bullshit . . . stories soldiers like to tell."

The first episode puts "Thomas"'s unit at a "chow hall" at an unnamed base. A woman eating there is wearing "an unrecognizable tan uniform, so I couldn’t really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor." The woman's face is described as having been "more or less melted, along with all the hair on that side of her head," by an IED. She sits down for lunch next to the men. Here's how "Thomas" describes what happens next:

We were already halfway through our meals when she arrived. After a minute or two of eating in silence, one of my friends stabbed his spoon violently into his pile of mashed potatoes and left it there.
“Man, I can’t eat like this,” he said.
“Like what?” I said. “Chow hall food getting to you?”
“No—with that fucking freak behind us!” he exclaimed, loud enough for not only her to hear us, but everyone at the surrounding tables. I looked over at the woman, and she was intently staring into each forkful of food before it entered her half-melted mouth.
“Are you kidding? I think she’s fucking hot!” I blurted out.
“What?” said my friend, half-smiling.
“Yeah man,” I continued. “I love chicks that have been intimate—with IEDs. It really turns me on—melted skin, missing limbs, plastic noses . . . .”
“You’re crazy, man!” my friend said, doubling over with laughter. I took it as my cue to continue.
“In fact, I was thinking of getting some girls together and doing a photo shoot. Maybe for a calendar? ‘IED Babes.’ We could have them pose in thongs and bikinis on top of the hoods of their blown-up vehicles.”
My friend was practically falling out of his chair laughing. The disfigured woman slammed her cup down and ran out of the chow hall, her half-finished tray of food nearly falling to the ground.

Is it possible that American soldiers would be so sadistic when confronted by a badly burned woman, who may be a fellow soldier? Well, yes: Anything is possible when it comes to human depravity. But consider: these are enlisted men who, by the author's own account, don't know who this woman is or what rank she might hold. (Incidentally, wouldn't soldiers be able to distinguish a soldier from a contractor--especially if she is a regular at the chow hall?) Would they really ridicule her with raised voices in a public place, on "one especially crowded day"?

The next episode is every bit as shocking. Indeed, the behavior it describes is a clear violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The author claims that his unit stumbled across a mass grave filled with the remains of Iraqi children, and, rather than report the find, chose to desecrate the corpses:

About six months into our deployment, we were assigned a new area to patrol, southwest of Baghdad. We spent a few weeks constructing a combat outpost, and, in the process, we did a lot of digging. At first, we found only household objects like silverware and cups. Then we dug deeper and found children’s clothes: sandals, sweatpants, sweaters. Like a strange archeological dig of the recent past, the deeper we went, the more personal the objects we discovered. And, eventually, we reached the bones. All children’s bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades. We found pieces of hands and fingers. We found skull fragments. No one cared to speculate what, exactly, had happened here, but it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort.

One private, infamous as a joker and troublemaker, found the top part of a human skull, which was almost perfectly preserved. It even had chunks of hair, which were stiff and matted down with dirt. He squealed as he placed it on his head like a crown. It was a perfect fit. As he marched around with the skull on his head, people dropped shovels and sandbags, folding in half with laughter. No one thought to tell him to stop. No one was disgusted. Me included.

The private wore the skull for the rest of the day and night. Even on a mission, he put his helmet over the skull. He observed that he was grateful his hair had just been cut—since it would make it easier to pick out the pieces of rotting flesh that were digging into his head.

Again, American troops might be capable of such behavior. But most incidents of soldiers taking such war "trophies," to be blunt, involve dead enemy fighters, not massacred children. The questions pile up. Would a child's skull fit on the head of fully-grown man? Would pieces of flesh and hair still remain so long after the fact? Would American soldiers fail to report the discovery of a mass grave? Are there really units corrupt enough for a private to dare do such a thing for a day and a night?

Finally, the author tells of a friend who drives a Bradley armored vehicle and has a penchant for careening around the streets of Baghdad in the hope of causing as much destruction--and killing as many stray dogs--as possible.

I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs. Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America—providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle’s tracks. He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver’s hatch. One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn’t have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.

One simple fact renders this tale highly implausible. Such erratic driving is likely to greatly increase a vehicle's exposure to roadside bombs, which insurgents frequently hide in the corpses of animals, or beside trash-strewn curbs.

We contacted the New Republic in order to get any information that might help us to verify the authenticity of "Thomas"'s disturbing account, and the magazine, while insisting that it had promised to protect the identity of the author to shield him from retribution by the military, did provide us with some additional details. "Scott Thomas" claims that the incident at the chow hall occurred at Forward Operating Base Falcon. And the mass grave, he says, was discovered a couple miles south of Baghdad International Airport in farmland. We have also contacted the Pentagon in the hopes of getting more information to either corroborate or disprove "Thomas"'s account.

But we believe that the best chance for getting at the truth is likely to come from the combined efforts of the blogosphere, which has, in the past, proven adept at determining the reliability of such claims. To that end we'd encourage the milblogging community to do some digging of their own, and individual soldiers and veterans to come forward with relevant information--either about the specific events or their plausibility in general.

Does anyone who has served at FOB Falcon remember hearing about or seeing the humiliation of this woman? Do they know her name and how we might get in contact with her to confirm the author's account of the events that day?

Is anyone familiar with a combat outpost a few miles south of the Baghdad airport where a mass grave of Iraqi children was discovered? What about the other parts of the story? And does anyone else know of Bradleys careening wildly through the streets of Baghdad?

Please email any information, thoughts, and suggestions for further lines of inquiry to the WORLDWIDE STANDARD at wws@weeklystandard.com. We'll report back as information comes in.

Updated 12:37 pm: Just a quick update on some interesting responses we've already gotten, and you can also read a lot of comments and commentary at the other blogs that are all over this story:
The Corner
Ace of Spades
Blackfive
Hot Air
Dean Barnett
Powerline
Op-For
Dadmanly
Haft of the Spear
Badgers Forward

Responses posted after the jump.

The Chinook assists fire fighters in
New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Two weeks ago Boeing held a conference call with reporters to discuss "why they believe the HH-47 will be selected again," as the Air Force recompetes the CSAR-X competition that was overturned last fall by the GAO. Our regular readers will by now be familiar with the basic outline of the story (those who aren't can click here to read more), but the long and short of it is that the Boeing HH-47 was considered a long-shot to win, owing to concerns about downwash, transportability, brownout, acoustic signature, footprint, and a number of other perceived shortcomings. To Boeing's credit, the Chinook has some ardent defenders who write us with great frequency whenever we knock the aircraft as a viable CSAR platform...take this comment we got last time we posted on the subject (name withheld):

I am an active duty Infantry officer - I spent a year in Afghanistan with the 173rd AB BDE - The Chinook is hands down the best lift aircraft we have, I say again - hands down. Also - it is incredibly fast - few know this it can outrun the fabled Apache. In the high altitudes the Blackhawk is worthless. I flew on them at a minimum monthly during my year tour and were always impressed and amazed where we went with them.

That reader was responding to our reporting about a letter sent by Senator Mary Landrieu to Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne. The letter quoted Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn, director of the Army National Guard, as saying

"the need for a small, versatile helicopter became more apparent immediately after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when choppers plucked survivors from storm-ravaged areas. Instead of looking around for where you're going to land when you're picking folks off roof tops, you could put this thing down in a small parking area."

Landrieu went on, "General Vaughn's comments refer to how the Army had to stop using its massive CH-47s [Boeing's Chinook] to hoist survivors from the water, as the massive whirlwind generated by these helicopters could possibly down the people the Army was trying to save." Which is a long way of getting back to the conference call with Boeing.

The Boeing conference call was almost exclusively focused on countering charges that the Chinook produces too much downwash, aka 'whirlwind', to serve as a reliable CSAR platform. The WWS asked what Boeing's response was to Landrieu's, and by extension Lt. Gen. Vaughn's, claim that the HH-47 had been pulled from rescue missions after Katrina because of downwash problems. Here's Boeing response at the time:

Boeing: One it wasn't pulled out of service as witnessed by all the clips that we saw of it working. I believe, and we believe, and I would encourage you to contact General Vaughn with those comments because we believe it was out of context--that he was referring to a different helicopter, not the Chinook. And, oh, by the way, the Chinooks that were there were cargo, in other words they didn't have the hoist. And since this was peacetime, had we had one equipped like the HH-47 will be, in that case we could have used 209 feet of cable. At 200 feet, it doesn't even blow the hair on your head...I do encourage you to contact General Vaughn and ask because I do believe he was misquoted and using another helicopter.

The WWS: Do you have any idea what helicopter he might have been referring to?

Boeing: No, I would ask you to chat with him. Clearly, on record, we respect what the Senator [Landrieu] and her opinions and what she was told. But I'm not going to quote the general, I would ask that you'd chat with him.

The WWS: Okay, I will do then.

Boeing: I think he'll accept your call and if he doesn't then come back to us.

Well, I spent a week trying to get through to General Vaughn, getting jerked around and transferred from one office to the next, but never could get a comment as to whether this quote was accurate and had referred to the Boeing Chinook. At that point I went back to Boeing and asked if they could get the general on the phone for me...still no luck, only a statement from the company spokesman that General Vaughn had "indicated to us that he was willing to talk to the media or I can assure you we wouldn't have said that."

At the time I thought it unlikely that a general would undercut a senator in public by stating that he had been misquoted...but it also seemed bizarre that Boeing would put words in the general's mouth without a high level of confidence that he would back up their claims. But there it is, another strange turn in the CSAR circus.

Was it just last week that the House passed legislation to force a 'responsible redeployment' from Iraq? Was it just this morning that the Senate demonstrated that they're far short of having the votes to overcome a filibuster and get a vote on a measure to force the president's hand on Iraq? You might think that it was pointless to schedule more votes on Iraq.

Apparently, you'd be wrong, since the House is apparently going to hold more votes next week on Iraq:

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) hinted on Tuesday that the House may consider Iraq-related legislation again next week.

"We're not skipping Iraq. We think Iraq is critically important," Hoyer said. "I would imagine it's possible that we would be scheduling legislation either as an amendment or as a free-standing bill next week on some particular facet."

The House voted last week on a measure to withdraw most troops from Iraq by April. After the vote, Pelosi pledged to bring "an array of legislation" to the floor to challenge the administration's war strategy.

This vote is so clearly pointless, it seems almost silly to repeat that war policy should not be conducted this way. The House's vote to withdraw last week was the sixth such vote this year. It's clear that Democrats are unable (and actually, unwilling) to force a change in policy, so no point is served--except to kowtow to the surrender wing of the party. And while the war is supposed to be a critical issue deserving of sober debate, House Republicans have not even been informed yet what issue the Dems plan to debate.

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt had this to say in response to queries from the WWS:

“This is like a legislative train wreck. No meaningful action. It is kind of like the last episode of the Sopranos where the new leader gets sworn in and the screen goes to black and nothing is happening.”

“You can see from the Democrat approach on these Iraq issues they don't intend to create opportunity for any real debate”

We're not sure if Blunt has seen an otherwise unreleased alternate ending to the Sopranos, but we get the picture.

