War Blog
By FrontPage Magazine | November 10, 2006



By Bill Roggio

A change in strategy may be in order, but how much of a change will it be?

Iraqi Army units ‘in the lead.’ Map courtesy of MNF-Iraq. Click map to view.

The results of U.S. midterm elections will clearly have an impact on U.S. policy in Iraq. Less than one day after the Democrats took the House of Representative, and prior to the capture of the Senate, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tendered his resignation. President Bush immediately stepped up with an nomination for Rumsfeld’s replacement: Robert Gates, a former director of the CIA and a member of the Iraqi Study Group, the bipartisan team of experts assigned to search for answers to the problems in Iraq’s development.

STRATFOR’s Fred Burton has an excellent analysis of the political implications of the election on Iraq policy and Mr. Gate’s appointment as Secretary of Defense, which we will not replicate. There are two points which are worth highlighting.

First, Mr. Burton notes that the election, while a rejection of the current strategy in Iraq, does not equate to approval of calls for withdrawal. “What is clear is that the U.S. electorate has shifted away from supporting the Bush administration’s conduct of the war. What is not clear at all is what they have shifted toward. It is impossible to discern any consensus in the country as to what ought to be done,” said Mr. Burton.

This theory is backed by polling data from voters. While there is a clear majority that is unhappy with the current strategy, only one-third of the voters want a full withdrawal. A majority of the American public are searching for a solution, not the abandonment of Iraq. This has political implications on Iraq policy, and may temper the calls for withdrawal.

Polls of voters found a strong majority — about six in 10 — disapproved of the war in Iraq. About a fourth of those polled said they sided with Democrats on wanting to withdraw some troops from Iraq and another three in 10 said they want all troops withdrawn…But while setting timetables may have helped Democrats win votes, they may have a tough time pushing their plan through Congress. Democratic incumbents are divided on how soon to pull troops out of Iraq, and the party risks being held responsible by voters in the 2008 presidential elections if an abandoned Iraq collapses into a full-blown civil war.


Second, Mr. Burton notes the appointment of Mr. Gates is an endorsement of the yet to be released Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report. “The question mark as to the president’s response [to the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report] seems to have been erased, and the forthcoming ISG report soars in significance.” Appointing Mr. Gates, who worked with James Baker, is an implicit signal that President Bush is going to implement some or all of the commission’s suggestions.

But the real question is what is contained within the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report? What are the recommendations? Military and intelligence sources inform us they are quite concerned about the recommendations, and fear the report will signify an acceleration of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of holding their own. The year of hard work getting the vast majority of the Anbar tribes to reject al-Qaeda and cooperate with the government will be in jeopardy. And the U.S. would be leaving an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Ramadi intact, with the potential loss of Anbar, Salahaddin, Babil and Diyala provinces, as well as failing to properly deal with Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iranian backed leader of the Mahdi Army. We would be allow the political process to be dominated by the worst elements of Iraq’s terror groups [Note: we disagree with Mr. Burton’s assessment that the Iraqi political process has collapsed.]

But without knowing the specific details of the report, it is difficult to determine how it will impact policy. One assumption is that U.S. forces will be pulled back to large bases to act as a ‘quick reaction force’ while the Iraqi security forces assume daily patrols and security responsibilities.

This process has been in the works for some time. The Iraqi Army has been ramping up its numbers and taking control of the battlespace over the course of the past year. This fall, the Iraqi government and Multinational Forces-Iraq announced the expansion of the Army by three divisions and increase the manpower of the Army by 37 percent over the next nine months. This includes:

– 18,000 new personnel to replace combat losses, desertions, etc.
– 12,000 new personnel to over-man the combat battalions at 110 percent (this will account for the Army’s liberal leave policy.)
– 18,700 new personnel to establish 3 new Division headquarters, 5 new Brigade HQs, 20 new Battalions and 1 new Special Operations Forces Battalion.
– 10,000 new personnel will be trained every 2 months.

