“The murderer was dressed as a woman as he walked down the alley toward the mosque full of worshippers. It was Friday, late in January, just before the Muslim holy day of Ashura.”

“The bomb strapped to the murderer’s body was studded with ball bearings so that he could kill many villagers as they gathered for prayer. The detonation would eviscerate and dismember those closest, shattering bones into fragments. The ball bearings would extend the killing beyond the percussive edge of the blast, ripping through the flesh of those who survived the shockwave.”

“There were no soldiers in his path to stop him, no police to alert. There were only the villagers and a mass murderer done up for a masquerade. In the mosque more than one hundred people were praying.”

“As the murderer walked purposefully toward his target, there was a village man in his path. But under the guise of a simple villager this was a true martyr, and he, too, had his target in sight. The martyr had seen through the disguise. But he had no gun. No bomb. No rocket. No stone. No time.”

“The martyr walked up to the murderer and lunged into a bear hug.”

“The blast ripped the martyr to pieces mixing his flesh with the flesh of the murderer. Ball bearings shot through the alley and wounded two children, but the people in the mosque were saved. And the martyr’s children , who surely had felt his arms around them many times, saw his love more than ever in his last embrace.”

from Moment of Truth in Iraq by Michael Yon. Yon is an embedded reporter who works independently. See his site on the Rebel Yid recommended list or at http://www.michaelyon-online.com/.

Michael Yon depends on private contributions and book sales to support his mission. I highly recommend his book to give you a perspective of the war that I have not seen anywhere else. He is as strong in his criticisms as in his praises. He is one of a new breed of independent reporters powered by a passion for his work, a rare union of entrepreneurship and reporting, and the coverage of the internet.

7/22/08

I was up early and watched an interview with Obama after his tour of Iraq. Obama was asked if he regretted his opposition to the surge since it apparently has worked quite well.

He stood by his original vote, and credited the success not to the surge but to the change in the Sunni participation in the government and the surrender of the Shiite militia, which he admittedly did not foresee.

Does he seriously believe that the change in both the Sunni and Shiite postures was not directly related to the military commitment of the surge? Did they just miraculously change their minds and fight the insurgents and support the government process, just coincidentally at the time of the surge?

Furthermore does Obama believe that Malaki would be so quick to agree in some fashion to a withdrawal of US forces if the surge had not been executed and been successful? Would Obama have even visited Iraq without the surge he opposed?

The ultimate irony is that Obama is able to score political points because he was wrong. The success of the surge which he opposed has paved the way for the withdrawal that has been a center piece of his campaign.

from the Weekly Standard
by Joe Lieberman

Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.

Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.

Why are such significant stories covered so poorly. When our troops are accused the story is trumpeted on the front page; when they are acquitted, hardly a peep. The same is true for the incredible story of the mass of yellow cake; why is hardly anyone aware of this?

from American Thinker
Memory and the Left
by J.R. Dunn

excerpts

For one example, we can look to Haditha. A Marine unit was ambushed, responding as trained against their attackers, who were hiding behind helpless civilians, among them women and children, as many as two dozen of whom were killed. Insurgent war at its most ugly, tragic and unavoidable. The blame, to any rational observer, clearly lay with the Al Queda thugs who insisted on using innocents as a shield.

The same weekend saw final victory in Iraq draw nearer with the almost complete pacification of the city of Mosul. Mosul was the last urban redoubt of Al-Queda in Iraq. Their ejection from the city has deprived them of a base of operations and turned them into a force of scattered guerilla bands. Stamping out these final remnants may be a drawn-out process, but the Jihadis are no longer a threat to Iraq as a nation. What a change from 2006! Yet what have we heard about it?