Internet Scofflaw

The Sunday Times reports, “Al-Qaeda is driven from Mosul bastion after bloody last stand.” The overall story is similar to other parts of Iraq:

In Mosul, Al-Qaeda’s last redoubt, the group still held sway as recently as Easter. Now it lacks the strength to fight the army face to face and has lost the sympathy of most of the ordinary citizens who once admired its stand against the occupying forces and their allies in the Iraqi army. . .

Al-Qaeda was also bleeding support as allied Iraqi insurgents accepted an amnesty. It did not apply to Al-Qaeda. “If you are fighting to install sharia [Islamic law] on this country, you are going to have to be killed,” said Colonel David Brown, an American adviser to 2nd Division.

Mosul is significant, however, because it was Al Qaeda’s last bastion. Now they are on the run throughout Iraq.

(ASIDE: Over a month ago, the Iraqi Interior Ministry prematurely declared that Al Qaeda was cleared from Mosul (or at least the AFP reported they did), but that was contradicted by the US Army. This report, on the other hand, sounds credible to me.)

By the way, this is an unusually good article. It contains some interesting operational details, and is written by an actual war correspondent on the scene:

Marie Colvin has been a Sunday Times foreign correspondent since 1986 when she witnessed the US bombing of Tripoli. She has covered the Middle East throughout that time and in 1991 remained in Baghdad during the bombing of the first Gulf war.

She has won a string of awards for her reporting from other troublespots, including Chechnya, Zimbabwe and East Timor.

In 1999 she chose to stay on in a besieged United Nations compound in Dili, East Timor, when her male colleagues left. “They don’t make men like they used to,” [she said.]

I wish there were more like her.

(Via Instapundit.)

This is awesome: the Colombian commandos who freed the FARC hostages by pretending to be FARC terrorists themselves were wearing “Che” T-shirts.

(Previous post.)

The Long War Journal reports:

Over the space of several days in early June, Muqtada al Sadr has issued two consequential orders that will affect the future of his movement and that of Iraq. Sadr has ordered the reorganization of his infamous Mahdi Army and has forbidden the Sadrist movement from participating in the upcoming provincial elections.

Sadr’s first declaration addressed the organization and operations of the Mahdi Army, the military arm of the Sadrist movement. Sadr ordered his militiamen to halt the fighting and announced that a small, specialized unit will have the exclusive right to fight the “occupier.” The unit, ironically called the “special groups,” is forbidden to attack Iraqi security forces or government officials.

Sadr’s second declaration addressed how the Sadrist movement would participate in the upcoming provincial elections, tentatively scheduled for October of this year. In the second order, Sadr told his followers not compete directly in elections that take place under “occupation” but said the movement would support “technocrat and independent politicians” to prevent rival Shiite parties from dominating provincial governments.

The two orders show that Sadr is being forced to scale down both his political and military ambitions as the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces continue to pacify Mahdi Army strongholds during a series of offensives that started in Basrah at the end of March, and moved through Sadr City and the wider Shia South. Operations in Maysan, a Mahdi Army bastion, are currently in progress.

(Via Instapundit.)

Jonathan Winer has some details on the Colombian rescue operation. (Via Instapundit.)

Fox News has a nice piece on the US-funded rebuilding effort in Sadr City. If you’ve been following Iraq closely, you’ll note that this same plan has been very effective elsewhere in Iraq.

The DoD’s quarterly assessment (big, slow pdf) is out:

The security environment in Iraq continues to improve, with all major violence indicators reduced between 40 to 80% from pre-surge levels. Total security incidents have fallen to their lowest level in over four years. Coalition and Iraqi forces’ operations against al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) have degraded its ability to attack and terrorize the population. Although AQI remains a major threat and is still capable of high-profile attacks, the lack of violence linked to AQI in recent weeks demonstrates the effect these operations have had on its network.

Equally important, the government’s success in Basrah and Baghdad’s Sadr City against militias, particularly Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) and the Iranian-supported Special Groups, has reinforced a greater public rejection of militias. . . Overall, the communal struggle for power and resources is becoming less violent. Many Iraqis are now settling their differences through debate and the political process rather than open conflict. Other factors that have contributed to a reduction in violence include the revitalization of sectors of the Iraqi economy and local reconciliation measures.

Although the number of civilian deaths in April 2008 increased slightly from February and March 2008, in May 2008 civilian deaths declined to levels not seen since January 2006, when the Coalition began tracking this data. Both Iraqi and Coalition forces reported that civilian deaths are 75% lower than July 2007 levels and 82% lower than the peak number of monthly deaths that occurred in November of 2006 at the height of sectarian violence.

(Via Commentary, via Instapundit.)

