This Could Get Interesting...

Our real heroes

On June 25th, we lost a great man. He had positively affected so many, and would have touched countless others had his life not been tragically cut short. America will miss him. We don’t know how much yet, but we’ll miss what he could have been, what he would have done. His name was Brian Bradshaw.

1st Lieutenant Bradshaw, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, died in an IED attack along a dusty road near Keyhl, Afghanistan. He was a bright, optimistic young man who was going places. As a high school student in Steilacoom, Washington, he was already on the county search and rescue team and Catholic Youth Organization counselor. In Afghanistan, he loved passing out books and toys to the kids and always worried about his men, not himself. He was 24.

America has lost 19 other sons, brothers, fathers and friends in Afghanistan and Iraq since that day. Each was great in his own way. They were all volunteers, and knew exactly why they were serving. They saw their mission clearly, and chose it knowing what the ultimate cost might be. They represent the best of their generation.

That they are virtually ignored -- while an obscene media frenzy inundates us with images of a rockstar’s pelvic gyrations and his gold-plated coffin -- is an additional tragedy. These men are our real heroes, and every school kid ought to know their names and see their pictures. Here’s my feeble, yet heartfelt attempt at honoring them:

On June 28th, Private Steven Drees from Peshtigo, Wisconsin died from wounds suffered in a firefight. He manned the machinegun on a HumVee, and fellow platoon members say his courage, as he stayed up on the gun to return fire, saved their lives. He loved hunting and fishing with his twin brother, Charlie. He was 20.

On July 2nd Lance Corporal Charles Sharp, 8th Marine Regiment, from Adairsville, Georgia, was killed in action during operations in Helmand province. He was only 20, but had already served Iraq too. When he became a Marine at 17, he told his dad he wanted to fight for those who couldn’t fight for themselves.

On July 4th, while we celebrated America’s independence, Justin Casillas, 19, from Dunnigan California, and Aaron Fairborn, 20, from Aberdeen Washington, were killed when a suicide bomber attacked Combat Outpost Zerok, in Paktika province. Justin dreamed of being a soldier since childhood. Aaron loved dirt bikes and wanted to be a mechanic. They were both paratroopers with the 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

Since June 25th, the other American heroes that gave the highest measure of devotion are: Lieutenant Derwin Williams, Sergeant Terry Lynch, PfC Peter Cross, and Navy Petty Officer Tony Randolph, along with 5 others whose names have not been released, were killed in Afghanistan. Army Sergeants Edward Kramer, Roger Adams, Juan Baldeosingh, and Timothy David, and Specialists Robert Bittiker and Joshua Hazlewood died in Iraq.

Oh. Also. Michael Jackson died at 50 in his bed on June 25th. . . He was a singer.

T.T.

See my other columns on Afghanistan and Iraq

People power vs. the mechanics of repression

Watching Iranians rise up against the forces of tyranny reminds me of a similar process (though smaller in scale) that I witnessed. In the summer of 1987, I found myself caught up in street protests in Panama, as people rose up against strongman Manuel Noriega. Almost daily, protesters marched, burned tires and set up barricades. The dictator sent troops in with batons, tear gas, water cannon… and guns. The suppressive power of a corrupt state was on full display.

The air was electric with tension, and things could get dangerous in a hurry. Shotgun pellets literally rained down, clattering on tin roofs. One sight drove home a lesson. In downtown Panama City, protesters would mass in caravans of cars, waving flags and honking horns in unison. In response, riot police started occupying each corner along the main boulevard.

I noticed that one man in each squad wielded a heavy wooden pick-axe handle. Clearly, they were meant to smash windows (or heads) if anyone started defiantly honking their horn. What struck me was the calculation that involved. Someone higher up had a plan, or quickly organized one, to stop protester caravans and to send a crude, but effective, message. Sure enough, when the pick-axe handles came out, the honking stopped.