The three extra combat divisions are obviously designed to replace U.S. combat troops at some point in the future (it appears the end of 2007 is a target date) and allow the U.S. to draw down to a single division, along with support/logistical personnel, advisers, Air Force, and Special Forces. The U.S. needs to ensure it maintains enough troops in country to fill the gaps when Iraqi forces fail – and they will from time to time – as well as dramatically increase the embedded trainers in the Army and police formations to nurture the development of the security forces.

Will the Baker-Hamilton Commission accelerate this process by setting timetables and establishing benchmarks to push the Iraqi government to make hard decisions? Will this create too great a burden on the Iraqis security forces to shoulder the responsibility before they are prepared? One thing is clear: a public, dramatic shift in U.S. troop numbers, as well as rhetoric to bring the troops home at all costs will only embolden the enemies of Iraq to increase their attacks and undermine the Iraqi government.  Thursday, November 9, 2006

Muslims in glass houses

Muslims in glass houses

Why is the Muslim sense of victimhood so inflated, given that many Muslim societies won’t put their own houses in order? And why is this double standard downplayed so much in Britain?

Mohammad Siddique Khan, ringleader of the July 7 bombers, justified his action as revenge for the killing of Muslims by Western forces in the Middle East. Dhiren Barot, sentenced yesterday for plotting to kill thousands of civilians, gave a similar rationale for his crimes. Much has been said about the moral squalor of these comments, but far less about their sheer incoherence.

Let us grant that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and overlook the inconvenient fact that most Muslim deaths there are now the fault of other Muslims. Forget the equally unpalatable truth that large majorities of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan support Western intervention in their countries. Look instead beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, back well before 9/11, and you see innumerable Christian communities on the defensive against rampant forms of Islam.

Siddique Khan and his associates were allowed to practise their religion freely in Britain, but there is scarcely a country from Morocco to Iraq in which Christians are able to worship without harassment.

Though horrifying, the carnage in Iraq is dwarfed by that of Sudan, where the Islamic Government has been responsible for killing two million Christian and other non-Muslim civilians since 1989.

Christians in Turkey, Jordan and Pakistan, among other countries, live in regular fear of attack, and there is strong evidence that the attitudes underlying such aggression are fomented through official channels. In a recent letter to Kofi Annan, campaigners for the charity Christian Solidarity International wrote that “the role of the Saudi-based Organisation of the Islamic Conference, representing 57 Muslim states, in creating a climate for violent confrontation is a cause of deep concern”.

The reason we hear so little about religious oppression in the Muslim world is straightforward: young Christians in the West don’t become “radicalised”, and persecuted Christians tend not to respond with violence. That should make them more worthy of attention and support, not less.

Memo to the winners: No easy fixes for Iraq, Iran, N. Korea

McCain goes from RINO to full-blown (D) in one sentence

McCain goes from RINO to full-blown (D) in one sentence

Record Refutes McCain’s ‘Day at the Beach’ Charge

By Nathan Burchfiel Staff Writer
August 24, 2006

( – Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused the Bush administration of creating the impression that the war in Iraq would be “some kind of day at the beach.” But transcripts of Bush’s speeches from March 2003 show that Bush tried to distance himself from analysts who said the campaign would be easy.

During a campaign stop for Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), McCain said, “One of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required,” according to the Associated Press.

But in his address to the nation on March 19, 2003 – as American fighters began dropping bombs on Baghdad – Bush said the bombings were the “opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.”

The conflict “could be longer and more difficult than some predicted,” Bush explained, due to the harsh terrain and unpredictable fighting methods of the enemy. He added that “helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.”

Is it me, or is McCain beginning to sound like a (D)?

Danish Victory: Radical Imam Leaves!

Danish Victory: Radical Imam Leaves!

The controversial imam Raed Hlayhel, who was very active one year ago stirring up hatred against Denmark in the Arab world, has announced that he is leaving Denmark and will never come back:

“I have always said that if the Danish courts do not punish the newspaper Jyllands-Posten [for publishing the Muhammad cartoons] I will leave this country. And I will never come back.”