Reuters reports:

The U.S. military will transfer control of security in Iraq’s Anbar province to Iraqi forces this week, a remarkable turnaround given the vast western region was considered lost to insurgents less than two years ago.

Anbar will be the 10th of Iraq’s 18 provinces returned to Iraqi security control since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, but it will be the first Sunni Arab region handed back.

(Via Mudville Gazette, via Instapundit.)

Bill Roggio reports.

And other problems that are good to have.  (Via Instapundit.)

An alarming report from ABC News says yes.  Officials are downplaying the report, but the report does seem to have several sources.  (Via the Corner.)

This sounds cool:

Defense contractor Northrop Grumman won a $6.7 million contract to develop brain-wave binoculars.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA, awarded the contract to develop intelligent binoculars that would help soldiers detect threats from miles away. The defense contractor says electrodes placed on the scalp will record the user’s electrical brain activity. Responses will train the system over time to recognize actual threats at greater distances than conventional binoculars.

The system would use a custom helmet equipped with wide-angle binoculars capable of producing high-resolution images and electroencephalogram, or EEG, electrodes. Researchers hope to tap into the brain’s ability to spot patterns and movement.

The article doesn’t say how it works, and seems to imply that the device would tap into subconscious brain activity.  That would definitely be cool, but it seems more likely to me that the brain-wave monitoring is used to identify threats that the wearer is aware of, and then a machine-learning algorithm uses that information to learn to recognize threats from video input.

The AP reports:

Iraqi troops fanned out and gunmen tossed weapons on the streets or in canals with the official launch of the military crackdown in Amarah, a stronghold of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia and the purported center of weapons smuggling from neighboring Iran.

The military action came a day after the expiration of a four-day deadline for militants in Amarah to surrender their arms or face arrest.

It’s the fourth such U.S.-backed Iraqi military operation launched against Shiite and Sunni extremists in recent months as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seeks to assert government control over the country ahead of provincial elections to be held in the fall.

Hopefully this will help stem the flow of weapons from Iran.

ASIDE: The AP article focuses on the arrest of the top official in Amarah, a Sadrist. The usual people are outraged, but there’s not enough information yet to know what the arrest was about.

(Via the Corner.)

UPDATE: More here.  Amarah is now in government hands without a shot being fired.

Monday’s AP report notwithstanding, Coalition forces say that the Taliban does not control the Arghandab district:

BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan (June 17, 2008) – Afghan National Police and Coalition forces completed a patrol in the Arghandab District of Kandahar province today and found no evidence that militants control the area.

While in the area, Coalition forces moved freely and met no resistance. Recent reports of militant control in the area appear to be unfounded.

The threat of militant activity still exists throughout the province, but the patrol found no indication that militants have overwhelming strength in the Arghandab area.

(Via America’s North Shore Journal, via Instapundit.)

Amazingly, it sounds like the AP was taken in by a fake offensive. That would be incompetent even for them.

ASIDE: I’m amused by the measured language in the CJTF press release. They don’t say for sure that the Taliban doesn’t control the area, but if it does, they can’t tell. . .

Two months ago, I linked to a chronology of missile defense tests at the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance web site. Unfortunately, that link went stale, so I decided to assemble a chronology of my own by correlating dates from the MDAA with press releases at the Missile Defense Agency. Since the first missile defense system was ordered deployed in December 2002, there have been 23 tests reported by the MDA:

• Jun 5, 2008: Aegis/SM-2 test successful (pdf).
• Dec 17 2007: Japanese Aegis/SM-3 test successful (pdf).
• Dec 4, 2007: NCADE test successful (pdf).
• Nov 6, 2007: Aegis/SM-3 test successful (pdf).
• Oct 27, 2007: THAAD test successful (pdf).
• Sep 28, 2007: GBMD test successful (pdf).
• Jun 22, 2007: Aegis/SM-3 test successful (pdf).
• Apr 26, 2007: Aegis/SM-3 test successful (pdf).
• Apr 6, 2007: THAAD test successful (pdf).
• Jan 27, 2007: THAAD test successful (pdf).
• Dec 7, 2006: Aegis/SM-3 test unsuccessful (pdf).
• Sep 1, 2006: GBMD test successful (pdf).
• Jul 12, 2006: THAAD test successful (pdf).
• Jun 22, 2006: Aegis/SM-3 test successful (pdf).
• May 24, 2006: Aegis/SM-2 test successful (pdf).
• Nov 17, 2005: Aegis/SM-3 test successful (pdf).
• Sep 8, 2005: PAC-3 test successful (pdf).
• Feb 24, 2005: Aegis/SM-3 test successful (pdf).
• Nov 18 2004: PAC-3 test successful (pdf).
• Sep 2, 2004: PAC-3 test successful (pdf).
• Mar 4, 2004: PAC-3 test successful.
• Dec 11, 2003: Aegis/SM-3 test successful.
• Jun 18, 2003: Aegis/SM-3 test unsuccessful.

