Unconventional thinking about the Middle East.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

I hope Abu Abed moves into Ned Parker’s neighborhood

Last August, I made the following prediction about the eventual fate of ex-insurgents that came to be known nowadays as the ‘Sons of Iraq’:

They may be arming the insurgents for the time being, but these murderers may have to be the ones who need to be airlifted out when the Americans eventually withdraw in order to dodge reprisals. It’s quite a prospect to consider: former insurgents being resettled in Minnesota.
Such seems to be the likely fate of Abu al-Abed, the ex-insurgent turned leader of the ‘Knights of Amiriyah,’ who is now in hiding outside of Iraq, dodging arrest warrants and preemptive whacking at the hands of his top hoodlums.

In a highly sympathetic portrait drawn by the Los Angeles Times’ Ned Parker, reporting from Amman today, Abu Abed (Saad ‘Uraybi) is depicted as a broken man who’s on the run after being betrayed by his American masters. This story appeals to the leftist sensibilities of anti-war journalists in that it supposedly exposes the perfidy and malice of America’s ‘occupation’ of Iraq, that oft-flogged and very dead equine of Iraq reporting.

The Iraqi government has an arrest warrant out for Abu Abed, relating to the murder of a family of three (allegedly killed after he had turned pro-American) whose corpses were found encased in concrete under some residential garden in Abu Abed's turf. There are tens of other allegations winding their way through the courts regarding Abu Abed’s former role as an insurgent leader in the neighborhood of ‘Amiriya, ranging from mass executions, to abductions for ransom and to sectarian cleansing.

Abu Abed alleges that he had been a mid-level commander of the Islamic Army of Iraq (…a really nasty insurgent outfit that had claimed to kill “thousands” of U.S. soldiers and many more Iraqis; a point unacknowledged in Parker's piece) and before that a junior officer in Saddam’s brutal intelligence services. However, he ostensibly redeemed himself in the eyes of his American patrons by turning against Al-Qaeda/Islamic State of Iraq. But whereas the Americans were so hasty in embracing their former enemies, those Iraqi victims of Abu Abed’s were in no hurry to forgive.

I think this reaction has something to do with one’s outlook to the future. The Americans officers who burnished Abu Abed and his fighters with uniforms, paychecks and media attention are motivated by quick fixes; the Americans get to go home and forget about everything while Iraqis need to sort out the traumas of the Ba’athist/post-Ba’athist past inflicted by the likes of Abu Abed. That’s why Abu Abed gets high marks from his American handlers who spoke to Ned Parker and are quoted extensively in today’s story. And that’s why, for completely different reasons that I cited earlier, Parker can justify turning such a reprehensible subject into an icon: Parker doesn’t delve into the accusations made against Abu Abed, and contradicts himself by suggesting at first that they are motivated by anti-Sunni sectarianism but then writes that the Sunni Islamic Party is behind making those charges against Abu Abed.

But the tables have turned: it is very likely that Abu Abed’s next destination is somewhere in the United States or Western Europe; he’s likely to get asylum and he can use a story such as the one in the Los Angeles Times today to demonstrate that he is indeed the victim in all of this. I don’t know whether Parker is American or British, but I’d like to see him welcome Abu Abed as his next door neighbor; I wonder how comfortable Parker would feel knowing that such an unwholesome character is living down the street, or delivering his pizza, or mowing his lawn (...what else would Abu Abed do for a living? It's not as if there's much career demand for IED expertise). Otherwise, the officers quoted in the piece and their families can invite Abu Abed to pot-luck BBQs on the 4th of July. Oh what fun! Maybe they can form a ‘Knights of Suburbia’ neighborhood watch group. Soccer moms with Obama stickers on their Kalashnikovs! Yaaaaay!

Yes, it is quite macabre of me to make light of Abu Abed's imminent arrival to a community somewhere near you, but the Iraqis who've suffered at the hands of these villains likewise think that America's insistence that Iraqis should re-admit Abu Abed into their midst and their neighborhoods is a very bad joke too.