In Iran, of course, the upheaval has been on a vastly larger scale, and far more violent. But we can see the same tactics of intimidation at work. As millions took to the streets in multiple cities, the sheer mass of protests at first daunted the Khameini/Ahmadinejad regime and put them in a dilemma. If they tried a Tienanmen-style crackdown, some military or police units might join the protesters. Even the Revolutionary Guard’s loyalty was suspect. However, the momentum against them was building by the hour. Measures had to be taken.

The regime response could be seen as an Orwellian masterpiece in containing, manipulating and repressing a popular uprising (at least an unarmed one). An essential step was controlling the press, and troublesome journalists were detained, deterred or deported. Meanwhile, aided by telecom giants Nokia and Siemens, phone and Internet communications were restricted and monitored, methodically cutting the people off from the outside. Using European-supplied technology, the security services could gather information on key dissidents, then track them down later.

Their most feared tool has been the Basij, plainsclothes quasi-militia that infiltrated and terrorized the demonstrators. With knives, clubs, iron rods, axes and guns if necessary, the Basij sliced into crowds to injure, capture or simply kill the leaders and instigators. Even more insidious, at night the thugs moved into neighborhoods seeking selected targets, including bloggers, YouTube posters, and anyone speaking out or just trying to speak out. They broke down doors, beat up entire families and hauled people off.

This is the nature of the so-called theocracy in Iran. The mullahs and their inner circle are at once capable of subtle, discreet suppression, overt intimidation and raw, naked force. They have an entire array of units, methods and technologies to deploy against citizens to maintain their power. Clearly they’re willing to kill their own people. And yet...

Despite the guns, the gas, the intrusive technology, and the terror-sowing thugs, the regime teeters on the edge of the precipice. The protests have been quelled for now, but there is a growing wave of popular dissent that can quickly swell to tsunami-like proportions.

I don’t think this is over.

T.T.

See my other columns on Iran

The new Iranian revolution?

As I write this, it appears the radical regime in Iran is gaining the upper hand through force and intimidation. Reports today (Tuesday) are that more people are fearful and staying off the streets. The infamous Basij militia are hunting protest leaders down, and don’t hesitate to terrorize, beat or kill anyone -- including women.

But in a revolutionary situation, momentum ebbs and flows quickly. Iran could change dramatically within days, even hours. The death of Neda, a young woman shot through the heart by government forces on Sunday, could provide the rallying cry for even bigger mass uprisings.

Moreover, the violence has prompted behind-the-scenes maneuvering that could prove decisive. Cracks are clearly showing in the theocracy. A central character in the drama is Ayatollah and former president Rafsanjani, a religiously conservative, yet reform-minded, rival of “Supreme Leader” Khameini. According to Al-Arabiya News, Rafsanjani convened an assembly of Shiite clerics over the weekend. Their purpose: to determine a new form of government. Reportedly, the assembly considered “forming a collective ruling body and scrapping the model of Ayatollah Khomeini.”

But here’s the really interesting part. Also present was a representative of Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the venerable leader of Iraq’s Shiites. This is a potentially huge development. Sistani exercises vast influence in Iraq, but also throughout Islam. Over his long life, he has consistently espoused the “quietist” Shiite tradition, which is that clerics should advise, guide and teach righteous principles, but not wield political power. Sistani’s influence has been key in Iraq, always pushing for elections and calling for reconciliation during the worst violence.

What is not commonly understood, though, is his standing outside Iraq – especially within Iran. He represents a far older strain of Shiite religious philosophy than the “Khomeinism” of Iran. Since Saddam’s downfall, Sistani’s quietism has become strong and vital once again, showing Iranians a different example of their religion in action. To Sistani, there is no inherent conflict between democracy and Islam.

Furthermore, Sistani and his followers are guardians of the holiest cities in the Shiite sect. Najaf (where Sistani lives) and Karbala are destinations for tens of thousands of Iranian pilgrims every month. The shrines were reopened in 2003 by U.S. and Coalition troops, and since then literally millions of devout Iranians have visited Iraq. There, despite the turmoil, they’ve seen their Iraqi brethren enjoying new religious (and political) freedoms.