For those keeping score, that’s 23 successes and 2 failures. Both failures were for the Aegis/SM-3; one in 2006 when an interceptor failed to fire, the other back in 2003 when an interceptor missed its target.

GMBD (pdf) (ground-based midcourse defense) is the best-known, long-range system, designed to destroy missiles at a distance.  THAAD (pdf) (terminal high-altitude area defense) is a portable ground-based system.  Aegis/SM-2 and SM-3 (pdf) are sea-based systems (using two different missiles).  NCADE (pdf) (net-centric air defense element) is an air-based system, designed to destroy missiles during their boost phase.  PAC-3 (pdf) (Patriot advanced capability) is an evolution of the Patriot system, designed for short-range interceptions.

ASIDE: The MDAA says there have been four more PAC-3 tests (all successful) than the MDA has reported. (The MDA stopped issuing press releases related to the PAC-3 system after its successful test in September 2005.) If we count those, the record goes to 27-2.

(Important update appended.)

AP reports:

Hundreds of Taliban fighters took over several villages in southern Afghanistan on Monday just outside the region’s largest city, and NATO and Afghan forces were redeploying to meet the threat, officials said.

Mohammad Farooq, the government leader in the Arghandab district of Kandahar province, said around 500 Taliban fighters moved into his district and took over several villages. . .

The push into Arghandab comes three days after a sophisticated Taliban attack on Kandahar’s prison that freed hundreds of insurgent fighters being held there.

Every year there’s a lot of talk about the Taliban’s spring offensive, but this is the first time I remember it amounting to anything.

UPDATE: Never mind. It appears this one hasn’t yet amounted to anything either. (Also, I corrected the origin of the story to AP.)

Terrorist recruiting, that is:

The United States is seeing a sharp drop in the number of foreigners entering Iraq to become al Qaeda suicide bombers, according to intelligence and Bush administration sources.

An administration official and a military adviser to Iraqi commanders attribute the decline to a fairly new phenomenon: Al Qaeda’s call for mass killings in the name of Islam is losing some of its appeal with young Arabs in North Africa and Saudi Arabia, where most of the bombers originate.

The decline also parallels the battlefield losses al Qaeda has suffered in the past 12 months in Iraq’s Anbar province and the greater Baghdad region. This has made it more difficult for al Qaeda in Iraq to facilitate the secret movement of foreigners from the Syrian border to safe houses where they are trained and assigned a target.

“There has been a sharp decline in the amount of suicide bombers coming into Iraq,” said a senior intelligence official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s harder for suicide bombers to get into the country. The al Qaeda in Iraq is a shadow of what it once was. And Iraq is a more hostile area for suicide bombers to operate.”

(Via Instapundit.)

As the situation has improved in Iraq, there have been worries that the situation in Afghanistan is worsening. It’s even harder to know what’s going on in Afghanistan than Iraq, since Afghanistan faces the same neglect from the media, but doesn’t have the interest from independents that Iraq has. We’re mostly left with official reports from the military. So, for what it’s worth, it’s nice to hear that the commander of British forces in Afghanistan says the Taliban insurgency is at the “brink of defeat.” (Via the Corner.)

In an editorial today, they write:

The Iraqi Upturn
Don’t look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.

There’s been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks — which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington’s attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have “never been closer to defeat than they are now.” . . .

It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). . .

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq’s 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

(Via Instapundit.)

The Washington Post is unquestionably liberal, but they often have much more of a clue than most of the other major media outlets, and they show it here. (ASIDE: I’m amused by the editorial’s reference to the “odd” lull in news coverage just when we’re clearly winning. I think they know why, but can’t quite bring themselves to say it.)

The Post is also running a very good photo essay on the return of life to Basra. This is old news, but the photos tell a nice story of their own. (Via Instapundit.)

The past week has seen an amazing flood of good news from Iraq. It’s worth a review:

• The Iraqi Army takes control of Sadr City.
• British troops return to Basra.
• Attacks in Mosul drop 85% and organized resistance ceases.
• Iraq reports that Al Qaeda has been cleared from Mosul.
• Security incidents have hit a four-year low.
• The Iraqi army captures several major weapons caches.
• Life resumes in Sadr City.
• Iraqis lose patience with Sadrists.

Just as those Iraqis who lived under the rule of Al Qaeda learned to hate them, so too are Iraqis learning to hate Sadr’s Mahdi Army, reports the LA Times.  (Via the Weekly Standard.)