That's the title of a piece in today's Los Angeles Times that features interviews with a number of lawmakers that favor withdrawal...and most aren't particularly concerned with the outcome for Iraq:

Lawmakers who have led the drive to bring troops home from Iraq have not devised a strategy to deal with the widespread killings that could follow a pullout, recent interviews with more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans show.

Many of them acknowledge that Iraq may plunge into vicious sectarian fighting much like the ethnic cleansing that consumed Bosnia a decade ago. However, they said they would reject the use of U.S. troops to stop the killing.

"I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who has helped spearhead efforts against the war. "The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that."

Obey seems like such a pleasant fellow. And caring too, in a let-God-sort-them-out kind of way. So what does Harry Reid say he'd do if violence increased dramatically following a U.S. withdrawal? "That's a hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it." Of course no one thinks it will remain a hypothetical, but in the sense that it hasn't happened yet--Reid just won't discuss events that will take place in the future.

And my favorite comment comes from Rep. Lynn Woolsey of the Out of Iraq Caucus, "I believe, if we leave, the region will pull together," she said. Woolsey's assessment goes beyond hypothetical and into pure fantasy, she makes it sound like Iraq will turn into Middle East love-in if only the U.S. military would just get out of the way.

Or how about this:

"The Out of Iraq caucus really has not looked beyond ending military involvement," acknowledged Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a caucus leader and Pelosi ally. "Now that the environment is changing pretty significantly … everybody may be starting to look at what happens after the United States leaves."

So their entire legislative program consists of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq and none of them has really thought about what might happen if they got their way? It's kind of hard to take these folks seriously, but they're deadly serious about letting Iraqis slaughter each other.

"It will grow," predicted Oregon Sen. Gordon H. Smith, one of three Senate Republicans backing the Democratic withdrawal plan. "But it will burn itself out. That's how civil wars are fought. That's just the brutal truth."

Insurgencies burn themselves out, too, senator, just look at Anbar. And the best part about that...it's al Qaeda that gets burned.

Dick Morris is a political strategist, so it's not an indictment to say that he views the war in Iraq through a strategist's prism, rather than as a national security or terrorism expert. He has argued in recent weeks that the president must commence a drawdown in Iraq to avoid a sweeping Democratic victory in 2008.

Today he notes that while Democratic leaders claimed last week that the House passed legislation to force a redeployment, the legislation did 'nothing of the sort.' As was noted here, the legislation called upon the president to draw troops down to the level required under the missions he defined. The desire of House Democrats was clear--to reduce our exposure in Iraq--but the substance of the House bill doesn't approach that goal.

While I noted the misdirection associated with the bill, Morris sees something far more significant--a breach between Democratic leaders and their anti-war base:

So the left in Congress has redefined its goal. Instead of a pullout, it merely proposes a “reduction” and a “redeployment.”

Under a Democratic administration, the war will clearly go on...

First of all, it raises the question of whether the left will be satisfied with its Democratic candidates if they are committed to so limited a change in Iraqi policy. Will they find Hillary acceptable if all she wants to do is end our involvement in what she calls the Iraqi Civil War, but still wants these other missions to be executed? With Ralph Nader making noise indicating that he will likely run again, the threat of a genuine anti-war third-party candidacy emerging in the November elections could bring back all the 2000 nightmares for the Democratic Party. If Nader runs as the only candidate who wants to pull out of Iraq completely and can accuse the Democrats of wanting to prolong the war indefinitely, he will probably get a good percentage of the vote--perhaps as much as 10 points, enough to destroy the Democratic chances...

Finally, will John Edwards breathe new life into the lifeless Democratic contest by opposing the “reduction” legislation and demanding total withdrawal? The now-phlegmatic Democratic debates could become riveting if Edwards seizes the opportunity the actual text of the reduction initiative gives him and attacks his rivals for wanting to continue the war, albeit while masquerading as advocates of ending it.

Read the whole thing. Morris illustrates the conundrum facing the Democratic presidential candidates. Do what the base wants, and you lose credibility on national security. Stay responsible, and you risk having the base stay home on election day. Or worse: they might come out for Ralph Nader. On these points, he's on firm ground. As I've argued before, the pacifism of the Democratic base poses a real problem for Democratic candidates, and there's a strong whiff of Vietnam Syndrome about the party right now.

But when he turns to war fighting, Morris goes astray. Because he's a political strategist, he sees the possibility for compromise among moderate Democratic and Republican Senators that preserves a significant (but smaller) force in Iraq, with a narrower mandate. He says that the difference might be an 'arithmetic' one--a matter of only 40 or 50 thousand troops. Math may not be my best subject, but those sound like pretty big numbers; they represent a minimum of more than 25 percent of the current force in Iraq.

As senators shuffle in for the final quorum call at a little after 5 in the morning, a thought occurs to me: Isn’t this entire operation an exercise in child abuse? Every time the Senate reassembles, pages are forced to man the doors, get glasses of water, and do other pagely duties. These minors need their sleep, and so do I.

But I digress. The reconstituted Senate body looks tired. Hillary Clinton, who finished speaking not too long ago on the folly of the Iraq adventure, has reappeared on the Senate floor wrapped in a purple blanket. A few other changes in clothing have been made along the way. But a quorum exists and the sergeant at arms doesn’t need to go out and haul intransigent, wayward members in by the ears.

Since very few are intimately aware of the intricacies of the Senate's parliamentary rules, it might be worth explaining what exactly is meant when people throw around terms like quorum and cloture. In theory, the Senate needs to hold a quorum to do business. In the Senate, a quorum is 50+1. Should a quorum not be reached, those present can vote to send the sergeant at arms after those senators who refuse to appear (a famous example of this occurred in 1988, when Bob Packwood was pulled out of his locked office and onto the floor by the sergeant at arms). In order to make sure no one strays too far from the chamber, therefore, Reid has scheduled periodic quorum calls throughout the evening and morning, ensuring debate continues until Reid calls for a cloture vote. In order for the cloture vote to pass, Reid needs to muster 60 votes. That vote should happen at 11 A.M.

With the quorum call complete, the senators again scatter to the winds. By the time Senator John F. Kerry is on his second paragraph, only a handful remain to hear what is certainly a very important speech. We should see them all together only one more time, shortly before this piece of performance politics comes to its eagerly awaited conclusion.

Stuck in the Capitol at this ungodly hour, I can’t help but feel pity for the staffers who drew the short straw and got stuck with the late shift. From the police officers trying to figure out why the metal detectors continue to pick up my belt to the ushers forced to rouse slumbering members of the public who have nodded off in the gallery, very few working stiffs are manning their posts without a scowl.

Even the senators responsible for keeping everyone else on the job are growing more and more agitated. Not that there are many of them in sight. Since Harry Reid announced at the last quorum call that he would not employ the parliamentary procedure again until 5 A.M., it’s safe to assume that every senator not “working” this shift is grabbing some much needed shuteye. When South Dakota’s John Thune steps to the podium sometime before 2 A.M., he’s speaking to virtually no one: Jim Webb and Debbie Stabenow eye him warily on the other side of the aisle lest he try and pull something tricky, and several aides and pages line the walls. Exactly 32 people watch from the galleries. It appears that two of those people are asleep. Of course, this is nothing new for most Senators. As any modestly experienced Congress-watcher will tell you, these speeches are not intended to sway debate. They are merely rhetorical flourishes designed to show C-SPAN 2 watchers back home that the Senate does in fact do something all day long.

Things pick up a little bit when John McCain joins Thune on the floor. After asking a rhetorical question of his colleague, Thune tells his fellow Republican that yes, in fact, McCain does understand the issues of the day. Apparently annoyed by the Republicans’ little side conversation, Jim Webb springs to life, butting into the conversation, and then interrupting Thune’s attempts to respond. Webb doesn’t understand basic rules of parliamentary procedure, or he just doesn’t care. Either way, McCain sets him straight, telling him “We have to observe the regular order of the Senate.” Thune, who now has the floor all to himself, decides to rub it in a little bit, noting that Webb has not yet been to Iraq, a touchy subject for the senator exposed in this exceptionally testy exchange with Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press this weekend.

After viewing this little piece of theater, involuntarily yawning every 30 seconds or so, I decided it was time to take a walk around the grounds. In between the Capitol and Constitution Avenue I ran into seven members of Code Pink. The pleasant, middle aged women were sitting up (the police warned them that if they were to lay down they’d be arrested; DC police are quite serious about keeping the homeless from cluttering up the grounds of the Capitol) and chatting amongst themselves. When I walked by, they waved me over and we talked for a few minutes, mostly about the crimes the president has committed, the imperial presidency, and the spineless Democratic Congress. They also invited me to their biweekly pot luck dinner in their new house a few blocks from Union Station. Though I’m sure the tofu is excellent, I’ll probably decline.

After heading back into the Senate, all that’s left to do is wait for the quorum call and try not to fall asleep. That and listen to the senators, who are feeling the time even more acutely than before; at 3:14, laptop time, Stabenow completely forgets how to pronounce the word “magnificently.” Hang in there, Debbie. Only two more hours.

Protesting the Dems?

I could hear the chants from the Capitol. Approaching Upper Senate Park as part of the media gaggle surrounding the Democratic congressional leadership on their trek from the steps of the Senate to the grassy area to the north of the Capitol and the west of the Senate office buildings, the words were unmistakable, amplified as they were by dozens of speakers booming the antiwar platitudes of the MoveOn set. Bush misled us into war! We need an up or down vote! No more filibustering!

But when I got a little closer to the crowd it became obvious that sentiment wasn’t quite as unanimous as one might have thought. Generously peppered throughout the usual crowd were naysayers. Not Republicans, mind you; these weren’t pro-war counter-demonstrators. Rather, they were even further to the left than those on the rostrum preparing to lecture Republicans on the importance of allowing up or down votes on whatever issue they wish. And we’re not talking about center left Democrats up on that stage, either. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Mikulski, John Lewis, and other progressive all-stars were all hanging out, having a grand old time.

"Impeach! IMPEACH!" came the cries, steadily growing louder and more numerous. "It was about OIL!" yelled another protestor. Then the chant came: "Impeachment ON the table! Impeachment ON the table!" Finally, Harry Reid had had enough. "Be quiet," the Nevada grandfather of sixteen snapped with the power that only a patriarch of a massive clan can muster. And quiet down they did, at least for a moment (of silence). But when the senators and representatives started trying to talk again, the jeers resumed. Members of the radical feminist group Code Pink were screaming for impeachment. A circle of three to four feet had cleared around a middle aged gentleman airing his grievances with the Democrats; finally a younger man turned around and, sagely, said "peace, brother."

"Tonight is a night to be united, not divided!" implored Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow. "United, not divided!!" "You can’t keep interrupting, or we’ll leave," warned Frank Lautenberg. This only emboldened one heckler, who invoked his first amendment right to, well, yell at whoever he damn well pleased, wherever he damn well pleased.