In this light, seeing Iranian political clerics searching for a way to “dethrone” the now blood-stained and forever discredited Khameini, and re-order Iran’s government, makes perfect sense. And their invitation to the respected leader of Shiite quietism to participate is loaded with meaning. I think we can see that significance as thousands and thousands of Iranians have marched peacefully, their mouths taped in silent protest, while tens of thousands raise prayerful voices each night from the rooftops.

What would a newly-formed Iranian Islamic Republic, based on quietist principles and fostering a true democratic process, be like? How would such a state behave? Maybe, just maybe, we’ll see. Stranger things have happened.

T.T.

See my other columns on Iran

Twitter wars in Iran

I’m on the road, and haven’t been able to follow coverage of Iran’s stolen election and the resulting popular upheaval. So, tonight I’m up late trolling cyberspace to catch up. Wow! This is historic. I’m not a “Twitterer”, but I may have to become one. The fast-growing social networking site is where the most up-to-date information about Iran is found right now.

In just a few minutes, I found the main Twitter “hashtag” to follow. Type in #iranelections and a whole new dimension unfolds. Iranian people are telling the world what’s going on in real time. Here’s a glimpse (with my comments in parens)…

Iran revoked all foreign press permits.
(Like most “tweets”, there’s no confirmation of this. This is the rumor mill on steroids, but, twitter rumors today are turning into headlines tomorrow)

URGNT@ ALL jornlsts, Tday 15:30 Prss Conf in Tehran, Bahar Shomali St. #9
(Translation: Iranian protesters trying to set up a meet-the-press session)

Do not follow ‘freemedianews’ it's fake and spreading false info.
(There’s a “twitter war” going on between pro- and anti-government forces trying to win the information battle)

How to stop a tank: Spray paint or fire extinguisher the tank's viewing window. Locate the air supply, fill with tear gas.
(This is clearly why the regime has tried to block Twitter access)

UNCONFIRMED: they just executed 3 students on valiasr st.
(And this may be what happens to protesters trying to take on tanks with fire extinguishers)

The Allaho Akbar shout-off is 10pm for the Ayatollah, 10:30-12:00 for free Iran.
(This refers to people gathering on the rooftops at night, shouting “God is great!” in unison. It’s a tactic resurfacing from the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Apparently, it’s being used by supporters on both sides)

Proxies out of Iran: 218.253.65.99:808, and 219.50.16.70:8080
(Tech savvy users from around the world, but especially young Americans, are helping Iranians get their message out . Many have set up proxy servers so Iranian bloggers can avoid regime censors

Urgent appeal to Iran security monitors; the tide is turning and so should you. Save yourselves and join the uprising.
(This is a call for members of the regime’s own security forces to join pro-democracy forces)

The “microblogs” on Twitter also link to other widely used web-based services. Thousands of photos and YouTube videos have been posted online, showing the huge protests and battles between demonstrators and police. There’s even an interactive Google map of Tehran, showing updated locations of marches – but also where police have posted snipers, and which intersections have tanks.

I’ve noticed a theme emerging in the photos smuggled out through Twitter, and the videos appearing on YouTube. In several instances, anti-government demonstrators have overwhelmed squads of riot police. However, after the policemen are “captured” and their batons taken away, the young protesters are apparently protecting them from being roughed up further. I can’t tell how prevalent it is, but it’s an electrifying statement of “people power”. If those policemen ever put down their batons and join the crowds, the regime is done for.

T.T.

Just because you're alarmist...

I’m very wary of alarmists. One of the easiest ways to sell papers and attract advertisers is to warn of catastrophe. Last week’s “exclusive” in the Washington Times certainly got my attention, Al-Qaida eyes bio attack from Mexico. The story concerns a video, where one Abdullah al-Nafisi of Kuwait speaks to an unseen audience about how easy it would be to launch a biological attack against the U.S. In the clip, which appeared in February, the loathsome al-Nafisi rants "Four pounds of anthrax… carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans… 9/11 will be small change in comparison."

Now that’s an attention-grabber. At least in some quarters. It got play last week on Fox News, and across conservative talk radio and the blogosphere, since it combines terrorist threats with illegal immigration. But the establishment media has been virtually silent on it. Why is that?