The avalanche of good news in Iraq continues with this ABC report:

In Baghdad’s Sadr City today, once again, street vendors line the sidewalk with colorful shirts and shoes. Vegetable markets, once again, have fresh limes and produce. Family stores, once again, are back in business.

And in the local Ibn al Balad hospital, no more war wounds.

“There are no injured people in this hospital,” says Jabber Shanshal, an Iraqi nurse, drawing a stark contrast with the situation more than two months ago, when heavy fighting took place in the Shiite suburb of almost three million people.

The residents of Sadr City have been longtime followers of the firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr and his 60,000-strong Mahdi militia. . . But all that has changed. Last week, al Sadr’s representatives and the main Shiite political party here signed a cease-fire agreement.

And at sunrise on May 20, a legion of Iraqi soldiers cautiously marched into Sadr City. Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki had ordered the thousands of soldiers into the Shiite enclave as part of “Operation Peace.” They were greeted with open arms.

(Via Hot Air.)

The article also reviews the history of the operations in Basra and Sadr City. Widely derided as they were when they began, it’s now clear that they were a masterstroke.

ASIDE: Do you think Time and the NYT have figured out who won yet? Here’s a hint for them:

Sadr is trying to grasp on to a sliver of political leverage, claiming to have struck the deal which brought his people their livelihoods back. While Maliki is lauding the latest in a series of successes to ensure security and a regained national unity to his country.

Certainly, it seems as though there is little Maliki can do wrong these days. With provincial elections around the corner, an Iraqi future without Maliki is almost impossible to imagine.

The last week’s avalanche of good news from Iraq continues.  The Iraqi army has captured several large weapons caches in Sadr City, including poison gas stored in a school.  (Via Instapundit.)

The Sadrists responded by complaining that the Iraqi Army was violating the cease fire, which is pretty rich.

General Petraeus reports:

In Iraq, Iraqi and Coalition forces continue to build on the security gains of the past 15 months as we also continue to reduce US forces and transition responsibility to Iraqi Security Forces, strive to maintain the conditions necessary for political progress, help build governmental capacity, and seek to foster economic development.

I should note here that the number of security incidents in Iraq last week was the lowest in over four years and it appears that the week that ends tomorrow will see an even lower number of incidents.

This has been achieved despite having now withdrawn 3 of the 5 Brigade Combat Teams that will have redeployed without replacement by the end of July.

Follow the link for a chart.  (Full speech here.)

AFP reports:

A 10-day operation by Iraqi troops in Mosul has succeeded in dismantling Al-Qaeda’s network in Iraq’s main northern city, regarded by US commanders as the jihadists’ last urban bastion, the interior ministry said on Saturday.

“Operation ‘Mother of Two Springs’ has enabled us to dismantle and weaken the Al-Qaeda network in Nineveh province,” ministry spokesman Abdel Karim Khalaf told AFP. . .

The US military has provided support for the operation in Mosul but it has been conducted and led by Iraqi troops.

(Via Hot Air.)

I would caution, however, that this account is somewhat at odds with the US Army’s assessment, which is that there may be some heavy fighting in Mosul remaining.

According to the Colombian government, reports the AP.

Completing today’s hat trick of good Iraq news, the Mosul operation is succeeding:

The number of daily attacks in Mosul has dropped at least 85 percent since U.S.-Iraqi forces began an offensive against Sunni insurgents in the city earlier this month, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq said Wednesday.

Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling said U.S. and Iraqi forces have not met fierce resistance since the operation began on May 10. He attributed this mostly to the large numbers of troops on the streets, an initial curfew, extensive preparations and construction of new checkpoints.

The American media has been almost silent on the Mosul operation, presumably since it’s going well. But the Army cautions that there may be some tough fighting ahead:

Iraqi commanders have said some al-Qaida fighters fled in advance of the operation, meaning they would be able to fight another day.

But Hertling said he did not believe many had escaped and that some who had been in regions outside Mosul before the crackdown were moving toward the city to take up the battle. He said intelligence indicates “many of their leaders have been pushing fighters to Mosul because they see it as a critical fight as well.”

“We anticipate there will be some attacks by the enemy once they come out of this initial phase of being surprised within the city,” he told reporters during a news conference in Baghdad. “We anticipate that there might be car bombs, suicide vests or things like that.”

I’m sure the media will rediscover Mosul if that happens.

(Via Max Boot, via Power Line.)

The British have emerged from their compound and are patrolling Basra again.  Good for them.  I wonder about the politics of this though.  Gordon Brown has shown no enthusiasm for carrying through on the British commitment in Iraq, so why do this now?  Is this a response to his drubbing at the polls by the Tories?  Or is it just a result of the success of Iraq’s Basra operation?

(Via Max Boot, via Power Line.)