I don’t have much of a problem with the tribal elements that had been turned into the Awakening Groups; for the most part they had very little to do with the insurgency and opportunistically exploited the security vacuum created when the ‘Zarqawist’-wing of Al-Qaeda decided to create the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq as the resurrected caliphal empire, which set it at doctrinal odds with other jihadist groups. Pretty soon the thugs of the Islamic State of Iraq started beating up on groups such as the Islamic Army (Abu Abed’s ex-outfit) and the 1920 Revolt Brigades demanding submission and a pledge of allegiance to the caliph-in-waiting, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. When other jihadists baulked at this demand, blood began to spill and then gush. Coming at the heels of other factors depleting the insurgency, such an outbreak of jihadist-on-jihadist violence created the necessary breathing space for Sunni tribal leaders—many of whom stood with the new Iraq from the very beginning but had been cowed by Al-Qaeda—to seize the opportunity and attack the much-weakened jihadists, a venture that was supported and bankrolled at first by Maliki’s office before being adopted by American generals.

Whereas I can tolerate the ‘tribals’ for being opportunistic (…in the past their contribution to the insurgency was limited to highway robbery and playing ‘inn-keeper’ to the jihadists), I cannot accept that former insurgent commanders such as Abu Abed who had actively killed so many Iraqis, both under Saddam and afterwards would simply walk-away from their crimes without justice taking its course. And I don’t think that Iraq’s political elite, many of whom lost loved ones, family members and comrades at the hands of these murderers, would ever accept that either.

That’s why, try as they may, the Americans will fail to turn goons such as Abu Abed into ‘acceptable’ political players in Iraq, and are more likely to resettle them back in the United States. Good riddance, until such a time as Iraq and America sign extradition treaties and then Abu Abed, as well as Aiham Alsammarae, can stand trial in Baghdad for their crimes.


Anonymous F. said...

You provide a link in your post to a piece you authored last February. I was reminded of how much I had admired it at the time. It is possibly your most eloquent and erudite piece and by extension possibly one of the most eloquent and erudite articles written on Iraq. A must-re-read!


1:34 PM, June 29, 2008

Blogger Tom W. said...

I think your characterization of Americans is a little unfair, in that it doesn't explain the context of our decisions.

We're shell shocked by the medieval level of savagery, corruption, duplicity, tribalism, and incompetence we've encountered in Iraq. The culture was much more backward than we were led to believe.

Maybe I'm just being chauvinistic, but after the sacrifice of so many Americans, I find it hard to accept the accusation that somehow we're being cavalier about justice.

Has Iraq ever been a country where justice counted for anything? Yet now it's important to point out that Americans aren't sufficiently sensitive to the vaunted Iraqi craving for justice?

This post leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It seems to be an evasion of responsibility, and it has more than just a hint of unseemly self-pity.

The problems in post-Saddam Iraq are the fault of Iraqis. They made and continue to make choices not in their own self-interest.

Forgive me if I sound harsh, but some days I wonder why a 20-year-old American should lose his or her life in a nation where women strap bombs to themselves and walk into marketplaces to murder dozens in the name of God.

Part of me says, "They're all losers. Get our people the hell out."

3:39 PM, June 29, 2008

Blogger Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي said...

Dear Tom W.,

Your comment is indeed chauvinistic, and stupid. It sounds very much like the type of mindless cheerleading that is available on other "We're No. 1" blogs.

This blog does not cater to such a bigoted clientele, usually falling on the right of the American political spectrum, nor does it peddle the other stupid things said by the American left. Too high of a premium is placed on playing nice, but I think that's a silly cop-out. Loud and boisterous idiots should always be called out on their idiocy lest it spreads.

In your world view, Iraqis are to blame, even though they have paid a much steeper price. And in your world view, you did Iraqis a favor by getting rid of Saddam, neglecting to acknowledge America's role in bringing the Ba'athists to power in the first place, and then in propping up the Saddam regime all throughout the 1980s, the epitome of which was 1991, when America's leaders allowed the tyrant to smash the uprising.

Many Iraqis would read your sentence "...We're shell shocked by the medieval level of savagery, corruption, duplicity, tribalism, and incompetence we've encountered in Iraq. The culture was much more backward than we were led to believe..." as a reference to the Americans they've encountered.

To understand why, you should head back into the archives of this blog. That is, if you're in this to understand things. However, if you wish to read what merely re-enforces your prejudices be they leftist or rightist, kindly try the competition next door.

Whereas many great men and women sacrificed so much and honored America in the process and continue to do so, not a few Americans (...from the various tribes of diplos, journos, military brass, corporations, spooks,...etc.) exhibited all that is distasteful, and indeed very backward, about your civilization.