Well, for one, the Washington Times is the notorious “right-wing rag” set up to counterbalance the Washington Post, so it has few friends in the mainstream. Moreover, Sara A. Carter, the reporter on the story, has a reputation for hyperbole that looks deserved, in my opinion. She’s written a series of stories supposedly uncovering terrorist plots to infiltrate into the U.S. across our southern border. Each has some basic facts, but her breathless prose goes over the top. And watching her interviewed on Fox, she seemed too wide-eyed to be objective.

A key, but questionable, assertion Carter makes is that al-Nafisi is a “recruiter” for al-Qaida. She cites an anonymous “counterterrorism official” as her source, but I found nothing openly available to back that up. In most reports, he’s referred to as a Kuwait dissident or professor. His connection to al-Qaida is unclear. One more problem. The original translation of al-Nafisi’s video (done by the Israeli-backed Middle East Media Research Institute) only has excerpts. We don’t get the whole context.

OK, I’ve discredited the media source. I’ve questioned al-Nafisi’s connection to al-Qaida. And I’ve tried to cast doubt on the translation of his words. Feeling better now?

If not, maybe it’s because these facts remain: Millions of illegal immigrants flow into the U.S. every year from Mexico. Al-Qaida has a well-documented interest in acquiring biological weapons, including anthrax. Five people died, and our entire country was panicked in 2001 by a few anthrax-laced envelopes. And now a self-described terrorist sympathizer (recruiter or not), who clearly has an audience, has said the following:

There is good reason for the Americans' fears, because Al-Qaeda… had laboratories in north Afghanistan. They have scientists, chemists, and nuclear physicists… These “terrorists” are the world's most God-fearing people. They are the most honorable people in the world, the best people in the world… There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings, and so on. One person…will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this “confetti” all over them, and then will do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real celebration.

Sometimes, the alarmists are right.

T.T.

See my other columns on Mexico
See more links, on the Project Narco-Guerra page

Videos:

Nuclear dominos: Israel girds for war

Last week I wrote about the dominos being pushed over by North Korea’s nuclear test, and it’s seemingly hell-bent drive to provoke a confrontation. The biggest of those dominos is half a world away, but will have global impact if it finally tips.

Israeli leaders are eyeing the Korean peninsula with rapt attention, and a terrible sense of foreboding. They have watched as the world -- and the United States -- backs down each time Kim Jong Il, a man many analysts believe is emotionally unstable, takes another step towards employable nuclear weapons.

This sad example weighs heavily as they also monitor Iran's steady march towards nuclear capability, and the similar unwillingness of the “international community” to take decisive action. And putting aside Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric (wiping Israel off the map, etc.), Israeli decision-makers are gravely worried about Iran’s North Korean connection.

North Korean technology and components have long been integrated into Iran’s “Shahab” ballistic missiles (the optimum delivery system for nukes), so there are well-established channels for technological exchanges. Then there was the al-Kibar reactor in Syria. Press reports establish that the facility was a conduit for exchanging knowledge, data and materials between North Korean and Iranian nuclear scientists. Some further allege plutonium from al-Kibar was slated for an Iranian weapons program. Clearly, Israel was concerned enough to bomb the complex into rubble in September 2007.

That was two years ago. If Israeli leaders saw sufficient cause to launch jets then, what must they think now? They know they are racing the clock. In February, the IAEA reported Iran already has enough low-enriched uranium to theoretically produce one nuclear weapon. Since then, President Ahmadinejad announced completion of another 1,000 centrifuges (to enrich uranium faster), and development of newer ones that will speed production. He flaunts Iran’s fast-growing capabilities. “Now we have more than 7,000 centrifuges and the West dare not threaten us" he says.

Israel sees the window for action closing in other ways as well. In 2007, Russia announced a contract for the sale to Iran of the highly effective S-300 air defense missile system. Deploying S-300s around Iran’s nuke sites would make it far more difficult, perhaps impossible, for the Israeli air force to strike them (begging the question of what other means Israel might resort to). Russia continues to play cagey in public, recently announcing the S-300 sale has been “frozen”, but Tel Aviv can hardly take vague assurances at face value.

When Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister (again) in March, it meant Israel’s electorate was returning a proven hawk to office. Netanyahu is unambiguous about his determination to defend Israel. In a speech after President Obama’s visit, he declared, “The danger is hurtling towards us. The real danger is underestimating the threat. My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel ... the leadership's job is to eliminate the danger. Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one.”

Despite the Obama administration’s desires for “constructive engagement” with Iran, Israel is gearing up for entirely different kind of engagement.

T.T.

See my other columns on Israel

Nuclear dominos: Effects from North Korea's test

The geo-strategic shockwaves of North Korea's nuclear warhead test are being felt around the world. This is a big deal. Dictator Kim Jong Il is doing more than poking President Obama in the eye. He is shoving the United States squarely in the chest. And based on perceptions of U.S. resolve (or lack thereof), very dangerous chain reactions may be in play:

• South Korea is faced with a real gut-check. The day after the test, South Korea joined the American-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a multilateral effort begun by the Bush administration to prevent trafficking in WMD technology. Having South Koreans onboard the PSI (finally) is a plus, but only if they're serious about intercepting suspicious North Korean ships. Otherwise, it's just another scrap of paper. After Seoul's PSI announcement, though, Pyongyang called it an "act of war" and is threatening "unimaginable and merciless punishment" if North Korean ships are stopped.
  
  
• Japan forswore development of nuclear weapons after World War II, enshrined that pledge in their constitution and signed the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But North Korea's continued atomic saber rattling has officials in Tokyo re-examining that commitment. With its nuclear power industry, stocks of plutonium and hi-tech base, all that stands between Japan and building the bomb is a policy decision. Many consider Japan as only a "screwdriver turn" away from a weapons program. Erosion of the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and weak international responses to rogue weapons programs, could prompt Japanese engineers to break out the screwdrivers. And a nuclear-armed Japan would wreck any pretense of international nuclear non-proliferation.
  
  
• Iran trades notes with North Korea, according to many reports, not just on technical details, but on how to manipulate the international system through threats (North Korea's main tactic) and misdirection (Iran's MO). This nuclear "tag-team" approach works mainly in Iran's favor by pulling the spotlight away from their steady progress in refining enough uranium for a weapon and making the ayatollahs seem almost reasonable in comparison with Kim Jong Il. You can bet Iranian leaders are carefully watching to see what the U.S. and international reaction to this latest test will be, and measuring just how far they can push.
  
  
• Saudi Arabia and Egypt are also proliferation concerns - but mostly through perception, not reality. Both fear a Shiite-led, Persian-centric and nuclear-armed Iran becoming the dominant power in the region. Various press reports and rumors allege that the Saudis have secretly considered acquiring nuclear weapons technology or funded programs in Pakistan or Saddam's Iraq in exchange for weapons. Likewise, there's a history of reporting on Egyptian desires/plots to work on atomic weapons. Just last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency found samples of highly enriched uranium from the Inshas research site, setting off new speculation about Egyptian nuclear intentions.
  
  
• Israel, with nuclear missiles and a high-tech air force, is the biggest domino. And Israeli perceptions of Iran's intentions, the validity of American security guarantees and the world's unwillingness to stop North Korea have that domino on edge. More on Israel next week...

T.T.

Video:

Hans Blix on Al-Jazeera

Hunter-killers vs. COINinistas

Last week’s surprise announcement that General McKiernan, senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan, was being replaced after only 11 months raised many questions. What did he do wrong? Who was behind it? Who’s this guy McChrystal? The biggest question, though, concerns our long-term strategy for the war there. What is the intent behind putting Gen McChrystal in charge?

Over the last several months, strategists, military leaders and politicos have engaged in intense debate over two competing approaches for Afghanistan. It’s been going on behind closed (and cypher locked) doors, so to see the outlines of the argument requires reading closely between the lines.

