Thursday, July 26, 2007


Winners and Losers

Ralph Peters says what most in Washington and the media least want to hear, that we’re Winning in Iraq.

He cites several underreported developments, excerpted here:

- Al Qaeda lost the support of Iraq's Sunni Arabs.

- Our troops captured the senior Iraqi in the organization and killed the three al Turki brothers, major-league pinch-hitters al Qaeda sent into Iraq.

- The Iraqi "head" of the terrorists was just a front, designed to give an impression that al Qaeda has Iraqis in its senior ranks.

- Al Qaeda has been pushed right across Anbar, from the once Wild West to the province's eastern fringes.

- Muqtada al-Sadr fled back to Iran again, trailed by his senior deputies. The Mahdi Army, too, has been losing support among Iraqis - in this case, among Shias.

- The Iraqi Police Tactical Support Unit in Nasiriyah came under attack by Mahdi Army elements, fought them off, then counter-attacked. The Mahdi Army force begged for negotiations.

- In Mosul, Iraqi army and police units stuck to their guns through a series of tough combat engagements, and seized massive arms caches.

- In Kirkuk, Iraqi police reacted promptly to last week's gruesome car-bombing - in time to stop two other car bombs from reaching their intended targets.

- In Baghdad, Iraqi security and intelligence forces conducted a series of hard-hitting operations against both al Qaeda and Iran-backed Special Group terrorists.

Peters is clearly frustrated with the lack of support in Washington for our military’s (most recent) successes:

Even the Democrats yearning to become president admit, when pressed, that al Qaeda's a threat to America. So why didn't even one of them praise the success of our troops during their last debate?

But let's be fair: Congressional Republicans, terrified of losing their power and glory and precious perks, haven't rushed to applaud our progress, either. They'll give up Iraq, as long as they don't have to give up earmarks.

Peters also comments on The New Republic and the Scott Thomas (Beauchamp) affair:

What were you, the American people, told about all this? Well, The New Republic published a pack of out-of-the-ballpark lies concocted by a scammer claiming to be a grunt in Baghdad. Our soldiers, he wrote, spent their time playing games with babies' skulls, running over dogs for fun and mocking disfigured women in their mess hall.

And I thought the MILBLOGGERS were fired up over Beauchamp’s near certain fabrications.


Via Memeorandum, news of TNR’s statement from revealed author Scott Thomas Beauchamp, with special kudos to JD Johannes for getting his unit right down to company level. I don’t think it warrants any “apology” on my part, yes, this jerk is a soldier, but as stated previously, soldier or no, the stories he has told the TNR and their readers include a huge amount of apparent fabrication or willful deceit.

Some of the better commentary linked by Memeorandum. (No claim to objective sampling here):


The Atlantic Online


Michael Goldfarb

Betsy's Page

Villainous Company

CBS Public Eye

NRO Campaign Spot

Gateway Pundit

John Donovan

Hugh Hewitt

Michelle Malkin

Mark Steyn at The Corner

Dean Barnett at Townhall

Riehlworld View


Ace of Ace of Spades breaks the story that Scott Beauchamp is the likely fiancĂ© of a TNR staffer, and TNR staff openly discuss “nepotism” as the basis for Beauchamp getting his pieces published. The TNR “leaker” of that bit of information has already been fired by TNR, according to Ace.

Much more to come here, I think. Bet on more shake-ups at the TNR, more dissembling, more attacking the fact checkers for fact checking, more sweeping the whole credibility and accuracy issues under a veneer of righteous indignation about Conservatives who “only support the troops who agree with them” BS.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]