I tracked down one of the rabblerousers as he hopped on his bike to ride away. I was curious to know exactly why he felt the urge to come out here and scream at the people who are, essentially, working for the same thing he wants: a rapid exit from Iraq. "It has to do with … the major corporations," said Neil Thomas, on Bush’s reasons for war. "I’m not anti-Semitic, but there’s a powerful lobby for the state of Israel." What does Israel have to do with the war in Iraq? I asked Thomas. "They’re a major cause of discontent by the so-called Islamists." He wants the troops home, immediately, and thinks the legislation and rally by the Democrats is little more than a sham. "This kind of event isn’t gonna amount to a hill of beans," he said. At least, it won’t until an elected official grows the "balls to stand up to the Israel lobby."

McCain and Martinez listen as Pete Hegseth spoke today on Capitol Hill.
(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

As Harry Reid kicked off his overnight piece of political theater, a group of combat tested veterans calling themselves Vets for Freedom gathered with several hawkish senators in the Mansfield Room on the Senate side of the Capitol to address the media.

There was a short delay for a vote, and then in strode the leaders of the no-surrender caucus a few minutes later; Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl, Mel Martinez, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Joseph Lieberman stepped up to the podium and offered their thoughts on the Levin-Reed amendment. After praising a service member from his home state of Kentucky, McConnell asked that the Senate not “legislate defeat by mandating a retreat of our troops” from the battlefield and reminded the Senate that General Petraeus was told he would have until at least September to implement a winning strategy.

Joe Lieberman then stepped up to the podium and praised Vets for Freedom for coming to his aid after the Kossack hordes helped to defeat him in Connecticut's Democratic primary. Like McConnell, Lieberman also decried the effort by his friends in the Senate to “legislate defeat by mandating a retreat of our troops.” Noting the importation of cots as a prop to drive home the point that this thing would really go all night long, Lieberman accused “too many of my colleagues in this chamber [of being] asleep when it comes to Iraq. … The American military will never lose the war in Iraq.” We’ll only lose, he said, if we lose our political will.

Pete Hegseth, the head of Vets for Freedom, rounded out the presentation, and the Iraq veteran agitated against “setting a deadline for defeat. … political progress takes time.” Hegseth knows what the consequences of failure would be; he was visibly moved when he discussed the assassination of Aboud Hamid Salih, the mayor of Samarrah, who was murdered for the crime of working with coalition troops. Expect more such slayings if we begin pulling troops out now, Hegseth said--leaving the Iraq with our collective tail between our legs will damage American interests, embolden America’s enemies, and invite a bloodbath within that country.

Among the members of the “Justice Advisory Committee” that the Giuliani presidential campaign announced today are four lawyers who have been mentioned in media reports as possible Supreme Court nominees at various times since the Bush administration first came to power.

The committee’s chairman, former U.S. solicitor general Theodore Olson, was mentioned as a possible nominee to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O’Connor and later the withdrawn Court nominee Harriet Miers. Olson, a friend and adviser to Giuliani since the two met in 1981 while working in the Reagan Justice Department, says the committee of 19 lawyers, former government officials, and law professors will advise Giuliani on legal issues on whatever subject hizzoner wishes. Committee members will also serve as campaign surrogates, Olson says, writing and speaking on Giuliani’s behalf.

The Giuliani campaign is likely to emphasize in particular the participation of former assistant to the solicitor general Miguel Estrada, former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, and former deputy solicitor general Maureen Mahoney. All three have been mentioned as potential nominees to the Supreme Court during Bush’s administration. Their names will likely resurface when the next Court vacancy occurs--something that will almost certainly happen during the next president’s first term, if not before. Committee member Steven G. Calabresi, a cofounder of the Federalist Society and professor at Northwestern University, said at a press conference Tuesday that the next president may nominate up to four justices to the Court.

Estrada, a Honduran immigrant and graduate of Columbia and Harvard, is now in private practice. He was the subject of fierce political controversy in 2001 and 2002 when President Bush nominated him to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, known as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Democrats mounted a successful filibuster to block Estrada’s nomination. But Estrada is young, and likely to resurface in public life.

Thompson, the former deputy attorney general, is now general counsel at PepsiCo. The well regarded lawyer’s views on constitutional issues are relatively unknown. If nominated and confirmed to the Court, Thompson would be the third African-American justice in U.S. history.

Former Deputy Solicitor General Maureen Mahoney, also in private practice, is a former clerk to the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. She has been called the “female John Roberts” because of her successful record arguing cases before the high Court. But conservatives may view one of those successes as potential liability--Mahoney argued successfully on behalf of the University of Michigan Law School in the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Court ruled that the law school’s use of race in admissions was constitutional because other factors contributing to student “diversity” were also considered.

Expect the number of lawyers included in the Justice Advisory Committee to grow. “We’re absolutely going to expand,” says Olson. And a lawyer’s inclusion in the committee may increase their job prospects down the road, Olson adds. For Giuliani, “these are the kind of people who he will probably recruit for his administration.”

Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks have a piece in the Washington Post today that takes a closer look at what the military has determined to be the probable fall-out from a rapid U.S. withdrawal in Iraq. They quote retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson, who says "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic...[but] it will be ugly."

From there the authors counter that

In making the case for a continued U.S. troop presence, President Bush has offered far more dire forecasts, arguing that al-Qaeda or Iran -- or both -- would take over Iraq after a "precipitous withdrawal" of U.S. forces. Al-Qaeda, he said recently, would "be able to recruit better and raise more money from which to launch their objectives" of attacking the U.S. homeland.

Really? Far more dire? But the authors state that the war games "predicted that Iran would intervene on one side of a Shiite civil war and would become bogged down in southern Iraq." Furthermore, they add that regarding al Qaeda, "U.S. intelligence analysts...have a somewhat different view...noting that the local branch takes its inspiration but not its orders from bin Laden. Its enemies--the overwhelming majority of whom are Iraqis--reside in Baghdad and Shiite-majority areas of Iraq, not in Saudi Arabia or the United States."

So the games predict Iranian movement into Iraq and that al Qaeda in Iraq--which takes its inspiration from the folks who brought us 9/11--are likely to confine themselves to slaughtering the locals following an American withdrawal. But what if they become inspired to do otherwise? It seems the only real difference between Bush's rhetoric and the conclusions of these war games is that the intelligence community is less inclined to believe that al Qaeda will follow American troops home...and that's nothing more than a best guess. The war games don't predict the apocalypse, but is that really the standard for a withdrawal...anything less than the apocalypse will do just fine?

So apparently Arianna overheard a telephone conversation between WEEKLY STANDARD editor Bill Kristol and, well, Huffington has "no idea who was on the other end," but the WWS has made inquiries and can report that her account of the call is mostly fiction. No matter.

Still, we find it amusing that she’s not even embarrassed about writing (boasting) about her eavesdropping. At least when the Bush administration eavesdrops on calls, they don't write about it...they leave that to the New York Times.

Kristol won't condescend, despite my prodding, to notice Arianna's screed, but I think she owes all her readers an apology. She's set a dangerous precedent that means any right-winger who overhears one of her readers' conversations can write it up, and that would be really, really, terrible--even worse than the NSA program--since her readers were actually plotting to off the vice president last time we checked in on them.

But even stranger is the sycophantic post at the site today from Steve Clemons. Clemons praises "liberal blog-phenom diva Arianna" for her snooping, which he discussed with her "at her Washington home last night at a grand affair of her many blogging and political friends in Washington." Surprisingly, Clemons "agreed with her that what she heard Kristol say on the train...show[s] that modern neoconservatism has become a reality-denying cult."

I suppose anyone who recognizes the considerable military progress that's been made in Iraq over the last few months is then a member of this 'neoconservative reality-denying cult,' to include most recently CNN's Barbara Starr, who reported today on American Morning:

“Kiran, it is an extraordinary thing. I hope everyone can hear me. We are absolutely walking through the marketplace as we speak. General Pace just stopped and brought some fruits and vegetables from a dealer here in the market. He is stopping to say hello to every little kid he can find and take pictures with them. What's really extraordinary here is, of course, Ramadi was the real heartland of al Qaeda, if you will, just a few months ago. So many U.S. troops lost their lives on these streets and the battle for this city. Now, today, the streets are quiet. Rebuilding is underway. Perhaps one of the most extraordinary things is they have not have an IED attack on the streets of this city since February. It's not to say that there aren't plenty of problems around. Lots of security challenges to overcome, but I don't think anyone really expected even six months ago that a chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff would spend the afternoon walking around the streets of the city. It's a pretty extraordinary event.”

There's one last turn to this story. We hear that Kristol also couldn't help overhearing a cell phone conversation on the train that afternoon. It involved a boisterous, overly accented harridan. He couldn’t understand much, since he only heard one side of the call, but it sounded like a lot of gibberish about a problematic moose and squirrel that she and a colleague (Morris?) were hatching various schemes to entrap. The individual in question remains unidentified.

From THE DAILY STANDARD: The Iran-Contra Minority Redux, by Michael J. Malbin.

From the New York Sun: Iran Is Found To Be a Lair of Al Qaeda, by Eli Lake.

From the New York Post: The Last Hawk, by Rich Lowry.

From National Review: Listen to the Military, by Michael Ledeen.

From the Danger Room: RAF: Who Needs Guns? by David Axe.

From Murdoc: Personnel Specialist 1st Class Kevin Armold, attached on board Naval Air Station Pensacola, is reenlisted by Army Maj. Shean Phelps on the main deck of the newly sunken aircraft carrier USS Oriskany at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

(AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

The departure of senior staff has had no effect on the public’s opinion of John McCain’s presidential candidacy, according to the new Gallup poll.

The poll, a national telephone survey of 1,001 adults between July 12 and July 15, shows McCain (16 percent support) running in third place for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, behind former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani (30 percent) and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson (20 percent). McCain was also at 16 percent support in the previous Gallup survey conducted between July 6 and July 8. On July 10 McCain’s campaign manager Terry Nelson and senior political strategist John Weaver resigned from the campaign. Yesterday, July 16, McCain’s national communications staff also quit.

The Gallup poll findings are a reminder that stories the national press corp deem monumental--such as McCain’s campaign shakeup--do not always have immediate political consequences.

This is not to say that all is well with the McCain campaign, however. According to Gallup, McCain began the year with the support of 27 percent of respondents nationwide. His decline has been steady, in inverse proportion with Thompson’s ascendance into second place. The Gallup poll also found that McCain’s favorability rating among self-described conservatives and moderates has declined substantially since the first quarter of 2007. Gallup averaged several national polls from February and March, compared those results with an average of polls taken in June and July, and found a 10 percent decline in the percentage of conservatives who view McCain favorably, from 61 to 51 percent. The decline in the percentage of moderates who view McCain favorably was 18 percent, from 61 to 43 percent.

These findings suggest a pincer effect is hurting McCain. On one side, his support for President Bush’s immigration initiative has hurt his image among conservatives. On the other side, his vocal advocacy of the surge strategy in Iraq is probably eroding his support from moderates. When you combine the pincer effect with McCain’s well-publicized fundraising troubles, you can see the substantial difficulties he faces in winning the GOP nomination.