The NYT reports:

Iraqi troops pushed deep into Sadr City on Tuesday as the Iraqi government sought to establish control over the district, a densely populated Shiite enclave in the Iraqi capital.

The long-awaited military operation, which took place without the involvement of American ground forces, was the first determined effort by the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to assert control over the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood, which has been a bastion of support for Moktada al-Sadr, the rebel cleric.

The operation comes in the wake of the government’s offensive in Basra, in southern Iraq, which for the time being seems to have pacified that city and restored government control.

The Iraqi forces met no significant resistance. By midday, they had driven to a key thoroughfare that bisects Sadr City and taken up positions near hospitals and police stations, institutions that the Iraqi government is seeking to put under its control. . .

The soldiers were also deployed near the political headquarters of Mr. Sadr. There were no visible signs of the Mahdi Army, the militia controlled by Mr. Sadr, although many walls bore posters of him that seemed to have been put up in the last few days.

(Via Power Line.)

It’s good to see the Iraqis take charge.  Question 1: How galling must it be to the NYT to have to write a comes-at-time sentence that correlates Sadr City to other good news in Basra?  Question 2: How is Time going to portray this as a victory for Sadr?  (I’m guessing the posters.  If Sadr has posters up, he must be winning.)

The article also gives an interesting account of how the operation took place.

The Department of Homeland Security is experimenting with the laser system, called Project Chloe (after the “24″ character).   The system would sense a missile launch and fire its laser to jam the missile’s heat-seeking guidance system.  Flying at 60,000 feet, the DHS hopes that a single such system could protect all commercial airports in LA County.

Mohammed Fadhil reports at Pajamas Media.  Not a lot of news, but what there is, is generally good. (Via Instapundit.) I suspected things must be going well, since we haven’t been hearing the Basra narrative.

Quite a coup for Uribe.  (Via the Corner.)  It will be very interesting to hear what she has to say.

The AP reports that Chavez is threatening war if Colombia allows the US to build a base on its border with Venezuela.  Such a base has been floated as a possibility to replace the US base in Ecuador, which is scheduled to close next year.

Alas, I can’t find any evidence that this is a serious plan; every google hit is about people (mostly Chavez) complaining about the idea.  Too bad, it sounds like a great idea.

I suppose this is how Chavez looks strong; force Uribe to “back down” over something he never planned to do anyway.

Michael Totten has a Commentary piece on the state of affairs in Lebanon.  It’s not good, but not hopeless yet.  (Via Instapundit.)

Ed Morrissey predicted that the crackdown in Sadr City would give us a repeat of the “Basra narrative“; that is, report defeat until victory can no longer be denied. Right on cue, Time gives us our first report of defeat in Sadr City. A month ago, Time won the prize for obtuseness, continuing to report defeat in Basra long after everyone else had noticed that the Iraqi army had won. Their latest article is eerily similar to their reporting in Basra, enough so that for a moment I thought I was looking at an old article.

Anyway, Time reports that Sadr has won again by declaring a cease-fire he does not intend to honor:

Al-Sadr aide Sheik Salah al-Obeidi said the agreement, “stipulates that the Mahdi Army will stop fighting in Sadr City and will stop displaying arms in public. In return, the government will stop random raids against al-Sadr followers and open all closed roads that lead to Sadr City.” . . . [He] added: “This document does not call for disbanding al-Mahdi Army or laying down their arms.”

The fact that a leading figure in al-Sadr’s ranks announced the deal and pointedly rejected the Iraqi government’s key demand to disarm suggests that the cleric is still controlling the agenda tactically and politically despite the most serious challenge his power the Iraqi government could muster.

Meanwhile, Bill Roggio reports on the progress of the war by tracking the activities of the combatants, rather than by interpreting the hidden meanings of public statements.  (Via Instapundit.)  He notes that operations against Mahdi Army holdouts are continuing, as is the construction of a barrier around Sadr City:

US and Iraqi forces continue to strike at the Mahdi Army in Baghdad despite the agreement reached between the Iraqi government and the Mahdi Army late Friday. Seventeen Mahdi Army fighters were killed in northeastern Baghdad over the past 24 hours. . .

The cease-fire signed yesterday between the Sadrist movement, which runs the Mahdi Army, and the government of Iraq will not hinder the building of the concrete barrier or operations against the Mahdi Army, US military officials have stated.

“Seeing as how the Special Groups never listened to [Sadr] to begin with, I don’t see how things will change,” Lieutenant Colonel Steven Stover, the chief Public Affairs Officer for Multinational Division Baghdad, told The Long War Journal on May 10. “We’re not stopping [construction on the barrier],” Stover said. “The barrier emplacement is ongoing and about 80 percent complete.”

Brigadier General James Milano, the Deputy Commanding General for Multinational Division Baghdad, confirmed the barrier is 80 percent complete and gave no indication the construction would be halted.