It ain't black and white, and if you don't open your mind to rigorous inquiry about what went wrong and accept blame where it's warranted (...the problem with the left is taking on too much blame, the problem with the right is acknowleding too little) then you won't know what hit you the next time the terrorists strike.

This blog does not attempt to write or re-write history. I ain't out to give history's final say. I don't think we can afford that luxury just now. This blog is mindful of a larger war that is not about to end any time soon. All I am hoping to do is to infer some quick and useful lessons from the battle that was just fought so that these lessons can be applied in the battle to come thus minimizing casualties and increasing the likelihood of victory.

As such, I don't intend to suffer fools or chauvinistic idiots and play nice with them and their egos, and I certainly don't mind it when my posts leave a bad taste in their mouths; that usually means I'm doing something right.

Such people are not my target audience, and I've made that abundantly clear in the past. Some may call such an approach 'arrogant', I call it expedient.

I hope to reach thinking people in the West, the kind of people who would potentially be useful American and European allies against jihadism in the intra-Middle Eastern war between two clashing visions: caliphal empire vs democracy.

It is very likely that the next time the jihadists strike big, a panicked and vengeful West would lash out in a way that plays to jihadist strategy. I don't want that to happen; I'd like to see to see the West fight smart.

I think that Islam is a civilization of immense beauty and depth that is worth fighting for. And I think that the Middle East region and its people deserve sacrificing for. Not for oil, not so that soccer moms can feel safe back in America's suburbia, but simply because it is the right thing to do.

As things stand now, I don't think you, Tom W., are going to be of much use to me or to the fight.



4:40 PM, June 29, 2008

Blogger Tom W. said...

"As such, I don't intend to suffer fools or chauvinistic idiots and play nice with them and their egos, and I certainly don't mind it when my posts leave a bad taste in their mouths; that usually means I'm doing something right."

The same could be said for my post. It clearly left such a bad taste in your mouth that you resorted to ad hominem attacks.

What about the substance of my post?

Why is it bigoted to ask Iraqis to take responsibility for their failures?

You don't hesitate to point out America's many failures. Can't you do the same for Iraq?

Is a man a bigot when he enters a situation with no preconceptions, and emerges with a negative viewpoint that has been influenced by what he has seen and experienced?

Recently the global conversation has turned on how we Americans simply don't understand the Arab/Muslim mind, and we must be educated lest we keep making our elephantine blunders.

Yet you say this: "It is very likely that the next time the jihadists strike big, a panicked and vengeful West would lash out in a way that plays to jihadist strategy."

To me, this shows a complete lack of understanding of the west. After 9/11--an attack of unprecedented proportions in our country--the U.S. response was anything but panicked or vengeful. The Brits suffered their first suicide bombings without giving in to panic or a desire for revenge. We don't respond with panic or out of vengeance. It just doesn't happen.

Yet I'm not about to call you a bigot, or stupid, for misunderstanding us.

I think our exchange is emblematic of why the middle east and the west will not be able to get along for decades, if ever. Middle easterners are quick to criticize the west in the harshest (or most expedient, if you will) of terms, but when the roles are reversed suddenly the criticizers become helpless victims of bigotry.

I do have hope, however. I've read a lot about the Iraqi troops who have served alongside our men and women and who've been able to move beyond this stereotypical relationship. CNN quotes an anonymous American Delta Force officer who says that the Iraqis he's trained are as good as any of the western forces, and he would go on any mission with them.

I was incredibly proud of everybody involved when I heard that, and I have no doubt that it's true.

Those Iraqi special forces members are nobody's victims, and they'll bridge the gap between us.

6:04 PM, June 29, 2008

Blogger Lee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:08 PM, June 29, 2008

Anonymous Justice said...

As usual, you've authored another great post Nibras.

The Bush administration needs to wake up to the fact that simpling bribing off the former killers of US troops and Iraqi civilians will not bring about anything tangible in the long term.

Eventually, the rats who they're bankrolling will eventually digress to their savage, primitive ways when things don't go their way. I suppose, as has been the case with several other issues over the past 8 years, the Bush administration may end up learning that the hard way.

In addition, your response to "Tom W.," although his initial post wasn't worthy of a response, is also right on the mark.

