Maybe Mike should go down to Basra for a few days. And e-mail the pics to Tim from Newsweek so he can "supplement" his next report.

correction: "Newday" not "Newsweek"

Did any of you nice folks contact Snoozeday for a comment and ask them to print a retraction?

Rey:

Mike has been in Basra for a couple of weeks now.
If Tim Phelps at Newsday had bothered to speak to Con Conglin at the Telegraph UK, he'd have known this:

"In the past few weeks there has been a tangible improvement in the security there, particularly since British troops vacated their last outpost in Basra's city centre at the end of August. Crime in Basra is down 70 per cent, and rocket and mortar attacks against British forces – which were running at more than 90 a day in the summer – have been reduced almost to zero – as Mr Brown experienced for himself this week."
(The Tide Is Turning In Basra, Oct 6, 2007)

Tim Phelps & Newsday clearly have NO journalistic integrity--- and/or they work as mouthpieces for terrorist organizations. Strangely this story reads too much like most of the crap I read in some of the Arabic media.

Mike Yon lies for a living and has not written one provable fact and certainly never backs his stories with any photos or witnesses...just his humble and wrong opinions.

Hmmmm, so who's mistaken...our Administration just said within the last couple of weeks that the Brits weren't doing a good job in southern Iraq anyways after they decided to withdraw. This statement would make sense if the place was in chaos like newsday states....but if Mike Yon is correct and it's calm, then Brits must have been doing a decent job.

Or is it chaotic like newsday says and the brits did do a poor job? Who is mistaken???

has anyone checked in to this Yon characters credentials?? is he phony? Our gov hasnt lied, so I suspect this Yon guy...the Brits were chicken, how could they have left Basra in a calm state without chaos if they were doing a bad job??

Yon needs some investigation on him!

"In the past few weeks there has been a tangible improvement in the security there, particularly since British troops vacated their last outpost in Basra's city centre at the end of August."

If security is tangibly improved by leaving, then perhaps the U.S. should follow the Brit's lead and go home.

what does it matter? basra and the south are largly dominated by iran. so if britian stays or britian goes, is an iranian influenced iraq what we are paying 2 trillion dollars for? is this what we sent our soldiers to are die for? big picture guys and girls...big picture. reconciliation is moving in the negative direction, and our actions are fueling increased support for extremist islamist movements throughout the region. so y'all keep arguing about chaos in basra and the credibility of michael yon.

Oh that liberal MSM. Always reporting on how things have improved in Iraq.

Anyone ever bother to think about something called RAMADAN?!

2007 1428 13 September 12 October

Get ready for the uptick in violence to begin...oh....Saturday.

Fools.

Are you guys serious? Mike Yon is the most respected INDEPENDENT journalist in Iraq. He has spent more time in Iraq/Afghan, in harms way, than any other non-local. He is a former Green Beret and an excellent writer.

...Maybe you guys are being sarcastic. If so, jokes on me.

http://michaelyon-online.com/

Aw, poop!

Mad Matt and jugger found us out!

Yon's a complete fraud and nobody, including Bruce Willis, has ever heard of him, and he never takes pictures or writes things.

/sarc

"In the past few weeks there has been a tangible improvement in the security there, particularly since British troops vacated their last outpost in Basra's city centre at the end of August. Crime in Basra is down 70 per cent, and rocket and mortar attacks against British forces – which were running at more than 90 a day in the summer – have been reduced almost to zero…”

Can no one see a bit of cause and effect to this report; invading force pulls out of city and violence drops 70%... guess that instead of attacking the British forces the terrorist are busy packing their bags in preparation to “follow them home.”

It should be abundantly obvious to all that an “eye for an eye” approach in the Middle East is a loser, so why don’t we take a page from Ron Reagan and try a different tact against a seemingly monolithic threat.

If security is tangibly improved by leaving, then perhaps the U.S. should follow the Brit's lead and go home.

Posted by: Reluctant Republican at October 9, 2007 02:54 PM

I think you got it the wrong way round. Security improves, then we leave. Like the US marines have done in al-Anbar following the collapse of the insurgency in that province.

basra and the south are largly dominated by iran.

Didn't Maliki just release a statement saying that Iran was no longer a force in Iraq? Or am I misremembering?

Reluctant Republican, your theory would certainly hold up...if the facts were different. See, the situation didn't improve when the troops left. There remains thousands of British troops in the region, as the security improved.