Who would benefit the most from McCain’s withdrawal from the presidential race, according to Gallup? Giuliani. He’d gain 8 points if McCain withdrew, increasing his lead from 30 to 38 percent.

The State Department today convened a conference call for interested media and bloggers with Thomas Timberman, the Team Leader of the North Babil Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team (EPRT).

Like the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, which focus on economic and political progress on the level of provinces, the EPRTs promote economic development on a local level, encouraging Iraqis to develop the skills to be self-sufficient after the US departs. Timberman noted that in the sub-provincial level, for-profit economic ventures are foreign. His EPRT is working with 7 local organizations 'to transfer skills and change attitudes.'

Tom is member of Senior Foreign Service, with more than 25 years at the State Department. His team is a relatively small one -- by his choice. He believes that a team of 10 or fewer is more manageable. It includes an economist from USAID, an Army NCO with medical skills, an interpreter, and an American of Iraqi background who is also an agricultural expert.

Timberman reports that the work is going very well so far. He is working largely with local governments, which historically have a distrust of the central government -- at least in this part of Iraq. The region depends on agricultural cooperatives that have traditionally received little assistance from Baghdad, and have resented having their young men drafted. The goal is to ensure that they don't need to depend on Baghdad any more than they do now and have in the past. Tom notes that the normal State Department tour in Iraq is 12 months, and he has requested a 6 month extension to complete the work he has begun.

When I asked what would happen if the US significantly reduces its military presence in that time, he indicated that State Department is planning for such a contingency. In such an event, EPRTs would probably be shifted to more central locations -- in his case, probably to Hilla.

Timberman is another one of those upbeat people on the ground, who sees day-to-day how some Iraqis have come to appreciate and value the US presence. It seemed pretty important to him that he get the chance to finish what he has started.

Read also the very thorough McQ at QandO.

Soldiers from the 5th Cavalry Regiment look
for weapons caches in Sumalot, Iraq.

Iraqi and U.S. forces have launched a multi-brigade operation south of Baghdad as the pursuit of al Qaeda in Iraq continues in Diyala and the north. Al Qaeda in Iraq and allied insurgent groups conducted multiple mass casualty attacks in the northern city of Kirkuk, killing over 80 and wounding upwards of 200. Meanwhile, Iraqi and Coalition forces continue to hunt the deadly "Special Group" cells associated with Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Babil

Coalition and Iraqi forces have launched a major offensive in the town of Jurf al-Sakhr and a region known as the Fish Farms near Iskandariyah in northern Babil province. Operation Marne Avalanche is a multi-brigade operation of about 5,000 U.S. and 3,500 Iraqi troops. "The area is one of the most politically and tactically complicated in Iraq," Stars & Stripes reported. "It straddles the Shiite-Sunni fault line south of Baghdad."

The purpose of Marne Avalanche is to clear the region of insurgents, prevent the flow of weapons into Baghdad, and restore the security forces in the region. Past attempts to secure this region failed as police stations were hit with suicide attacks.

"Marne Avalanche will build on the successes of Task Force Marne’s offensive operation, Marne Torch, which began June 1 and is ongoing," Multinational Forces Iraq stated in a press release. "To date, Operation Marne Torch resulted in 1,152 structures cleared, 83 insurgents killed, 278 insurgents detained, 51 caches found, 51 boats destroyed and 872 citizens entered in a biometric identification system."

In nearby Lutifiyah, U.S. and Iraqi soldiers captured 46 men "suspected of involvement with al Qaeda affiliated terror networks" during an air assault on July 12. "The combined air assault detained 29 men on the Iraqi army’s list of persons of interest, and 14 others who were identified by sources as terrorists." Also, in Qarghuli Village, an Iraqi resident led U.S. troops to two weapons caches. Three U.S. troops were captured near Qarghuli in May 2007, and two are still missing.

The North

As the operations in Baghdad and the Belts intensify, suicide attacks in the north have increased. Today, a triple bombing in the flashpoint city of Kirkuk resulted in over 80 killed and 180 wounded. The majority of those killed and wounded were victims of a large suicide truck bomb. The suicide bomber targeted the headquarters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the party of President Jalal Talabani.

Today's attacks in Kirkuk are the latest in a series of strikes against Shia and Kurdish villages and cities in Tanim, Salahadin, and Diyala provinces. Al Qaeda was thought to have established bases in the Hamrin mountains as early as April 2007, and reports that former al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi hid in these mountains surfaced as early as February 2006.

House and Senate negotiators are working out the plan for passage of legislation to implement many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Once it passes, Democrats will claim victory in having implemented all the remaining recommendations. But that won't exactly be true. Congress has ignored the commission's recommendation on improving accountability by simplifying Congressional jurisdiction.

First, the news:

Long-stalled legislation to implement some recommendations of the independent Sept. 11 commission is expected to advance to a formal House-Senate conference this week.

The House Rules Committee was scheduled to meet later Monday to take up an amendment to Sept. 11 legislation (HR 1) that would merge the bill’s original provisions with a rail security section derived from a bill (HR 1401) the House passed March 27. The House would then have to appoint its conferees to negotiate a final version of the legislation...

The Senate appointed its conferees last week. Aides say a formal conference likely will begin quickly, with an agreement expected as soon as the end of the week.

In discussing the legislation, Congressional leaders frequently describe this as an effort to implement 'all the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.' The House has made an effort at streamlining jurisdiction by creating an appropriations subcommittee specifically for intelligence oversight and which will be empowered to recommend policy changes to other subcommittees, but this new subcommittee will have no real power. And this does little to address the jurisdictional problems identified by the Commission:

By tradition, lame duck presidents do not accomplish much. They must narrow their legislative focus to a few significant priorities that will figure prominently when their legacies are assessed. In particular, they tend to focus on foreign policy--where Congress is traditionally more deferential to presidential leadership.

But that has not been the case this year, as deference is in rather short-supply on the Hill. On issues ranging from the war in Iraq to the refusal of Congressional leaders to schedule votes on trade agreements that have already been signed with Colombia, Peru, Panama and Korea, Congress is throwing its weight around. Another area where the Bush administration is having a hard time getting 'traction' is on the nuclear agreement it reached two years ago with India. That agreement is at the core of the Bush administration's efforts to seal closer relations with the world's largest democracy. As final negotiations get underway this week in Washington, the stakes are high--hundreds of billions of dollars in sales of weapons systems and nuclear technology may be at risk if the deal falls through:

The question is whether the administration can hammer out a compromise on nuclear cooperation that doesn't undercut existing U.S. law or give India leeway to develop a new batch of atomic weapons on top of the ones it already has. India is demanding several painful concessions, U.S. officials and experts said, that are almost certain to anger key leaders in Congress from both parties.

Hanging in the balance in the nuclear-and-technology proposal are tens of billions of dollars in potential energy, aircraft and other deals, U.S. business executives said. India is looking to build dozens of new electricity plants and to drastically increase its military hardware over the next five years.

India's energy minister has been traveling the U.S. talking up $50 billion worth of energy deals India plans to award over this period, and another $200 billion of deals down the road. U.S. aircraft makers are lining up to vie for a 126-plane fighter-aircraft deal that could be worth up to $10 billion over the next several years.

India is also floating a potential $30 billion of nuclear-reactor sales over the next 20 years, piquing the attention of companies such as General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co.

As the Asia-Pacific region becomes increasingly important in U.S. foreign policy and security calculus, India stands as a critical partner. We may get a good idea this week whether U.S. negotiators can arrive at a deal that expands our relationship while protecting non-proliferation goals, or whether the United States and India are destined to wind up as ships that passed in the night.

From THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Why F-14s Are Being Put Into the Shredder, by Reuben F. Johnson.

From National Review: Leadership Challenge, by William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn.

From the New York Times: U.S. General in Iraq Speaks Strongly Against Troop Pullout, by John F. Burns.

From the New York Sun: A Habitable World? by Mark Steyn.

From Townhall.com: Democrats Declare Defeat, by Robert Bluey.

Bonus Video: Ayaan Hirsi Ali Smacks Anti-American Canuck.

From Ares: Bill Sweetman handicaps the Navy's Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator competition.

For about two weeks now, the Chinese-language website Chinamil.com, which is operated under the auspices of PLA Daily, has been promoting with banner headlines a special feature titled “In the Middle East, There Is a Chinese Peacekeeping Engineering Brigade.” Included are previously published dispatches by Chinese reporters embedded with Chinese troops on UN peacekeeping missions.

The reports describe Chinese UN peacekeepers in Lebanon clearing landmines and removing and detonating unexploded cluster munitions. There are “soft” stories as well, including one account of a Chinese soldier postponing his wedding in order to serve in the mission.

The online display also features nearly five hours of China Central Television video footage and some 200 photos depicting blue-helmeted Chinese soldiers performing peacekeeping duties.

China joined the UN Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (UNSCPO) in 1988. The following year it sent non-military personnel to Namibia as observers of that country’s general elections. In 1990 Chinese troops began participating in UN peacekeeping activities.

Official Chinese media report that there are currently 1,546 Chinese peacekeepers serving under the UN flag in the Congo, Liberia, Lebanon, and Sudan. And as of this June, 7,293 soldiers have participated in 17 UN peacekeeping missions across the globe, including in Cambodia, Haiti, East Timor, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.

This Chinamil.com special feature on China's UN peacekeepers was preceded by a four-day PLA Peacekeeping Work Conference in Beijing. Speaking at the closing ceremony on June 22nd, Major General Zhang Qinsheng, deputy chief of the general staff of the PLA, noted:

…the active participation in the UN peacekeeping operations is… an important measure to display China’s image of being a peace-loving and responsible big country, and likewise an important avenue to get adapted to the needs of the revolution in military affairs in the world and enhance the quality construction of the army.

As indicated by Zhang’s statement, Beijing’s participation in UN peacekeeping is an important component of its overall diplomatic effort to project an image of China as a responsible superpower. Moreover, it presents Chinese troops with “an important avenue” to benefit directly from training and access to state-of-the-art military hardware, as evidenced by this account from a Chinese military observer in West Sahara:

…Global Positioning System (GPS) was all we could depend on to found [sic] the exact locations when patrolling in the world’s biggest desert. The US Army developed the system in 1973… Chinese military observers had no practical experience on the system. But helped by their good command of English and repeated practice, Chinese military observers mastered every technical details [sic] recorded on [sic] the system’s usage handbook…

Merkel holds a copy of the Turkish daily Hurriyet.

Last Thursday in Berlin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel hosted the country’s second "Integration Summit," which saw representatives attend from various immigrant associations representing the more than 7 million foreigners currently living in Germany. But several of the major groups representing Germany's 2.6 million-strong Turkish community decided to boycott the high-level gathering. Further, they threatened to no longer participate in such meetings unless the German government repealed new, more restrictive immigration reform legislation. Chancellor Merkel was quick to condemn the Turkish boycott and strongly rejected any attempt to coerce the German government into revoking the bill. At the Summit, she also promised to provide €750 million ($1.1 billion) in new funding for various integration measures, including German language and culture courses and sports activities for youth.