As far as I know nobody has asked him to come back yet…

Mitt Romney’s Evangelical Problem

Washington pundits in the throes of post-election doldrums are notoriously eager to find a fresh face to crown the “early favorite” for the next presidential campaign. Even by those standards, however, the speed with which they flocked to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been remarkable. Last December, barely a month after Bush’s reelection, George Will devoted a column to Romney’s potential, and a quick succession of profiles in the Weekly Standard, National Review, and The Atlantic Monthly appeared in the spring. Who could blame them? Romney has had a successful business career (he is known to most Americans as the man who saved the Salt Lake City Olympics). He comes from noble moderate Republican lineage (his father was governor of Michigan). He is attractive (the National Review sighed over his “chiseled handsomeness”). And he grabbed national headlines—and the attention of social conservatives—by standing up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage. Just as Democrats are always looking for a liberal nominee from a red state, Republicans dream about a candidate like Romney: a social conservative from the most cerulean of blue states who can please the base while not scaring off moderates.There’s only one problem. Romney is a Mormon, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Mormonism was never an issue when Orrin Hatch ran for president, but Hatch was never talked up with even a smidgen of the seriousness that accompanies the Massachusetts governor. Yet each Romney profile plays down the Mormon issue. In a typical treatment, under the headline “Matinee Mitt,” John Miller admits in the National Review that some of Romney’s Republican opponents might highlight a few of “Mormonism’s doctrinal oddities,” but concludes that “there is no telling how this will play out,” and “it’s even possible to think that Romney’s Mormonism could become a hidden asset.”It’s understandable that political observers want to think Romney’s religion wouldn’t be a problem. He’s an appealing candidate with compassionate conservative allure. Moreover, we would all like to believe that a politician’s religious affiliation isn’t an obstacle to higher office. There’s a general sense, particularly among the chattering class, that we’ve gotten past that. Didn’t Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) run on the Democratic ticket in 2000 with no problem? Aren’t there a handful of Catholic candidates among the field of potential Republican nominees for 2008?

Americans have indeed become more religiously tolerant, but the first Mormon to run for president will clearly have to change some minds. In the late 1960s, the percentage of Americans who said they would not vote for a Jewish or Catholic presidential candidate was in the double digits; by 1999, those numbers had fallen to 6 and 4 percent, respectively (roughly the same as the percentage of voters who say they wouldn’t vote for a Baptist). Compare that to the 17 percent of Americans who currently say they would have qualms electing a Mormon to the White House. That number hasn’t changed one whit since 1967, the year that Romney’s father considered a presidential run (he abandoned the effort after making a gaffe about how the military “brainwashed” him into supporting the Vietnam War).

Some of this anti-Mormonism is a fairly fuzzy sort of bias, based mostly on rumors and unfamiliarity and the vague feeling that Mormons are kind of weird. It’s a wobbly opposition that can be overcome by good public relations that defuses concerns about the religion and shifts focus to the personality of the candidate. This is how someone like Romney gets elected in a blue state like Massachusetts, where even Republicans are generally tolerant.

But moderate Republicans aren’t the ones who could derail a Romney candidacy. His obstacle is the evangelical base—a voting bloc that now makes up 30 percent of the Republican electorate and that wields particular influence in primary states like South Carolina and Virginia. Just as it is hard to overestimate the importance of evangelicalism in the modern Republican Party, it is nearly impossible to overemphasize the problem evangelicals have with Mormonism. Evangelicals don’t have the same vague anti-LDS prejudice that some Americans do. For them it’s a doctrinal thing, based on very specific theological disputes that can’t be overcome by personality or charm or even shared positions on social issues. Romney’s journalistic boosters either don’t understand these doctrinal issues or try to sidestep them. But ignoring them won’t make them go away. To evangelicals, Mormonism isn’t just another religion. It’s a cult.