On one side are advocates of a counter-insurgency (COIN) campaign. These “COINinistas” are a fresh generation of soldiers, leaders and scholars who maintain that securing the population, investing in development, and increasing “governance capacities” in Afghanistan is the way forward. They are still basking from major-league success in Iraq, where they designed the surge. Moreover, their guru-in-chief is General David Petreaus, hero of Iraq and now CENTCOM Commander.

Trouble is, doing what the counter-insurgency crowd presses for will mean lots more troops, time and money. The COINinistas commonly talk in terms of decades, not years, and talk frankly about the costs involved. It’s a pitch not many in Washington want to hear.

The other camp, the “hunter-killers”, wants to refocus towards the counter-terrorist fight against al-Qaida, hard-core Taliban and other extremists posing a direct threat. They say we can’t save Afghanistan and the best we can do is continue to capture and destroy hard-core terrorists and disrupt their networks.

This is essentially a theater-wide raiding strategy, using lots of special operations forces (SOF) and even more drone strikes. They’ve also had great successes in Iraq (but not much publicity) and their hunter-killer-in-chief has been Gen McChrystal, head of the Joint Special Ops Command (JSOC) since 2003.

But there are two big problems with a raiding strategy. First, to be effective, the hunter-killers still need secure bases close enough to their targets. That means multiple bases inside Afghanistan, which means securing those bases, which means ground patrols, which means air support, etc, etc. Which quickly gets back to implementing some kind of counter-insurgency strategy.

Second, many hunter-killer advocates really just want an easy way out of Afghanistan. I’m especially wary of politicians, who I suspect favor a hunter-killer approach because (they think) it’s cheaper, more antiseptic -- and less troublesome to back out on.

The nomination of Gen McChrystal, legendary in the SOF world, is certainly a sign. But of what? His SOF task forces in Iraq found Saddam, killed Zaraqawi and decimated al-Qaida’s leadership there. Will he reshape the fight in Afghanistan into a massive terrorist hunt?

I don’t think so. Remember, his boss will be Gen Petreaus, America’s top COINinista. Petreaus and McChrystal reportedly worked great together in Iraq, and Petreaus wanted him for the job in Afghanistan. What we’re probably seeing is a merging of proven hunter-killer tactics into an overarching counter-insurgency strategy. At least I hope so.

T.T.

Who really lost Vietnam?

Last Saturday, I had the privilege of talking with the local chapter of the Marine Corps League. Marines are awesome. Their camaraderie is enviable, their history legendary, and undoubtedly they’re the most operationally-minded service. We had a lively exchange about Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, etc.

Towards the end, we discussed the U.S. record against guerrilla foes. It struck me that, forty years ago, many of these men were patrolling rice paddies and jungle trails in Vietnam. When I asked, “who won the war in Vietnam?” there was no hesitation in their reply -- “We did!”

Most Americans don’t know the real history of that conflict, which has been displaced in popular consciousness by media-driven myths. One of the biggest is that U.S. forces were defeated by barefoot guerrillas in black pajamas. That’s just not true.

The Viet Cong (VC) were communist insurgents trying to overthrow the government of South Vietnam. They were sponsored by North Vietnam, itself receiving massive support from the Soviet Union and China. They were portrayed as a southern populist movement, but the VC were created, supplied and controlled by Hanoi.

Between 1965 and 1968, U.S. troops were indeed mostly engaging insurgents. Increasingly, though, the VC lost popular support and fighters, and were reinforced by North Vietnamese Army (NVA) regulars. The guerrillas were slowly being defeated.

Shifting strategy, in early 1968 Hanoi orchestrated a major operation in the south, with the goal of seizing cities and igniting a popular uprising. This was the Tet Offensive, which began with multiple surprise attacks. Some 80,000 VC conducted spectacular attacks but within days, sometimes hours, they were pushed back. The South Vietnamese army (ARVN) held, there was no uprising, and tens of thousands of VC died. Tet was a catastrophe the Viet Cong never recovered from.

After 1968, the fight was essentially between NVA regulars and ARVN troops, backed by U.S. forces. After Nixon took office in 1969, the U.S. built up the ARVN, withdrew American troops and turned the war over to the South Vietnamese. By the end of 1971, most U.S. combat units were gone.