Commentators from Germany’s leading newspapers were divided over whether the Turkish groups were justified in boycotting the Integration Summit or whether this was just further evidence that Germany's Turkish community has no real interest in integration.

From the Turkish perspective, the most controversial aspect of Germany’s immigration reform package--which was passed by both houses of parliament earlier this year but has yet to be signed into law by the German President--concerns new provisions restricting the ability of foreigners to have their foreign-born spouses move to Germany permanently.

First, foreigners in Germany will have to wait until their spouses are at least 18 years old before they can bring them into the country. Second, all spouses will be required to demonstrate basic German language skills before they are allowed to move to Germany. In particular, these two new provisions attempt to clamp down on a very disturbing practice that has prevented the successful integration of Germany’s growing Muslim community for far too long. In Germany (like in other European countries) Muslim immigrants have “imported” their young brides--who generally come from rural areas, have low levels of education, speak no German, and are sometimes only 15 or 16 years old--through arranged marriages. In this context, German authorities are also increasingly concerned about forced marriages involving young women and girls from Turkey and other Muslim countries being married against their will to foreigners in Germany. Obviously, the line between “arranged marriages” and “forced marriages” can be very blurry.

In her bestselling 2005 book Die Fremde Braut (The Strange Bride), Turkish-German sociologist and women’s rights activist Necla Kelet provided a powerful account of the plight of young Turkish women sent to Germany to marry men they've never met before and to live in a country where they do not speak the language. Kelet’s book and similar publications by other Turkish-German authors like Seyran Ates and Serap Cileli are based on interviews, sociological studies, as well as partly on autobiographical material. For obvious reasons, though, it is very difficult to obtain and assess the true extent of the problem as Turkish women in Germany are often too afraid to speak out and seek legal protection in response to abuse.

But Kelet’s book, in particular, has triggered a barrage of criticism. Several Turkish-German academics and journalists have accused her of overstating the extent of forced marriages by taking isolated incidents out of context and making generalized statements about the Turkish population in Germany at large. The influential Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, which has a circulation of more than 500,000 in Germany alone, accused the authors of insulting Turkish women, making the Turkish community look bad, and reconfirming German prejudices against Turks by making generalizations. But Germany’s respected conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, responded that Hurriyet’s actions amounted to a smear campaign.

Iraq was once again the main topic on the Sunday shows. Over at Fox News Sunday, WEEKLY STANDARD contributor Frederick Kagan took on Democratic notions that no political progress is being made in the troubled country.

“I think we’ve focused excessively on centralized legislation, which is one of the hardest things to do given the makeup of the Iraqi government. And we have a problem that we’ve got a huge amount of political progress taking place at the grassroots in Iraq--especially in Anbar, but not just in Anbar--that isn’t accounted for in these benchmarks. So the question is at the same time as you have people demanding that we change our military strategy from month to month they’re insisting that we continue to pursue the same political strategy all through without any changes or any accounting for variations in the situation in Iraq. It doesn’t make sense.”

On Meet the Press, Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim Webb shared this testy exchange over the war.

John McCain’s collapsing presidential campaign has been the most important development in the race for 2008 in recent weeks. Karen Tumulty of Time magazine summed up his predicament on Face the Nation.

“Well, of course, you never say never in politics. But the real question here, at least for me, is where does any new support for John McCain come from? And where does any new money come from? Who is really going to want to be writing checks to this campaign that has shown that, you know, all they can do is waste money? And I think that what's interesting is how little this has seemed to affect the rest of the field. Mitt Romney is down in the national polls, but everywhere you go in those early states, people tell you he's running the best campaign on the ground.”

First off, the boss has an op-ed in the Post today, titled "Why Bush Will Be A Winner." Kristol starts:

I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

Kristol makes a pretty strong case that history may yet judge the president a winner. So go read the whole thing and judge for yourself.

In other news, the AP put out an unusually awesome and in-depth piece on the Balad air base in Iraq. The piece includes some interesting tidbits:

"We're the busiest aerial port in DOD (Department of Defense)," said Col. Dave Reynolds, a mission support commander here. Working 12-hour shifts, his cargo handlers are expected to move 140,000 tons of cargo this year, one-third more than in 2006, he said....

Early this year, with little fanfare, the Air Force sent a squadron of A-10 "Warthog" attack planes — a dozen or more aircraft — to be based at Al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq. At the same time it added a squadron of F-16C Fighting Falcons here at Balad. Although some had flown missions over Iraq from elsewhere in the region, the additions doubled to 50 or more the number of workhorse fighter-bomber jets available at bases inside the country, closer to the action.

The reinforcement involved more than numbers. The new F-16Cs were the first of the advanced "Block 50" version to fly in Iraq, an aircraft whose technology includes a cockpit helmet that enables the pilot to aim his weapons at a target simply by turning his head and looking at it.

The Navy has contributed by stationing a second aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, and the reintroduction of B1-Bs has added a close-at-hand "platform" capable of carrying 24 tons of bombs....Since February, with the ground offensive, they have gone on Iraq bombing runs for the first time since the 2003 invasion.

As chronicled in the Air Force's daily summaries, more and more pilots are getting the "cleared hot" clearance for bombing runs, usually with 500-pound (227-kilogram) bombs. In recent Army operations north of Baghdad, for example, Air Force planes have struck "factories" for makeshift bombs, weapons caches uncovered by ground troops and, in one instance, "several houses insurgents were using as fire positions."

And finally, an interesting little item from the New York Observer real estate section:

If bow-tied, cigar-mouthed Republicans can have nice seven-digit, six-room co-ops, don’t a few old Manhattan communists deserve multi-million-dollar real estate, too?

A two-bedroom loft at 380 West 12th Street, a 109-year-old building on a cobblestone block by the Hudson River, was sold by American socialist leaders Jack Barnes and Mary-Alice Waters. Their buyers, Sony BMG Music Entertainment vice president Ole Obermann and his fiancée, Stephanie Jakubiak, paid $1,872,500.

“I don’t want to hurt the sellers’ feelings at all, but they definitely had a funky style in terms of how they did the apartment,” said Mr. Obermann. That means there are sliding stained-glass doors, plus a wall of bookshelves. (Ms. Waters is the president of publishing house Pathfinder Press, which publishes Marx and Trotsky, and Mr. Barnes, too.)

“Personally, our tastes are different and we’ll probably do something different,” the buyer said.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Roggio just posted what I think is the definitive takedown of the argument put forward earlier in the week by Small Wars Journal contributor Malcolm Nance. Nance's theory is that al Qaeda is basically a bit player in the insurgency--small, but lethal--and that the administration is trying to hype the threat the group poses in order to convince the American people that withdrawing from Iraq would be the equivalent of surrendering in the war on terror. Suffice to say, Roggio isn't buying it.

I took a look at the major points advanced by Nance and found his argument to be unpersuasive. Nance makes several factual errors and contradicts himself on several important points. And he fails to recognize the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq, the continually evolving nature of the Sunni insurgency and our understanding of it.

His theory that the insurgency is dominated by Baathist Former Regime Leaders (FRLs) was popular circa 2003-2004, and has long since been discredited. While Baathists and Former Regime Elements certainly play a role in the insurgency, their influence has diminished over time as al Qaeda and its puppet Islamic State of Iraq have coopted significant elements of the Sunni Insurgency.

Nance's essay strikes me as part of a larger, renewed push by the antiwar crowd to discredit the idea that the war in Iraq has any real connection to the war on terror--as Roggio points out, the New York Times put in its two cents last Sunday with a piece by the public editor declaring that "President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda." The Times also saw this as some kind of fraud perpetrated in the name of sustaining support for the war. But Roggio's case is pretty persuasive...it's not just the Bush administration that sees al Qaeda around every corner in Iraq, it's just about everyone involved, "from the Pentagon to the PFC," as Nance concedes. Sort of an inconvenient truth for the bring-the-troops-home crowd.

Go read the whole thing...Roggio reports, you decide.

McCain is doing a conference call with bloggers right now, here's a few quotes so far:

McCain says he just met Sarkozy--he says Sarkozy is "the first real pro-American I've met since Lafayette."

On progress in Iraq: "In Iraq, we are making progress militarily, we are not making progress politically"

On troubles with the campaign: "On the political side, it's well known to everyone now that we had serious problems in the campaign, I think financial problems, and I'm responsible for those problems and we, I think, are back on track to get our spending in line with our income, which we did not do to state the obvious. The responsibility is mine and mine alone. I'm very sorry that I had to part company with some people that I am very close and dear friends with and who I will remain dear friends with...when people start really focusing, I'll be doing the townhall meetings, kind of face-to-face campaigning that won for us before, and I'm confident that we can do very well. We've got some difficult challenges ahead, but I'm confident that we'll be just fine."

Questions
Senators Warner and Lugar have put forth a new proposal to reauthorize the war and put forward some new contingency plans...what are you telling them in terms of your advice in regard to the present plan we have in place?

McCain: "My conversations with them have been largely general...I've not had a chance to examine [this proposal]. When we've talked about the quote reauthorization or deauthorization...Once you authorize the countrie to go to war, it's my firm conviction that you either win the war or you lose the war. And I don't believe we've lost the war. I think we've got enormous challenges, and I think we've made some progress militarily that is important, particularly in Anbar province, but I don't think we are at a point where we have to reauthorize or deauthorize...that is something I would, frankly, have great difficulty joining in on."

Do you have any optimism at all that the current government is going to get Iraq together politically?

McCain: "...I can't help but agree with you that they have not shown the kind of progress that you would think would be in their self-interest. So, all I can say is, I hope maybe that they're staring at the abyss, they realize that this thing cannot succeed without a complete package of progress. So I continue to hold out some hope that they will realize how critical this is to their existence..."

The WWS: "How you doin' Senator?"

McCain: "You know Michael, in the words of Chairman Mao, it's always darkest before it's totally black...(laughing)...just had a very good reception up here in Concord...what I'm hoping is that to some degree, most place they don't care too much about some of the aspects of campaigning as perhaps us political junkies do, so I'm OK."

The WWS: Looking back at the last week in the Senate, do you think that this was a win, and what do you see happening in the Senate next week?

McCain: "I think that we were successful in beating back the amendments, their best shot was the Webb amendment, which sounds very attractive--'this is a relief for our overworked troops, etc., etc.'--but I guarantee you it was also, in my view, one of the most dangerous. Because are we going to have 535 members of Congress deciding how long someone is going to stay in combat? What would have been the vote in the Congress in 1939, or 1940? So I think whenever you succeed in that environment, in beating back the attempts by your adversaries than it's progress and it's heartening. But as you know the really two tough amendments that are coming up are Reid and Levin, which has to do with setting dates for withdrawal and Salazar Alexander which is kind of a motherhood kind of thing, but I'm afraid that if it passed it would be interpreted by the media as a setback for Bush, etc., etc...but I think using the sixty vote criteria we can beat them back. But a lot of things are happening."