“A stronghold of Satan”

The first time I ever heard about Mormons was in fifth grade, sitting in a basement classroom of my Baptist church, watching a filmstrip about cults. Our Sunday school class was covering a special month-long unit on false religions; in the mail-order curriculum, Mormonism came somewhere between devil worshippers and Jim Jones. Although most of the particulars are lost to me now, one of the images remains in my mind: a cartoon of human figures floating in outer space (an apparent reference to the Mormon doctrine of “eternal progression”) that appeared on the screen next to our pull-down map of Israel. Even at age 10, the take-away message was clear. Mormons were not like us, they were not Christian.

Evangelical opinions about the LDS Church haven’t changed so much since I watched that filmstrip more than 20 years ago. In 2004, Mormons were specifically excluded from participation in the National Day of Prayer organized by Shirley Dobson (wife of James Dobson, leader of the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family) because their theology was found to be incompatible with Christian beliefs.

Mormons believe that they are the fully realized strain of Christianity—hence the “latter-day saints.” They acknowledge extra-biblical works of scripture (such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants), follow a series of prophets who claim to have received divine revelations, and teach that God inhabits an actual physical body. This is all blasphemy to evangelicals; they argue that “the Bible explicitly warns against adding to or detracting from its teaching” and refer to the revelations as “realistic deception[s] by the Devil himself.”

Evangelical Christians consider Mormonism a threat in a way that Catholicism and even Judaism are not. The LDS Church, they charge, has perverted Christian teachings to create a false religion. As John L. Smith, a Southern Baptist who runs Utah Mission—an organization that tries to convert Mormons—told Christianity Today: “Mormonism is either totally true or totally false. If it’s true, every other religion in America is false.” To be tolerant of Mormonism is to put evangelical Christianity at risk. And to put a Mormon in the White House would be to place a stamp of approval on that faith.

Southern Baptists have been particularly vocal about labeling the LDS Church a “cult.” In 1997, the denomination published a handbook and video, both with the title The Mormon Puzzle: Understanding and Witnessing to Latter-day Saints. More than 45,000 of these kits were distributed in the first year; the following year—in a throwing down of the proselytizing gauntlet—the Southern Baptist Convention held its annual meeting in Salt Lake City. Around the same time, a speaker at the denomination’s summit on Mormonism declared that Utah was “a stronghold of Satan.” When Richard Mouw, president of the evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary, tried to repair relations with the LDS community by apologizing on behalf of evangelicals during a speech in the Mormon Tabernacle last year, his conservative brethren lashed out. Mouw had no right, they declared in an open letter, to speak for them or apologize for denouncing Mormon “false prophecies and false teachings.”

In the wake of Romney-mania, one prominent evangelical has sung a slightly different public tune. Charles Colson told the Weekly Standard in June that he “could in very good conscience support Romney” as a fellow “social conservative on most of the issues we care about.” As recently as late February, however, Colson reminded his radio listeners that “while Mormons share some beliefs with Christians, they are not Christians.” “I respect Mormons and work with them,” he said, “but we can’t gloss over our fundamental differences.” Asked about Colson’s apparent change of heart, Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) told me, “I think Chuck was probably saying the politically correct thing.”

“Most evangelicals still regard Mormonism as a cult,” Cizik explained. “That will shape, I’d imagine, their reactions to Romney as a candidate for the White House.” Cizik, who serves as the NAE’s Vice President for Governmental Affairs, is the only evangelical leader who was brave enough to break from the script and talk to me on the record about what his members really believe. But many others I spoke with shared his views. One longtime political observer put it this way: “Publicly, it’s not an issue. Privately, it’s a big damn issue.”