In early 1972, Hanoi launched a massive, conventional assault on South Vietnam (with tanks, not black pajamas). The Easter Offensive stretched the ARVN to the breaking point, but (with heavy U.S. air support) they held. Rather, it was the NVA that broke, suffering heavy casualties, in particular at the battle of An Loc. It was another North Vietnamese defeat.

In January 1973, the Paris Peace accords were signed, effectively ending the war for U.S. ground forces. At that point, the NVA was decimated, the VC were a footnote, and South Vietnam could stand on its own – assuming continued American military aid and airpower support. Essentially, this was victory for the U.S. and South Vietnam.

But American support was not assured. With Democrats controlling Congress, promised military aid for South Vietnam was cut off. In 1975, almost three years after its 1972 offensive was crushed, North Vietnam mounted another major conventional attack. This time, however, Congress denied U.S air support, NVA tanks rolled into Saigon and the myth of American defeat was enshrined.

But don’t blame the Marines.

T.T.

Video:

CBS coverage of Tet Offensive, 1968

Defense of Dong Ha Bridge, 1972, Col John Ripley USMC (pt1)

Defense of Dong Ha Bridge, 1972, Col John Ripley USMC (pt2)

Evacuation from Saigon, 1975

©2008, WestRim Digital Arts, LLC

Raw courage at the husseiniyah

Violence has edged back up in Iraq lately, showing that the situation is still fragile. In recent weeks, the twisted, hate-crazed remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq have launched a spate of suicide bombings, mostly against Shiite targets, killing dozens and trying to reignite sectarian conflict. As American and Coalition forces draw down, the big question is; are Iraqis ready to stand up? Will they have the force of will to keep and build on what has been given to them at such a terrible cost? Let’s hope the determination shown by some Iraqis last week becomes the norm.

On May 1st, as people gathered in one of Kirkuk’s husseiniyas (a Shiite mosque) for Friday prayers, a suspicious-looking young man approached the exterior gate. His evil intent must have been evident (bulky clothing? excessive sweating?) because security guards moved to block him. Suddenly, he pulled a pistol and fired, wounding two, and kept moving towards the main hall with the drug-induced stare too many Iraqis have witnessed. Inside, panicked worshipers started breaking windows to get out…

Let me interject some background here. We now know from Iraqi authorities that the bomber was 19-year old Ammar Afif Hamada, a Syrian national and al-Qaida terrorist working inside Iraq for the last four years. Reportedly, Hamada had connections to the top level of AQI leaders, and had been part of previous operations in Diyala and Baghdad.

To me, that’s interesting. It makes me wonder what brought him to this point. AQI has traditionally used gullible, young foreigners for “martyrdom operations” in Iraq. They were smuggled in, staged, trained (abused) then cynically sent to their deaths as human bombs. So how did Hamada last this long within AQI ranks? Why strap on a vest now, in 2009, instead of when he first crossed over from Syria? Could this be a sign of desperation? Has the pipeline of young jihadists dried up?

Back to the husseiniya in Kirkuk…

Hamada kept pushing across the courtyard towards the prayer hall. His eyes were glazed over, his gait a bit lurching -- effects of drugs his handlers injected him with. Sewed into his vest were 55 pounds of explosives, studded with hundreds of ball-bearings or bolts. His wristwatch was rigged as the trigger, allowing him to detonate with a touch and shred anyone near.

But, instead of cringing or running (the natural instinct), one of the guards charged Hamada and slammed him to the ground, just yards away from the entrance to the mosque. He wrestled to control Hamada’s hands and pin his arms. Several other men piled on, grabbing every limb to keep him motionless. Someone bound him tight with chord, and they stripped the explosive vest and the wires off his body. (See some amazing photos here).

Now that’s raw courage. Those guards knew any slip-up meant certain death. They could be vaporized at any second, but they still rushed in. With such dedication and willingness to put everything on the line, Iraqis can indeed secure their own future.

T.T.

See my other columns on Iraq

©2008, WestRim Digital Arts, LLC