A couple worthy causes that our readers need know about. The first is a new project set up by WWS contributor Bill Roggio with the aim of providing fresh reporting and analysis on The Long War. Roggio's new organization, Public Multimedia Inc., already has plans to sponsor fully the costs of embedding two reporters in Iraq, and will partially sponsor a third:

In order to further our mission to provide reporing and analysis on The Long War, PMI will be supporting 3 embeds in the upcoming days. We are fully sponsoring 2 embeds: Wes Morgan, an ROTC cadet from Princeton University who writes for the Daily Princetonian, will be embedding in Iraq with General Petreaus and his staff in Baghdad; and Bradley Patty, a military contractor who has written on intelligence and counterinsurgency, who will be reporting from the Philippines with U.S. special operations forces and the Armed Forces of Philippines. In addition, PMI will be providing Michael Totten with insurance for his current embed in Iraq. I also anticipate traveling back to Iraq in September to report on the progress of the surge.

Our readers are well aware of how critical Roggio's work is to getting out the facts about the war in Iraq, the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you want to contribute to those efforts, you can click here to read more about the project and find a link to donate.

Another project that is near and dear to the WWS is being put forward by Vets for Freedom. Vets for Freedom is an organization that was set up to give voice to veterans of the war in Iraq that support the mission of bringing peace and democracy to that country. The group is asking every Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who believes in supporting the mission--and defeating America's enemies--to converge on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on Tuesday, July 17.

But the group is also raising money to fund that journey for troops who might otherwise not be able to attend. I'd encourage any of our reader who are veterans to read more about the event at the Vets for Freedom website. For those who simply wish to help defray the costs of those who will attend, you can click here to make a donation. Every dollar donated over the next in the next four days will be used to reimburse the travel costs of veterans who will be paying their own way to Capitol Hill.

And finally, the Wounded Warrior project has long been a favorite of THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Wounded Warrior's mission is to "raise public awareness and enlist the public’s aid for the needs of severely injured service men and women, to help severely injured service members to aid and assist each other, and to provide unique, direct programs and services to meet their needs." Ranger Up is working on something called Operation GRIM to support and raise awareness about the good works of the Wounded Warrior project. GRIM stands for Grace in Maxim. Who is Grace, you ask? She's the babe you see at right. Ranger Up wants to see Grace grace the pages of Maxim magazine wearing her Wounder Warrior gear. All you have to do is email Maxim, subject "Operation Grim," and tell them to put Grace in the mag, or else.

In today's New York Times, under the headline "Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert," the paper itself greatly distorts the evidence concerning al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq. The paper paints a picture of al Qaeda in Iraq is, in important ways, highly misleading. Here are several reasons why as well as some additional observations:

(1) First, an observation: The Times states that when Zarqawi relocated to Iraq he did so "with support from senior Qaeda leaders, American intelligence agencies believe." This directly contradicts what has been reported at various times over the past several years by the New York Times and other media outlets. A common argument that has been made is that Zarqawi wasn't really an al Qaeda operative until 2004, when he swore bayat (loyalty) to bin Laden and was made emir of al Qaeda in Iraq. (Of course, many top al Qaeda operatives worked alongside bin Laden for years without swearing bayat. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, is a good example.)

In an editorial prior to the war (“Elusive Qaeda Connections,” February 14, 2003), for example, the New York Times argued, “…Washington has yet to establish publicly that [Zarqawi] is an important figure in Al Qaeda or maintains active links with Mr. bin Laden.” Daniel Benjamin, one of President Clinton’s former NSC counterterrorism officials, took this argument a step further in a September 2005 piece reviewing Jean-Charles Brisard’s book on Zarqawi. Benjamin argued, “many Western intelligence services saw him less as a lieutenant of bin Laden than a rival - a view now widely accepted.”

There was always evidence tying Zarqawi to al Qaeda (for example, he helped plan attacks with top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah at the turn of the millennium). But it is interesting to see that the intelligence officials quoted in this piece recognize the role that al Qaeda played in supporting Zarqawi’s activities in Iraq all along.

(2) Unfortunately, the Times muddles the evidence tying Zarqawi to another of his sponsors inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s regime:

"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who became the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, came to Iraq in 2002 when Saddam Hussein was still in power, but there is no evidence that Mr. Hussein’s government provided support for Mr. Zarqawi and his followers." (emphasis added)

This is simply not true. The authors may disagree with the notion that the evidence is conclusive, but to say there is "no evidence" is demonstrably false. In this piece I summarized what three high-level al Qaeda associates (including one who actually recruits jihadis to send to Iraq for suicide bombing missions) had to say about Zarqawi and his associates’ ties to Saddam's regime prior to the war.

In fact, George Tenet confirmed for us in his new book that the intelligence community connected the dots on Zarqawi and Saddam prior to the war as well. Tenet says that the evidence the CIA had gathered on Zarqawi was one of the reasons there was “more than enough evidence” to be worried about Saddam’s relationship with al Qaeda.

(3) The Times ignores another important prewar link between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. The authors state that "Abu Ayyub al-Masri is an Egyptian militant who emerged as the successor of Mr. Zarqawi, who was killed near Baquba in an American airstrike last year." This is correct, but the paper does not bother to report any of al-Masri’s history inside Saddam’s Iraq. Again according to George Tenet, al-Masri was in Baghdad throughout much of 2002, cooperating with Zarqawi and setting up al Qaeda cells. It is worth remembering that al-Masri was a top aide to al Qaeda's number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, since 1982! It seems highly unlikely that a top terrorist like al-Masri could operate in Baghdad without Saddam’s tacit approval, at the very least.

(4) The authors are inconsistent in how they report on al Qaeda’s operations inside Iraq. In one instance they say it is a "mostly foreign-led group" and in another they say American intelligence agencies have concluded that "the militant group is in many respects an Iraqi phenomenon" whose membership is "overwhelmingly Iraqi."

So, which is it? The answer is that it is both. The foreign AQI leaders have done their best to recruit locals to their side. Look at Baqubah where, according to Michael Yon, perhaps as many 1,000 local Iraqis were recruited over to al Qaeda.

What the paper does not say is that American forces, as well as Sunni tribes and factions who are now unfriendly to al Qaeda, are competing for the “hearts and minds” of Iraqis in places like Baqubah. Al Qaeda was winning this competition at one point, but in recent months the momentum has shifted. Time will tell who wins in the long run.

But this is an important “Qaeda link” that should not be distorted as the debate over Iraq heats up.

From the Wall Street Journal ($): The Surge is Working, by Omar Fadhil.

From the Wall Street Journal: A Top Gun Fantasy Comes True, by Bret Stephens.

From USA Today: Iraq Strategy Shows Progress, by Stephen J. Hadley.

From the AP: U.S. Tempts Japan With New F-22 Jets.

From the Washington Post: Deserting Petraeus, by Charles Krauthammer.

From FAS: "The United States appears to have quietly removed nuclear weapons from Ramstein Air Base.
Here a B61 nuclear bomb is loaded unto a C-17 cargo aircraft."

While the big story on Iraq actually occurred in Washington with the release of the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report, which assessed the progress of the Iraqi government as the Baghdad Security Plan, Iraqi and U.S. security forces pressed al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army on all fronts.

US soldiers walk past an Iraqi boy as they patrol
in central Baghdad, 10 July 2007. AFP/File/Ali Yussef

Mahdi Army

U.S. and Iraqi security forces continue the daily raids and operations designed to degrade the Mahdi Army. A two day operation in Diwaniyah in the south resulted in eight Mahdi Army fighters killed, four captured and 30 wounded. In Baghdad, Coalition forces captured two members of "the Special Groups affiliated with Jaysh al-Mahdi" and Iran.

"Coalition Forces conducted the raid to capture or kill terrorists who allegedly specialize in kidnapping, killing and building and placing improvised explosive devices," Multinational Forces Iraq reported. "Intelligence reports indicate that the suspected terrorists targeted during the raid are associated with key leaders in the secret cell terrorist network and have ties to Iranian terrorists groups."

Baghdad

Disruption and clearing operation are still underway in the Rashid district, arguably one of the most dangerous districts in Baghdad. U.S. forces captured 101 insurgents, including al Qaeda and Mahdi Army members, and found 237 weapons caches during a ten-day operation. In a separate operation in Rashid, U.S. soldiers captured 31 suspected al Qaeda fighters during a raid on a meeting.

Diyala

In Diyala, Iraqi Army and Police captured ten suspects believed to be "responsible for providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda in Iraq" in the city of Muqdadiyah. Iraqi forces also found IED materials and land mines. In Baqubah, tribal leaders from the Ubaidi and Anbakia tribes signed a peace agreement, putting an end to decades of feuds and vowing to "stand together against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations."

The North

Iraqi security forces were on the offensive in the north, where al Qaeda and its allies are attempting to regroup. Iraqi soldiers found a bomb factory in Mosul, and arrested 18 suspects and killed three others in a firefight. In Kirkuk, Iraqi police capture eight wanted suspects, and detained 32 suspected insurgents during a series of raids throughout the city.

Babil

Coalition and Iraqi forces maintain the effort to disrupt IED and mortar cells in northern Babil. U.S. troops captured the leader of a rocket and IED cell in Tunis on July 7. Another leader of a rocket and IED cell was captured in Iskandariyah on July 9. U.S. forces conducted an air assault in the Jurf As Sukr northwest of Iskandariyah. The targets were "members of an Al Qaeda cell wanted in connection with the kidnapping of three American Soldiers and other attacks against Iraqi and Coalition Forces." Two suspects were detained.

Al Qaeda's Network

Coalition forces captured 19 al Qaeda operatives and leadership targets during raids in Mosul, Balad, and Baghdad. It is believed "the most active terrorist cell leader in Mosul" was captured during Thursday's raids.

Ask and you shall receive...

Earlier today I wrote about the need to change how Americans think about Iraq, and this afternoon White House Press Secretary Tony Snow explained to a number of bloggers his planned contribution: a 'surge of facts.'

Snow spoke about the new audio/visual features of the revamped White House briefing room. He plans to take full advantage of the new features to give the American people 'a surge of facts.' He explained that representatives and senators aren't shifting stances on Iraq in a vacuum; they're responding to what they hear from their constituents. And all the American people see, Snow said, is imagery of carnage and death in Iraq. In the face of what's presented to them, Snow indicated surprise that anyone supports the effort.

The surge of facts will give a "fuller, richer, more nuanced and accurate picture" of what is going on in Iraq today. New data on progress in Iraq will be made easily available; it will be properly sourced; and, it will be done with visuals that make it more accessible. Snow plans to show video and slides with hard data as part of the online feed. There will be no spin, just the facts--good and bad.

Snow hit on several points frequently. One was that the American people don't want failure. They want to know that the United States is in Iraq to win. They want to know about the progress being made--the transformation of regions like Anbar, and the shift by ordinary Iraqis away from the insurgency and toward the political process. Snow pointed out that as the people realize that al Qaeda offers not a glorious caliphate, but injustice and the slaughter of men, women and children, they will become increasingly grateful to the United States. As the American people come to understand this better, Snow was optimistic that their attitudes will change.