Yes! Pull troops out and peace follows, quickly.

Pay no attention to the 15 Basra-area women tortured and murdered each month, the Basra police chief is taking care of that...

http://tinyurl.com/2ma3fd

grrrrrrrrrrrr....
if al anbar is such a great story why is it that the administration turned down all offers of cooperation with tribal leaders until recently, when leading up to the patreaus report, they were desperate for signs of success? and why is it that although al anbar actually is an endorsment of the biden plan the administration continues to reject that plan? the biden plan has been kicking around for years...if the white house had adopted it way back then maybe we would be on our way out of iraq. is it because it's a democrat's plan and the white house is more interested in politics than success? or is it because the administration is more interested in staying in iraq indefinitely? or is it because the real goal is iran?

The "Biden plan?" Bwahahahahahaha!!!! And who did he plagiarize it from? What is it with these viciously anti military people commenting here? Aren't they happy with daily kos, DU, thing progress, and all the other hate sites?

Michael Yon,Michael Totten and Bill Roggio
Nothing else needs to be said...

You got the sock puppets up in arms, CY!

“Official statistics indicate that at least 15 women are being killed in Basra every month by criminal organization on the pretext of violating religious and moral rules,” the general noted.

Hmmmmm according to the piece that MissLed linked...15 women have been killed EVERY month!
Interesting because LA times in a piece titled " Iraqis Divided by Constitutions Treatment of Women" quotes the same General as saying 15 women in the LAST month There is a big difference between the two statements!

By the way --- trust the LA times to create a headline thats misleading --- the issue of concern is ONE Article in the Constitution ---Article 41!

And PS -- the BRITS ARE STILL IN BASRA!! Of the four southern provinces placed under the protection of British forces, three have been handed over to local control, while the fourth, Basra, should be handed over by the end of the year.

“I will lead a campaign to protect the woman’s rights in Basra, where she exposes to different kinds of repression and a new terrorism,” the general told reporters.

Good for him!!! He wants to get rid of gang violence - sounds like he could be the mayor or police chief of any major city in the US or Canada!!

When we turned over parts of southern Iraq to the Iraqi forces --- this is what we wanted them to do!! Govern themselves and provide their own people with security - keep law and order. And they are - so what the hell is every freaking liberal and apparently even some conservatives ragging on about?? In order for us to stand down ...they need to stand up! GOOD FOR THEM FOR DOING SO!!!

No one said peace, security, tranquility, law and order would suddenly materialize, and that all signs of violence would disappear.

Go figure - Basra is having some of the same problems we all face in big city America...GANG VIOLENCE!

We are a democracy that is dealing with violence: Gang violence: Asian gangs, Crips vs Bloods; AND racial violence is still prevalent; AND we have rapes and violent deaths occurring on daily basis, yet only a fool would leave a pithy comment "looks like chaos to me" about America after reading about the many violent killings that snuffed out young lives in the US over the past week...yet won't think twice about making the same comment when it comes to quoting out of context an incident of religious violence in Iraq.

Should we assume that every time someone is killed violently in the US that we have failed as a democracy? That the city, the state,the entire country is in 'chaos'???

It is sad that 15 women were killed by religious gangs in Basra----but something very important is being overlooked!

Hanaa Edwar, heads the Iraqi Amal Assn., a human rights group. Her Association (her human rights group) along with legal scholars are opposing Article 41 in the Iraqi constitution.

Thats awesome! Iraq's fledgling democracy is only four years old -- yet they have women in gov't and womens right activists. America saw neither for many many decades after her constitution was written and ratified!!

This is DEMOCRACY at work in Iraq - debate is going on - and yes sadly,sometimes religious street gangs manage to use violence to secure power for themselves, to usurp existing power and as a form of protest about that which they disagree with! But this time, they have a local army willing to stand up to religious extremism!

The problem of religious violence and extremism is an enduring one throughout the Middle East. It won't disappear tomorrow or in ten years... there are many in Iraq that cannot ignore the fact that religion is part of their existence. And so there is debate about Article 61!

The fact that there IS debate going on in Iraq to resolve a certain Article in the constitution that some women feel may leave all women vulnerable to a extreme religious interpretation of the Koran is exciting and it should resonate as a clear sign that Iraq IS succeeding despite the gang deaths.