It sounds like our approach to the cease-fire is exactly what it should be: “you first.”  At the same time, the backbone of the Mahdi Army isn’t listening to Sadr.  On planet Time, this is a victory for Sadr.

The long-awaited battle for Mosul has begun:

In the northern city of Mosul, an Iraqi army commander announced the start of a long anticipated offensive against Al Qaeda in Iraq’s last urban stronghold. . . Maj. Gen. Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, the commander of military operations in the northern city of Mosul, issued a statement on Saturday announcing Operation Lion’s Roar and Righteousness Battle against Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Mosul was considered the last important urban staging ground for Al Qaeda in Iraqi and allied groups after losing strongholds in Baghdad and other areas during the U.S. troop “surge” last year.

Provincial forces are “undertaking a new phase of operations in Mosul to counter the terrorist threat there,” said Maj. John C. Hall, a military spokesman in Baghdad. “These operations build on operations that have been under way for the past several weeks, targeting Al Qaeda in Iraq cells.” . . .

In January, Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki promised his military was preparing for a “decisive” showdown with insurgents in Mosul, about 225 miles northwest of Baghdad. But no major offensives were mounted, even as Al Qaeda in Iraq tried to exert its influence in Iraq’s third-largest city through attacks and intimidation until now.

McClatchy reports:

Followers of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr agreed late Friday to allow Iraqi security forces to enter all of Baghdad’s Sadr City and to arrest anyone found with heavy weapons in a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

In return, Sadr’s Mahdi Army supporters won the Iraqi government’s agreement not to arrest Mahdi Army members without warrants, unless they were in possession of “medium and heavy weaponry.”

The agreement would end six weeks of fighting in the vast Shiite Muslim area that’s home to more than 2 million residents and would mark the first time that the area would be under government control since Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003. . . It also would be a startling turnaround in fortunes for Maliki, who’d been widely criticized for picking a fight with Sadr’s forces, first in the southern port city of Basra and then in Sadr City.

(Via Instapundit.)

It looks like this may be over before the media can employ their defeat narrative.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the latest head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, has been captured in Mosul. (Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: US officials aren’t so sure.

Ed Morrissey notes an AP article that reports that the Iraqi army is preparing for an offensive in Sadr City:

Iraqi soldiers for the first time warned residents in the embattled Sadr City district to leave their houses Thursday, signaling a new push by the U.S.-backed forces against Shiite extremist who have been waging street battles for seven weeks. Iraqi soldiers, using loudspeakers, told residents in some virtually abandoned areas of southeastern Sadr City to go to nearby soccer stadiums, residents said.

This would make a lot of sense, as finishing the cleanup of Sadr City is the obvious next step in Maliki’s crackdown on the militias.  However, the AP article has since been changed to withdraw that reporting:

Some residents of Sadr City claimed Thursday that Iraqi soldiers warned them to leave their houses and go to nearby soccer stadiums for security reasons. The U.S. military denied the claim and called it as a “rumor.”

So what’s happening?  We’ll have to wait and see.

UPDATE: Based on an NPR report (no link, sorry), this is for real. It sounds like the rumor part was the stadium refuge.

According to Al-Arabiya television, Iraqi police have identified “Abu Omar al-Baghdadi”, the fictional leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, as one Hamid Dawoud al-Zawi, originally from Haditha.

Michael Yon reports on the next stage of the war in Iraq. These concluding paragraphs summarize what’s happening:

The militias, unlike Al Qaeda, are not insane; we can negotiate with them. But we and the Iraqi government can only capitalize on the shifting sentiments of the Shia neighborhoods if we first demonstrate that we and the government - not the gangs - control the streets.

That means, for the next few months, expect more blood, casualties and grim images of war. This may lead to a shift in the political debate inside the United States and more calls for rapid withdrawal. But on the ground in Iraq, it’s a sign of progress.

(Via Instapundit.)

The Iraqi Army’s defeat of the militias in Basra is paying immediate dividends for the people of Basra:

Young women are daring to wear jeans, soldiers listen to pop music on their mobile phones and bands are performing at wedding parties again.

All across Iraq’s second city life is improving, a month after Iraqi troops began a surprise crackdown on the black-clad gangs who were allowed to flourish under the British military. The gunmen’s reign had enforced a strict set of religious codes.

Yet after three years of being terrified of kidnap, rape and murder – a fate that befell scores of other women – Nadyia Ahmed, 22, is among those enjoying a sense of normality, happy for the first time to attend her science course at Basra University. . .

She also no longer has to wear a headscarf. Under the strict Islamic rules imposed by the militias, women had to cover their hair, could not wear jeans or bright clothes and were strictly forbidden from sitting next to male colleagues on pain of death.