In response to one question, Snow told us to think about a simple image: a seed. He said that the United States has planted a seed in Iraq, and it will yield either democracy or tyranny. If we leave Iraq, we create a vacuum for al Qaeda and give them access to that nation's vast wealth. Arab states and Iraq's neighbors will reconsider the security equation--downgrading the value of a partnership with the United States and attaching more importance to al Qaeda and Iran.

Late in the call, Snow talked about a video conference that recently took place between American students and Iraqi college students. Both groups were asked whether the US should leave Iraq. All the Americans said the United States should depart, and they were surprised when all the Iraqis said the United States should stay.

Snow asked for our help in convincing those Americans that it's the Iraqis who have it right.

As the president today explains where progress has been made in Iraq, and where the Iraqi government has failed to meet our expectations, it seems apparent that what we're doing is not working. I'm not speaking of Operation Phantom Thunder ('the surge'), where this magazine has chronicled the steady progress of operations to date, and the promise those operations hold for restoring order to Iraq. No, I'm talking about the attempt to explain the mission--and build support for it--here at home. Despite the encouraging signs--and acknowledging the false starts and problems--polls show that the American people are tired of hearing about Iraq and our losses there.

That's understandable. As the White House has frequently pointed out, the Iraq war is costing this country in both treasure and lives. Further, a significant part of both the political class and the media have staked their reputations and futures on a failure in Iraq. Given all this, the challenge for those who see the value of what we're doing, and who believe that Iraq can succeed, is to find a way to change the debate. Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator has a good piece that gets us started toward thinking outside the frame of the current debate:

The first approach would be to try changing the terms of debate by new communications strategies and tactics. Somehow, some way, create a new narrative. Pull in outside communications advisors, perhaps, and figure out a way to tell the stories of this war's heroes -- its Audie Murphys, its Sergeant Yorks, its Andrew Jacksons or (to bolster the idea that we still do have allies) even its Lafayettes. Trumpet the successes in Iraq -- the hospitals built, the schools opened, the new businesses started...

Enlist somebody respected to make the case for staying the course. Find some retired Democratic senators, perhaps -- Sam Nunn and Bob Kerrey, if they will do it -- or some universally admired retired athletes such as Arnold Palmer or Lance Armstrong, and have them make the case for finishing the job...

A second approach would be actually to do something dramatic. A brand-new diplomatic offensive against Iran, for instance. Find a way to enlist Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or other nations of the region who worry about Iranian hegemony, in an embargo or some other strong measure against Iran -- backed, if necessary, by a credible threat of military force, such as precision strikes on support facilities for Iranian nuclear plants...

A third approach would be to create new benchmarks for success in Iraq. In other words, redefine the intermediate goals of the surge to highlight achievements that are well on the way to being realized

Fourth, the administration might work to "flip" noted skeptics over to the administration's position. What if some careful nurturing could convince James Baker and Lee Hamilton of the Iraq Study Group that it is worth their while to embrace the surge publicly in all its particulars? What if a prominent newspaper's editorial board could be convinced to change its tune based on evidence from the war zone?

There must be a way, somehow, to shake up the political situation here in the United States so as to buy the time necessary for military successes to become apparent. Again, that's the whole idea: to buy time, politically, in order for the surge to work.

You can argue whether any (or all) of these ideas will work. But there's no question that the viability of the American presence in Iraq is threatened. This ought to concern all of us--even those who are working hardest to 'bring the troops home' as soon as possible. After all, the U.S. will continue to have interests in the Middle East beyond the Iraq mission. In particular, this nation cannot afford for Iraq to fall apart and become the base of operations that al Qaeda would have it be. There are plenty of other reasons to work for a pluralist democracy in Iraq--not least out of humanitarian concern for a people who until recently groveled under Saddam's boot. (After all, if we 'want peace,' aren't we supposed to 'work for justice?')

Read Hillyer's whole piece, and see if you can find a way to build on his ideas. Another way to 'change the debate' would be to enable Americans to hear from the Iraqis whose lives have experienced an immeasurable change for the better. Whether through YouTube, free and paid media, or a tour of America by some representative Iraqis, Americans would like to hear more from the people that they liberated. Their voices might add a lot to our domestic discussion.

From Armed Forces Journal: Flashpoint: Venezuela, by Peter Brookes.

From FAS: China Reorganizes Northern Nuclear Missile Launch Sites, by Hans M. Kristensen.

From Middle East Quarterly: My Cyber Counter-jihad, by Shannen Rossmiller.

From the Spectator: The Cold War Is Back, by Fraser Nelson.

From the Strategy Page: Raiders of the Lost Exploit.

From Ares: V-22 lands on HMS Illustrious.

This is a Frank Capra/Bell Labs film from 1958. It warns that man's emission of greenhouse gases threaten to warm the Earth's temperature, melt the polar ice caps, and drown much of America--leaving Miami under 150 feet of water:

Almost twenty years later, in 1974, Time published its famous report on threat of global cooling:

...when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data.

And Newsweek 1975:

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

Is it possible that climate, and the reporting on it, is a cyclical phenomenon? Just for fun, a report from last month on...the dangers of global cooling.

As Operations Phantom Thunder pushes forward in Baghdad and the Belts, U.S. and Iraqi forces attacked and killed an al Qaeda team attempting to take control of a rural Kurdish village in Diyala. Meanwhile, with critics claiming the U.S. is too al Qaeda focused in its operations, Iraqi and U.S. forces put a significant dent in the Mahdi Army over the past several days.

Diyala

As Operations Arrowhead Ripper proceeds in the provincial capital of Baqubah and the surrounding areas, al Qaeda in Iraq has been pushed into the farmlands north of the city. Last weekend, al Qaeda struck with suicide attacks at Kurdish cities along the Iranian border, and in a Kurdish village in neighboring Salahadin province, with devastating effects. Almost 200 civilians were killed and hundreds more wounded.

Al Qaeda is pushing into villages where it did not have a presence in the recent past. Yesterday, reports of an al Qaeda assault on the small Shiite village of Sherween slashed across the wires. The AP reported that when al Qaeda in Iraq moved on Sherween, there were no security forces present to stop them. Residents of the town fought back; "25 militants and 18 residents were killed and 40 people wounded in the fighting," a resident of a neighboring town reported. He also stated that al Qaeda was winning.

While the AP report lamented the failure of the Iraqi and U.S. security forces to respond, a joint U.S. and Iraqi task force was quickly assembled and moved in on Sherween early today. "The operation began early Tuesday morning with close air support engaging three river crossings and one bridge with eight 2,000-pound bombs and 14 500-pound bombs. The locations are used by al-Qaida to conduct their attacks and were engaged to prevent their escape," Multinational Forces Iraq reported. "The people of Sherween played a vital role in this operation as they fought side-by-side [with] the ISF to help them capture and kill known terrorists." The attack resulted in "20 al-Qaida terrorists killed, 20 detained, and two weapons caches and 12 improvised explosive devices discovered."

Also north of Baqubah, U.S. and Iraqi security forces found an al Qaeda safe house, which contained a possible torture room. "Inside, the patrol found medical supplies, medical equipment and al-Qaida related propaganda," Multinational Forces Iraq reported. "Also inside the building was a room with indicators that it had been used as a place of torture, such as blood on the walls and blacked out windows."

As U.S. and Iraq forces move forward with securing Baqubah and the outlying regions, the attacks such at those in Sherween are expected to increase. Al Qaeda is working the seams in Diyala, and the rural farmlands and the Hamrin mountain chain are ideal locations for al Qaeda and allied insurgent groups to fall back upon.

The Lieberman amendment--confronting Iran on its proxy attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq--just passed the Senate unanimously, 97-0.

So let's look at the scorecard this week so far: The Webb amendment on trying to limit Iraq deployments went down to defeat. The Lieberman amendment confronting Iran passed unanimously. So much for the long-predicted collapse--at least so far. There will be some tough votes in the days ahead. Let's hope the Senate Republicans continue to hold the line.

Meanwhile, Senator Lieberman had this to say of the Senate's unanimous vote, confronting Iran:

"Today's unanimous vote sends a strong, clear message from the entire Senate to the Iranians that we know what they are doing in Iraq, and they must stop...This is a warning to the Iranians that whatever differences divide us politically here in Washington, we stand united against these outrageous attacks."

As first reported on the WWS yesterday:

Senators Lieberman, McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman today introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.

The amendment details the publicly available evidence put forward over the past year by General David Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force Iraq, and others about Iran’s violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq.

The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq.

“For many months, our military commanders and diplomats have warned us that the Iranian government has been training, equipping, arming, and funding proxies in Iraq who are murdering our troops,” said Senator Lieberman. “This amendment is a common sense, common ground statement of the Senate to Tehran: we know what you are doing, and you must stop.”

“American officials attest that the government in Teheran seeks to bleed the United States and render unsuccessful our efforts to bring about a stable and self-governing in Iraq,” said Senator McCain. “This amendment will send a clear signal: Iran’s activities in Iraq are wrong, and they must end immediately.”

“The Iranians are attempting to thwart our policies in the Middle East by actively supporting terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq,” said Senator Kyl. “It is time we acknowledge this hostility against us, and this amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies.”

“The evidence is increasingly clear the Iranian government is working to destabilize the Iraqi government,” said Senator Graham. “It is long past time for Congress to speak out about this destructive behavior by Iran. We need one voice, and I expect it will be a unified bipartisan voice, speaking out and condemning these actions by the Iranian government.”

“The United States will not tolerate Iran’s hostile attempts to sabotage our efforts in the Middle East region,” said Senator Coleman. “On my last trip to Iraq, our Minnesota troops in Southern Iraq showed me Iranian-made explosives that were used against them on convoy missions. This crucial amendment makes it clear to the Iranian government, and any other government in the region that seeks to harm our soldiers, that providing any form of support to Iraqi insurgents will not be tolerated and must cease immediately.”

Good for them. Serious wonks can read the full text of the amendment here.

It's that time of the year. The U.S. is rotating its carriers based in the Persian Gulf, and the media automatically assumes this represents an "escalation of force" as the number of carriers in the region increases. Breathless reporting in the media sensationally mentions there are now three carriers inside the Gulf, and how this is a strong message to the Iranian government.

(July 6, 2007) The USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) transits
through the Atlantic Ocean. It will arrive in the Gulf by fall.

But the Iranian government has nothing to fear. The Iranians should start sweating when the U.S. Navy begins to pull all of its carriers back from the Persian Gulf, not when it sends more in. This, in fact, would be the signal that the U.S. is prepared to attack.

The geography dictates this. The carriers have far less room to maneuver while stationed in the Gulf, and are far more susceptible to the array of Iran's coastal missile batteries. While the U.S. is confident it can defeat Iran's anti-ship missiles, there is no such thing as certainty. Just ask the Israelis after they lost a warship in an attack by an Iranian-manned C-802 anti-ship cruise missile, which is an Iranian-made variant of the Chinese Silkworm, during the Israel-Hezbollah War last summer.