And liberals in America especially women should be applauding this rather than insisting on wearing headscarves to meet with Syrian Presidents and braying endlessly about 'failures and quagmires' in Iraq!!

Jay --- We left behind a small force in Germany,Japan and South Korea indefinitely - people objected - yet the benefits to the world have far outweighed whatever fears they may have had.

Grrrr..."I think you got it the wrong way round. Security improves, then we leave."

That's not what Conglin says. He said:

"In the past few weeks there has been a tangible improvement in the security there, particularly since British troops vacated their last outpost in Basra's city centre at the end of August."

The cause and effect is very clear in that sentence.

So, which way is it? Is Phelps wrong, security being all the better for the Brits backing out, or is Phelps right, Basra being in near chaos? You can only have it one way, people.

Actually, RR, who says those are the only two options?

Perhaps Yon is the one that is right. His statement, "there has not been a British combat death in over a month" would seem to indicate that there are still British troops there, else his statement would be on a par with saying there have been no people trampled by musk oxen in New York City in the last month.

Of course, that throws your theory that removing troops = peace right out the window, so of course you wouldn't even consider that, would you?

The facts are these:

On September 3 the British forces pulled out of their main city base and are now located by the airport. UK fatalities in the province fell from eight in July to five in August to only two in September.

British troops in the province have limited their combat missions to protecting the airport base and its supply lines, protecting international borders, and keeping a force on standby to intervene in case of emergency.

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19dd44f8-75af-11dc-b7cb-0000779fd2ac.html

They have withdrawn from the city, and there are significantly fewer combat deaths among the British soldiers. Coincidence? Not likely.

The real question should be: are things better or worse for the Iraqis in Basra? And does that make Phelps right, or wrong?

RR, the decrease in casualties mirrors that across the rest of the country. Therefore, it could just as easily be attributed to the general uprising against Al Qaeda because of AQ's brutality.

Face it, it is impossible to say with certainty that the withdrawal of troops led to peace. There are simply too many variables.

"if al anbar is such a great story why is it that the administration turned down all offers of cooperation with tribal leaders until recently"

Reaching out to tribal leaders has been ongoing since at least the pacification of Falluja in 04. Problem was the Baathists and nationalists were not interested. However, several years of having their arses handed to them by the Marines, plus AQs increasingly dictatorial nature, made them realize they had better accept the Government of Iraq/US offers to come in from the cold

If dopes are going to lie about Michael Yon, let's tell the truth about Phelps. He broke the Anita Hill story, and claimed that Hill was an open admirer of the judicial philosophy of Judge Bork. That last part sound right to you?

If you do buy into the idea that peace is breaking out in Basra, it's pretty clear that the British pullout hasn't hurt it any.

And if you define "peace" in terms of a lack of coalition troop deaths, then it should be pretty obvious by now that pulling out of country is the only way it could possibly ever be achieved.

Speaking for myself, I don't, and I don't. I can't speak for the other braniacs here.

jay k.,

I've never heard of General Biden.

Do you have a link?

RR, increased security is also seen in the declining numbers of Iraqi deaths by Al-Qaeda violence.

Do you believe that pulling out would continue that trend, or would it reverse it?

tara...key word SMALL...nearly 200,000 troops and mercinaries is not a small presence.
m. simon...traditionally politicians make policy...generals execute that policy.
and lastly grrrr...the us was reaching out to tribal leaders, in this case the shia. now they are reaching out to the sunnis in anbar, who have pushed out all the shia. there is a good deal of question whether they are pushing out aqi, or are simply assimilating them under a different "banner". at any rate we have effectively now funded and armed both sides of the civil war. whether it is actually good news or not, in anbar a soft partition has taken place...which is what biden has been promoting for years. now the white house points to it as a model of success, and out of the other side of their mouths discount the biden-gelb plan. so does the administration not know what is happening? or are simply they playing politics? which is just a nicer version of "are they incompetent or simply bald-faced liars"?

C-C-G

Al Queda has two stated goals. One is the elimination of western influence in the muslim world. The other is the formation of a caliphate.

Clearly, leaving Iraq would reduce the violence on the former count. I don't see violence as helpful to their latter goal.

My guess is that when we pull out, AQ does too. That's not to say that Iraq becomes a playground, because the struggle among the various sects will continue. Al Queda, however, is likely to become about as influential in the region as they were before the war, which is of course not at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 9, 2007 03:27 PM

I don't trust the media, these could have been planted by the liberal media...and hollywood actors are not to be trusted they are defeatocrats!! More proof is needed.