“All these men in black [who imposed the laws] just vanished from the university after this operation,” said Ms Ahmed. “Things have completely changed over the past week.”

(Via Instapundit.)

Read the whole thing; there’s too much good news here to pull quotes.

A couple of observations. First, we were told for years that the British “softly, softly” strategy was superior to the American strategy.  It may well have been, when our strategy was to defeat the enemy and then leave.  But now that we have decided to defeat the enemy then stay and keep them defeated, we’re succeeding where “softly, softly” failed:

The contrast could not be more stark with the last time The Times visited Basra in December, when intimidation was rife.

Many blame the British for allowing the militias to grow. “If they sent competent Iraqi troops to Basra in the early stages it would have limited the damage that happened in our city,” said Hameed Hashim, 39, who works for the South Oil Company.

Second, the above can teach us an important lesson.  We’ve learned clearly on the small scale that defeat-and-depart does not work; you eventually need to return and fight again.  Why would anyone think that it would work on the large scale?  But that’s exactly what the Democrats are proposing.  Al Qaeda is largely defeated but not annihilated.  If we left, we would be handing the country over to some of the worst butchers in the world, and eventually we would have to invade all over again.

In their more practical moments, some Democrats have seemed to suggest a limited withdrawal from Iraq, one that would leave us with a limited presence there, but not on the front lines.  That is, they want to employ the softly-softly strategy, which has also been shown to be a failure.

We need to employ the one strategy that has worked in Iraq: defeat-and-hold.  We need to stay in Iraq until the locals are capable of defending themselves.  That’s the strategy that will be least costly in the long run.  Anything else ignores the clear lesson of this war.

The London Times has an interesting piece on how the Iraqi Army won in Basra. It claims that the key factor was Iran cutting off support for Sadr:

Once the British withdrew from the city centre to Basra airport last summer, the situation changed. Suddenly it was Moqtadr al-Sadr and his rag-tag fighters who were the dominant force in the Basra region. The Iranian backed Badr Organisation, which is well represented in Iraq’s police and military, was sidelined. There were real fears that the Sadrists could consolidate their gains on the ground in local elections planned for October and eclipse the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Badr’s political wing.

For once the interests of America, Britain, Iran and the Iraqi government coincided with disastrous results for Mr al-Sadr and his fighters. Isolated and abandoned they fled, were captured or killed from what were once their impregnable fiefdoms in Basra. Mr al-Sadr was left to lick his wounds and complain that the Government had forgotten that they were all “brothers”.

(Via Ace, via Instapundit.)

This is at odds with much of the other reporting, so I’m not sure I buy it, but it’s food for thought.

What this does illustrate is that the media was grossly premature in declaring defeat.  In fact, the Basra operation has proven to be a total victory for the Iraqi government.  (It reminds me of the week during the invasion that we were supposedly losing.  Heaven knows how they would have reported the Battle of the Bulge!)

Fox News reports.  We should skip the warning shots next time.

The Syrian facility bombed by Israel last September was almost certainly a nuclear reactor of North Korean design, reports the Washington Post:

A video taken inside a secret Syrian facility last summer convinced the Israeli government and the Bush administration that North Korea was helping to construct a reactor similar to one that produces plutonium for North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, according to senior U.S. officials who said it would be shared with lawmakers today.

The officials said the video of the remote site, code-named Al Kibar by the Syrians, shows North Koreans inside. It played a pivotal role in Israel’s decision to bomb the facility late at night last Sept. 6. . .

Sources familiar with the video say it also shows that the Syrian reactor core’s design is the same as that of the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, including a virtually identical configuration and number of holes for fuel rods. It shows “remarkable resemblances inside and out to Yongbyon,” a U.S. intelligence official said. A nuclear weapons specialist called the video “very, very damning.”

(Via Instapundit.)

This tidbit is also interesting:

Nuclear weapons analysts and U.S. officials predicted that CIA Director Michael V. Hayden’s planned disclosures to Capitol Hill could complicate U.S. efforts to improve relations with North Korea as a way to stop its nuclear weapons program. . .

The timing of the congressional briefing is nonetheless awkward for the Bush administration’s diplomatic initiative to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear program and permanently disable the reactor at Yongbyon. The CIA’s hand was forced, officials said, because influential lawmakers had threatened to cut off funding for the U.S. diplomatic effort unless they received a full account of what the administration knew.

Thanks Congress!

UPDATE: The Washington Times has more:

The Bush administration will tell Congress tomorrow that a nuclear facility in Syria built with North Korean help was nearly complete when Israel bombed it in September, and that Pyongyang has not provided any further nuclear assistance to the hard-line Arab nation, at least at that site, U.S. officials said.

(Via LGF.)