Whispers of polygamy

These latent evangelical concerns about Mormonism don’t pose much of a problem in the general course of political and social life. In the real dynamics of a campaign, though, they are huge vulnerabilities, waiting to be exploited. To see how this might happen, take a look at the 2002 gubernatorial race in Arizona. In that campaign, Democratic state attorney general Janet Napolitano faced popular Republican congressman Matt Salmon for the open governor’s seat. A month before election day, the race was neck-and-neck, when a third-party candidate named Dick Mahoney began running a television commercial that raised Salmon’s Mormonism in the context of a Mormon fundamentalist sect that openly practices polygamy on the Arizona/Utah border. The ad was offensive and was immediately denounced by religious and political leaders. It was also effective.

On election day, Salmon lost to Napolitano by a razor-thin margin. Napolitano won in part by picking up votes among moderate female voters, but also because Salmon ran far behind congressional candidates in the most conservative and heavily evangelical districts. In each of these precincts, his support was between 10 and 20 points lower than right-wing congressmen Trent Franks and Jeff Flake. Exit polls aren’t available for 2002, but a look at the precinct results makes it clear that some of these conservative voters must have even split their tickets, casting a vote for Napolitano while also backing the extremely conservative congressional candidate.

Salmon lost evangelical votes at the polls even though he enjoyed the backing of evangelical leaders, some of whom denounced the anti-Mormon ads. Arizona Republic political columnist Rob Robb told me that Salmon’s support from evangelical leaders “did not translate into support among evangelicals at the grassroots.” “Around here,” he said, echoing my childhood experience, “evangelicals are regularly instructed that Mormonism is a cult.” Absent a third-party challenger, it’s hard to imagine this kind of defection happening to Romney in a general election for president. Mormons may be considered cult members, but Hillary Clinton is still the bride of the devil, after all. But the general election isn’t where Romney would be most vulnerable. Long before he reaches that point, he will have to prevail in the GOP primaries. Nearly everyone I spoke to brought up the example of the 2000 primaries, in which Bush surrogates went after Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) candidacy by placing calls to voters in South Carolina that claimed he had fathered an illegitimate black child and implied that his wife was addicted to drugs.

It’s likely that Romney’s primary opponents and prominent religious leaders will publicly take the high road, remaining mum on the issue of his Mormonism. But, says Marshall Wittman, former political director of the Christian Coalition and later an aide to McCain, “so much in the primaries takes place under the radar. It’s never publicly said, but it takes place in emails and word of mouth.” The push-poll script writes itself: “Would you be more or less likely to vote for Mitt Romney if you knew he was a Mormon, and that Mormons believe in polygamy?”

The worst may come not from the push polls but from the preachers. Churches that show movies portraying Mormonism as a cult or that sponsor crusades to convert Mormons aren’t likely to turn around during the campaign and say, “Oh, never mind.” Especially not when there are other candidates to choose from. “That’s the critical factor here,” Cizik told me. “There are so many options. It’s not as if there aren’t other candidates running who share nearly identical credentials. Is he such a compelling candidate that people are willing to overlook his religious beliefs? That’s a pretty high bar.” The question isn’t whether evangelical leaders could support a Mormon, but whether they would back a Mormon over an equally appealing Protestant or Catholic Republican. It’s hard to see evangelicals lining up behind Romney instead of, say, Virginia Sen. George Allen.

Silence is not an option

All of this leaves Romney in a real pickle. Thus far, he’s tried to follow in the tradition of other Massachusetts politicians and “pull a John Kennedy,” declaring personal faith irrelevant to his qualifications for office. This is a nonstarter. We live in a political era in which, thanks largely to Republicans, candidates are virtually required to talk openly about their religious views. There is no way a Republican, especially in a GOP primary, can avoid the issue—if for no other reason than the press won’t let them.

Indeed, it’s already begun. “How Mormon are you?” Sridhar Pappu asked Romney for his Atlantic Monthly profile. Romney’s answer sounded like it could have come from George W. Bush: “You know, the principles and values taught to me by faith are values I aspire to live by. [They] are as American as motherhood and apple pie. My faith believes in family, believes in Jesus Christ. It believes in serving one’s neighbor and one’s community.” That kind of vague answer works for Bush, but Bush is a Methodist. In his interview, Pappu continued to press Romney about the particulars of Mormon practice. Cornered, the governor replied tersely. I’ll just say those sorts of things I keep private.” At that point, Pappu dropped the issue. But the next reporter won’t, nor the next, nor the next.