Yon's a complete fraud and nobody,
====
how can you qoute wikimedia CY?? isn't it the stalwart of liberal misinformation?? I need a link from Conservepedia. This all smells and needs some proof and investigation, someone should call Yon up and ask him about his 'past'.

jugger exemplifies the conservative mindset, "if i don't believe it, its not true."

How many embeds does the MSM currently have in Iraq? Where are all these progressive thinkers getting their strategic and tactical information?

ibfamous, jugger is rather obviously a liberal troll. Please do keep up.

RR, you make my case for me. Al Qaeda wants to reestablish the Islamic caliphate. Why would they leave Iraq when they can easily make it the first part of that caliphate if we let them?

You might actually try thinking through your own argument before setting fingers to keyboard.

I suspect ibfamous and jugger are sock puppets with the same hand inside. Probably using different proxy servers, tho.

....and lastly grrrr...the us was reaching out to tribal leaders, in this case the shia. now they are reaching out to the sunnis in anbar, who have pushed out all the shia.....

First, there were NEVER many shia in al-Anbar. Second, the US was reaching out to sunnis in Iraq from the time of the liberation of Falluja from al-Qaida. These were SUNNI tribal leaders in Al-Anbar. Only now after major losses in a grinding war of attrition have they agreed to work with the coalition, they have no other option. Even Saddam never controled al-Anbar making this all the more remarkable.

.....there is a good deal of question whether they are pushing out aqi, or are simply assimilating them under a different "banner".....

There is very little doubt that AQ is being driven out by a distinct enemy, the Sunni tribes who should have been there natural allies, it is a major deeat for Osamas organization.

... at any rate we have effectively now funded and armed both sides of the civil war. whether it is actually good news or not, in anbar a soft partition has taken place...which is what biden has been promoting for years.

Again, your are totally wrong, al-Anbar was allways almost 100%. Joe biden and the democrats idiots in congress who want soft partition are profoundly stupid given that the vast majority of Iraqis do not want it (and that now has some significance since they are now in a democracy.

C-C-G

We are spending several American lives and roughly 2 billion dollars a week, supposedly to bring the gift of self-determination to the Iraqi people. Not that they've figured out to do with this power yet, but it's actually more likely now than ever that Iraq is amenable to joining a caliphate.

The best defense against a caliphate in that region, if you're seriously afraid of such a thing, is a secular strong-arm dictator. We found the last one of those hiding in a spider hole and hung him, remember?

And every time one of our crack security contractors opens unprovoked fire on a crowd of Iraqi innocents? Well that just brings the caliphate another several hundred purple fingers closer to becoming a reality. And as if we should care.

You do understand what a caliphate is, don't you? And of course you are aware that there are countless muslims wishing to return to a caliphate system through peaceful means?

The very idea that we should be expending blood and treasure in an attempt to deny the muslim caliphate is the strangest one yet, even stranger than the logical disconnects I originally came here to complain about.

...The best defense against a caliphate in that region, if you're seriously afraid of such a thing, is a secular strong-arm dictator. We found the last one of those hiding in a spider hole and hung him, remember?...

Riiiight. Strong arm dictators in the middle East have worked out so well for us in the past.
For example, the Saudis whoes un-democratic nation gave us 9/11 (you do remember that dont you) and saddam who gave US the invasion of Kuwait and WMD almost up to and including a nuke. The only long term solution in the middle east is democracy. And for every mistake by Blackwater or UAE based Australian security firms there are dozens of rogue Mehdi civiliann killings that drive a thousand purple fingers away from Iran. This may be why the clerical structure in Najaf recently moved AWAY from the teachings of the Iranian ayatollahs.

RR, democracy is possible in mostly Muslim countries. Look at Turkey. I happen to have a very good friend living there--an American citizen--who has recently married a Turk, so I have some very good information on what is happening there and in the region around Turkey.

Turkey has not fallen to the caliphate, and is not ruled by a strong-arm dictator. Therefore, your theory is disproven.

But, I am sure that you can come up with another, equally easily disproven. You're obviously flailing about, trying everything you can think of to proclaim the war in Iraq a failure, even if a few moments' thought would prove your theories nonsense.

By the way, your name is fooling no one. You are not a Republican, reluctant or otherwise.