U.S. aircraft carriers are capital ships--a $9 Billion dollar plus investment when fully-loaded, not to mention the thousands of sailors and Marines stationed on board. The U.S. Navy wouldn't risk leaving multiple carriers in the Gulf if it decided to launch a full fledged operation against Iran's nuclear program. Fighters and attack aircraft launched from the carrier decks can be refueled using carrier-based or ground-based aerial tankers. While this might have a marginal impact on effectiveness, it reduce the risk of losing a capital ship to almost zero. Finally, if the Iranians decided to block the Strait of Hormuz by, say, sinking a large tanker in the narrow channel, the U.S. Navy would have carriers trapped in the Gulf until the straits could be cleared. The Navy would be unlikely to risk one ship in the Gulf, let alone three.

Amidst many missteps and revisions, there have been a few running themes to the Democratic 'strategy' on Iraq since the party took back Congress last fall. They've tried to cow the president into drawing down from Iraq while refusing to use their authority to do so--since that would leave them 'on the hook' for whatever happens next. And, they've tried to tell their base one thing and the American people another. It looks like both trends will continue tomorrow, when the House debates the 'Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.'

The measure states:

The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq beginning not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall complete the reduction and transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq by not later than April 1, 2008.

What constitutes a 'limited presence' is up to the discretion of the White House. So if President Bush believes we should 'draw down' to 125,000 men, that's what will happen. The bill also requires that by January 1, the president must transmit to Congress a 'comprehensive' plan for the future U.S. role in Iraq. The plan must have two major components:

A discussion of United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests..

A justification of the minimum force levels required to protect United States national security interests in Iraq after April 1, 2008, including a description of the specific missions of the Armed Forces to be undertaken.

It's clear that Congressional Democrats want American troops out of Iraq--yesterday, if possible. But why then, do they refuse to consider legislation specifically do to that? Despite all the bluster and inflammatory rhetoric that will accompany it, the plain language of this bill still leaves Iraq in the president's hands. As such, it doesn't represent the 'change of course' that Democrats are promising. And given that they ultimately gave the president the Iraq funding bill he wanted, that shouldn't be a surprise.

But rest assured, that's not how House Democratic leaders will pitch it to MoveOn and DailyKos. According to Speaker Pelosi, the measure would 'begin the responsible redeployment of U.S. troops within 120 days and complete redeployment by April 1, 2008.' While true on its face, there's one major caveat: the president will define all the terms.

The Land of Lincoln book tour comes to San Francisco tonight, when the book's author, WEEKLY STANDARD senior editor Andrew Ferguson, is set to discuss the book and sign copies at 6:00 PM at the Commonwealth Club, 595 Market St.

In case your not familiar with the book, here's a little bit about it from the Scrapbook:

THE SCRAPBOOK is feeling like a proud papa these days--or maybe a doting uncle. That's because our friend and colleague Andrew Ferguson has just published Land of Lincoln: Adventures in Abe's America (Grove/Atlantic, $24), and in THE SCRAPBOOK's considered opinion, if there's one book every STANDARD reader must devour this summer, it's Land of Lincoln.

Why do we say this? First, WEEKLY STANDARD readers already know Andy's hallmarks. He's a writer of exceptional skill, incapable of producing a dull sentence. He carries wisdom, erudition, and startling insight with a lightness and finesse that must be read to be believed. There's his understated wit, discerning eye, and instinct for the absurd. His reporter's antennae are exceptionally well-tuned; Andy never fails to capture the felicitous detail. And all these talents are on display in Land of Lincoln.

So what, you ask, another Lincoln book? To which we reply: This is not just any Lincoln book. Like many Americans, Andy Ferguson (born and raised in Illinois) grew up with a fascination for the sixteenth president, whose life and death are so central to the story of America. But what intrigues him about Lincoln is not so much the familiar facts--the log cabin birthplace, the Gettysburg Address, the homely face and mordant jokes--as the shadow Lincoln casts over his countrymen. Since the assassination at Ford's Theatre in 1865, Lincoln's drama has been cast and recast, the essentials of his life have been plumbed and reinvented, the meaning of Lincoln--to politics, history, folklore, psychology--has evolved with every succeeding generation.

So Andy embarks on a road trip in search of Lincoln's America. Or America's Lincoln. We meet collectors who accumulate sacred relics, scholars who try to make Lincoln "relevant," Abe Lincoln impersonators, management gurus, and a galaxy of people whose vision of Lincoln gives meaning to their lives.

Land of Lincoln is about a journalist's quest, but it's also a matchless portrait of our times, certain places, the national character (both hilarious and poignant), the complex life of a deceptively simple man, and the meeting of the present and past in our country. THE SCRAPBOOK cannot think of a better introduction to the great subject of Abraham Lincoln, or a funnier, more trenchant and affecting postcard from America.

Click here to see the full book tour schedule, and click here to purchase your very own copy.

From the Wall Street Journal: Moving Forward in Iraq, by Kimberly Kagan.

From Contentions: Letter from the Front, by Max Boot.

From the Washington Post: Iraq: Go Deep or Get Out, by Stephen Biddle.

From the Washington Times: U.S. Targets Iranian Aid to All Militants, by Sharon Behn.

From the New York Post: The Forgotten Front, by Peter Brookes.

Bonus Video: From National Review: Is Executive Power Bad? Peter Beinart vs. Jonah Goldberg.

A picture from April 8, 2006 which casts doubt on the F-16's claim of first to kill an F-22, which was written up here yesterday.
From Alert 5: "This gun kill picture is from the HUD recorder of a VFA-11 Super Hornet taken during a Red Air exercise. The black box on the top left is an event marker to show that the trigger was squeezed."

There's a debate going on right now about al Qaeda's precise role in the war in Iraq. Just this week, the public editor of the New York Times questioned the proposition that al Qaeda represented "the center of the insurgency" in Iraq. And over at Small Wars Journal, Malcolm Nance asserted that al Qaeda in Iraq may represent a force of only 1,500 fighters, and that loyalists to the former regime "have been waging the lion’s share of the insurgency." We will have more on this later in the day...but Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, chief of staff for Strategic Effects at MNF-I, participated in a blogger conference call this morning and spoke directly to this question.

Charlie Quidnunc, from the Wizbang blog, asked Bergner how he would respond to claims in the press that there was some sort of "Pentagon conspiracy to link all this violence to al Qaeda."

BERGNER: ...When you live this and you see it up close, it's absolutely evident, it's very real...at no time in my press conference and at no time in our discussion have we said that all this violence is attributed to al Qaeda, we have said that al Qaeda is the principle threat to Iraq in the near-term. And, specifically, they are fueling sectarian violence and these spectacular attacks, which are so destabilizing. That doesn't suggest that there isn't a range of other actors out there. We talked last week in great detail about the Lebanese Hezbollah as being used as surrogates by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Qods Force operatives here, specifically to train, equip, organize, and then guide sometimes the employment of these special groups....I would go back to that to say that we've actually been very forthright in explaining the role that those groups are having and they are an increasing problem--one that's having an increasingly destabilizing effect on both the government of Iraq and creating more problems for us to deal with. So no one would suggest that it's a monolithic threat, but there is no question that al Qaeda is the principle fueler of violence and sectarian attacks, and you can tell by their own propaganda that it is central to them.

The WWS: Do you view al Qaeda as "the center of the insurgency," and if so, "do you view al Qaeda in Iraq as essentially the same as al Qaeda otherwise...what's the level of command and control with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan?"

BERGNER: I don't think there's any question that the al Qaeda senior leadership is exercising influence over the al Qaeda in Iraq efforts, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq has continued to be run, administered, overseen by foreigners in large measure. So there is a strong linkage between al Qaeda senior leadership and what they are trying to generate in terms of jihadist activity much like I described the Zawihiri video earlier...there's no question that these organizations in Iraq use a cellular structure--they use it to insulate themselves, they use it to make themselves less vulnerable, and they frequently will decide their targeting, their local actions, on a local cellular basis. Sometimes that will also be responsive to the guidance or direction of the regional leader, of a regional emir, or a citywide emir, who is directing certain priorities or certain kinds of attacks to take place.

We shouldn't confuse the fact that the cellular nature of these networks doesn't necessarily make them independent, it means that they are using that to reduce their vulnerability and it doesn't dispute their freedom of action, but it also doesn't say that they are independent of al Qaeda, that they are influenced by al Qaeda. In fact, what we see from the Zawahiri video is frustration on the part of the al Qaeda senior leadership. He talks about his frustration about disunity, about conspiracy, about discord, they are trying to undermine, trying to generate more unity, and trying to counter the effect that we're seeing with these Awakening councils and support councils. I think that's the best way I can describe it. No one is suggesting this is a monolithic threat--it's not. But there is no question, if you look at U.S. intelligence agencies, if you look at how the government of Iraq looks at the security problems, and then you see how al Qaeda itself describes itself and its vision for Iraq, there's quite a bit of congruence there in terms of the reality al Qaeda has in Iraq.

Bergner also addressed this issue during a press conference this morning, which can be viewed at the Pentagon Channel via streaming video. Bergner claimed that 26 al Qaeda leaders had been killed or captured in the period May to June of this year. Here is an illustration from that briefing.

It had always seemed to me that the Lefty blogs were pretty tough, and could both dish out and take some pretty stern stuff. But it seems that Joe Lieberman went over even their line yesterday, according to Election Central, 'he went out of his way to bash' Harry Reid. Kos says that 'Soulless Joe' 'launched a completely unprovoked attack,' while Crooks and Liars went with the simple 'Lieberman attacks.'

This is what Lieberman said:

"You know, Harry Reid said a while ago that the war in Iraq is lost. It’s wrong. It’s not lost. In fact, I would say we’re beginning to win it. We’ve turned the tide with the new strategy. And in fact, I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which American forces would lose the war in Iraq, on the ground in Iraq. If we lose it, it’s gonna be lost here at home, in a different kind of war for public opinion and political support."

Let's stipulate that it does sounds as if Lieberman brought up Reid of his own volition, but Reid did say 'the war is lost'--before realizing how it sounded and backing off the comments. I suppose Lieberman could have ignored the best example of defeatism on his side of the aisle, but this hardly constitutes a vicious attack. That would have been if Lieberman said 'I don't know why Harry Reid seems to be rooting for our enemies,' or 'too many Democrats simply don't take terrorism seriously.'

I know that many on the Left would prefer Lieberman to switch parties, even at the cost of Democratic control of the Senate. But whatever they think of Lieberman, this 'attack' is a lot tamer than the stuff they regularly dish out. They ought to apply an equal standard--and it's pretty lame to call Lieberman 'Soulless Joe.' It's like the foolish Code Pinker who called him 'unprincipled.' It's a criticism that doesn't pass the laugh test.

There have been rumors that Senator McCain might change his stance on the war. But lost in the commotion about the turnover in the McCain camp today, McCain gave a speech on the floor of the Senate th