By now, reporters are used to Protestant candidates, but they eat up any chance to explore a new religious angle. They peppered Lieberman with questions in 2000 about whether he could campaign on the Sabbath and followed John Kerry to mass every week during the 2004 campaign to probe his views on the Eucharist. As the first serious LDS presidential candidate, Romney is an oddity. News outlets will feature charts comparing Mormon theology to Christian doctrine, and stories detailing various dietary and clothing restrictions. Again, this may help demystify Mormonism for average voters who may be generally uneasy about the faith, but it will only serve to remind evangelicals of the differences between the two religions. Indeed, Romney faces an unwinnable dilemma: The more information that circulates about the specifics of his faith, the more hesitant evangelical voters will be to support him.

Conservatives are beginning to worry about Romney’s viability with evangelicals, even if they’re not saying so publicly just yet. One LDS politician has been quietly making the rounds to Washington wise men to get their sense of what evangelical opposition would mean for Romney in the primaries. Meanwhile, Robert Novak, who is as closely connected to conservative sources as anyone in the nation’s capitol, wrote in June that Romney’s Mormonism is “his one great liability as a presidential candidate.”

The tragedy—or, depending on your point of view, the irony—is that Mitt Romney may just be the most appealing candidate Republicans can field in 2008, the one most likely to win the White House by shoring up social conservatives and rallying business interests without frightening swing voters. Yet the modern GOP’s reliance on evangelical voters and its elevation of personal religiosity—strategies which have served the party so well in recent years—may doom the chances of this most promising candidate. Or, to put it in evangelical terms, it might be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination.

Before you go ballistic on Germany


Dems A to Z — From the RNC

The VIPs hate Robert Gates

The VIPs hate Robert Gates

The oddly named Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which played such a noxious role in the Plame matter, hate Robert Gates. My friend Fedora emails:

Gates is one of VIPS’ favorite targets. I expect to see Ray McGovern and/or Melvin Goodman write a pre-emptive hit piece soon. Tidbit on Goodman’s relationship with Gates from my article on Goodfellow:


Goodfellow’s Bedfellows: Who’s in Bed with the Washington Post [snip]

The CIP has also involved itself in the Iraq antiwar movement. Two of CIP’s most vocal participants in this area have been Jim Mullins, a former Vietnam antiwar activist, and Melvin Goodman, a former CIA Soviet analyst who resigned in 1990 over the anti-Communist stance of William Casey and Robert Gates. [snip] Goodman, Melvin A. (writing as “Melvin Goodman”). “The Demise of the CIA”. The Baltimore Sun. August 31, 2005. Archived 


. “Goodman: U.S. Intelligence used for propaganda”. Topeka Capitol-Journal. January 5, 2004. Archived.


“Iraq in Check”. The Baltimore Sun. February 8, 2003.


(writing as “Mel Goodman). “The Militarization of U.S. Foreign Policy”. Guerrilla News Network. February 19, 2004. Archived


“Op-Ed: Restoring faith in Intelligence”. The Baltimore Sun. February 9, 2004.


“Righting the CIA”. The Baltimore Sun. November 19, 2004.


“Weapons Failure”. The Baltimore Sun. May 22, 2003.


“What is to be Done with the CIA? A History of Flawed Intelligence” CounterPunch. July 19, 2003. 

McGovern, Ray. “More at Stake in Bolton Nomination Than Meets the Eye”. truthout. April 25, 2005. 

United States Senate. ”Nomination of Robert M. Gates, of Virginia, To Be Director of Central Intelligence”. Congressional Record. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 5, 1991, S15901-S15949.

I consider the opposition of these moonbats to Gates as a major plus for him.

Clarice Feldman   11 9 06