Bill Roggio reports the Iraqi Army has issued an ultimatum to al-Sadr’s Mahdi army to surrender or face the consequences:

The senior-most Iraqi general in charge of the security operation in Basrah has issued an ultimatum for wanted Mahdi Army leaders and fighters to surrender in the next 24 hours as the Iraqi and US military ignore Muqtada al Sadr’s threat to conduct a third uprising. US troops killed 15 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad yesterday and have killed 56 fighters since Sadr issued his threat last weekend.

In Basrah, General Mohan al Freiji, the chief of the Basrah Operational Commander and leader of the security operation in the province, has given issued warrants “for 81 people, including senior leaders of the Mahdi militia, and they have 24 hours to give up,” The Associated Press reported.

It will be interesting to watch how this goes.  The Iraqi Army no doubt is eager not to be embarrassed again, and there’s no reason they would kick this off early (if indeed that’s what happened last time).  I expect they’ll make a better showing this time.  The most important thing, though, is to go through with it.  Idle threats won’t help their reputation any.

This bit is also interesting:

The assassination of Riyad al Nouri, Sadr’s brother-in-law and a senior aide in Najaf, continues to spark reports that his death was carried out from within the Sadrist movement. On April 17, The Long War Journal reported that Nouri was pushing for the Sadrist movement to disband the Mahdi Army lest the party be shut out from the political process, and US military officers believe he was killed because of this.

The Iraqi press has also reported Nouri was killed after he suggested disarming the Mahdi Army. Nouri “was assassinated after he wrote Muqtada a letter asking him to dissolve the Mahdi Army,” Al Rafidain reported.

(Via Instapundit.)

Fox News reports. Although I’m sure Gen. Petraeus will do a good job at CENTCOM, this strikes me as bad news. We need him where he is, winning the war in Iraq.

UPDATE: Secretary Gates says that Petraeus won’t be leaving until late summer or early fall. Also, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan say that Gen. Odierno, who will be taking over in Iraq, deserves a lot of the credit for putting Petraeus’s strategy into effect. (Via Hot Air.) This makes me feel a little better.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Rich Lowry thinks this is good news too.

At Abu Muqawama, an interesting account of how the Basra operation (Sawlat al-Fursan) came to pass in the way that it did. (Via Instapundit.) It’s anonymously sourced, so grains of salt are required. If it’s true, the operation was planned very differently, but they had to start early and improvise due to a counter-intelligence failure. The green units that deserted weren’t supposed to be involved much at all. Interesting.

The IA mops up in Basra:

Iraqi soldiers swooped on the Basra stronghold of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Saturday, saying they had seized control of his militia bastion where they suffered an embarrassing setback in late March.

The dawn raid by government troops on the Hayaniya district of the southern oil city was backed by a thunderous bombardment by U.S. warplanes and British artillery.

(Via Hot Air.)

Note to the media: a setback is not the same thing as a defeat.

UPDATE: At the NYT, Iraqi Forces Take Last Basra Areas From Sadr Force.

Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad strongly endorsed the Iraqi government’s monthlong military operation against the fighters.

By Saturday evening, Basra was calm, but only after air and artillery strikes by American and British forces cleared the way for Iraqi troops to move into the Hayaniya district and other remaining Mahdi Army militia strongholds and begin house-to house searches, Iraqi officials said. Iraqi troops were meeting little resistance, said Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad.

Despite the apparent concession of Basra, Mr. Sadr issued defiant words on Saturday night.

You know Sadr is at the end of his rope when both the NYT and Iran throw in the towel.  Defiant words are about all he has left.

Rusty Shackleford thinks that we should speak of two wars in Iraq:

There was a war in Iraq and there is a war in Iraq. In fact, we’ve had two wars in Iraq: Iraq War I & Iraq War II. The war now is not the same as that war. The first war in Iraq was against Saddam Hussein, the second war is against Islamists of various stripes, but mainly al Qaeda.

All would agree that the invasion liberated Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. That was the First Iraq War.** It ended the day Saddam Hussein was captured. . . The vacuum left by the Baathist police state was filled by yet another tyranny: the tyranny of Sunni Islamists, like al Qaeda; and the tyranny of Shia Islamists, like those following Muqtada al Sadr. This is when the Second Iraq War started.

The first war was against Iraq, a nation-state. The second war is against terrorists and Islamist rebels.

Then he makes his point:

Failing to see the two war distinction is critical. From Obama we hear that he was “against the war” from the beginning. From Clinton we hear that she “changed her mind on the war sometime after she realized that the war was a mistake.”

Continuing to allow politicians to criticize the war in Iraq by criticizing the decision to topple the Hussein regime is to allow them to conflate two very separate issues: 1) should we have invaded Iraq? 2) shou