Now either "tom w." has just started reading your blog or he has chosen to absorb your posts selectively. Contrary to tom's false statements, I can point to several occasions where you have criticized the Iraqi government/Iraqi political figures/Iraqi journalists, and several dozen times where you've created such entities within the Middle East, as well.

Unfortunately, it seems as if there are bigots on both sides of the West/Middle East divide: those right wing loonies in the West who have some sort of an underlying, undeserved sense of borderline racist nationalism which they try to cover with a thinly disguised facade of attempting to promote "democracy to other cultures" (the ones on the left aren't better, either) and the ubiquitous ethnosectarian bigots in the ME who have a distaste for anything that's not Sunni Arab.

In any case, you're posts have always been a breath of fresh air, and as you have stated, getting static from all these bigots of various stripes means that you're doing something right.

Best regards,


P.S.: Tom, no culture is immune to elements within it that are savage and backwards (or do I need to remind you of the "good tidings" Blackwater has brought upon innocent civilians, or the "humanitarian work" of US soldiers in Haditha [you know, the incident where a teenage girl was raped, then burned]).

While I have always found the US mission in Iraq to be noble and honorable, I can't help but feel a bit of nausea when I hear Westerners or Middle Easterner's make sweeping generalizations about cultures/civilizations which they are opposed to; Westerners for the reasons I mentioned above and Middle Easterners for...well, it's pretty obvious...

In conclusion, the inability of one to see past black-and-white and stereotype entire groups of people (whether Western or Middle Eastern) only reflects a lack of intellect as well as inner chauvinistic, primate mentality not suitable for complex analysis.

9:50 PM, June 29, 2008

Blogger Tom W. said...


Since you addressed your post to me, I'll respond.

Neither you nor Nibras have actually addressed the issue I've raised. You're great at calling names, but how about a response to my point about the context in which American decisions are made?

I challenge you to find American beheading videos. Find me an American politician who embezzled a billion dollars. Find me American clerics with armed militias who regularly kill police by the dozens.

My point is that Americans are exhausted, disillusioned, and saddened by how difficult the postwar effort has been. We were told by Iraqi intellectuals that Iraqis simply wanted a chance at freedom. Well, they got their chance, and look where we are.

For some reason you believe it's permissible for Nibras to criticize Americans, but if I criticize Iraqis, I'm a bigot who's stereotyping. That shows me that you refuse to hold Iraqis to the same standards to which you hold me, a textbook definition of bigotry.

You mention Blackwater and Haditha (you meant Mahmudiya); well, in the first case Blackwater has had its contract renewed, with the blessings of the Iraqi government, and in the second case the soldiers involved have been prosecuted.

In Basra, an Iraqi man murdered his daughter for having a crush on a British soldier, and the local police support him. As far as I know, he hasn't been arrested.

Moqtada al Sadr's men murdered a pregnant Iraqi woman for running, which they considered unseemly, yet he only lost support when he began victimizing the larger Shi'ite community. He was never arrested.

Am I a bigot for pointing these things out? They're real, and I can't overlook them just because the people involved are Arabs.

Nibras says he won't rewrite history; he says the Sunni tribes were intimidated by al Qaeda, but I've read statements by tribal elders who say that they fought us because we were infidels, and we were in Iraq to steal their oil and their women.

Again, that's reality.

Nibras has made some very ugly accusations against Americans regarding our motives, yet I continue to read his blog. The one time I spoke my mind as forcefully as he speaks his, he--and you--accuse me of bigotry, stupidity, idiocy, and being beneath contempt.

Why? Because I refuse to patronize Iraqis by excusing their poor choices?

You also ignored what I said about being proud of those Iraqis who serve alongside American men and women. They're heroes who will save the nation.

I have lots of problems, but bigotry isn't one of them.

10:58 PM, June 29, 2008

Blogger Lee said...

Tom W

I think your criticisms are fair (although Americans aren't immune to criticisms), but let's be careful about sweeping generalizations. Most Iraqis aren't thirsting for blood in their dark age mode. They just want basic services restored and violence reduced. That remains the priority, not taking sides on US presidential elections or warring factions (this is my impression based on reading blogs and reports from sites such as this, I could be wrong)

Americans don't employ barbaric Al Qaeda tactics to achieve their goals and we're relatively progressive, but remember - only about 40,50 years ago we hung colored people on trees. It's going to take time for Iraq to reverse their old ways.

12:35 AM, June 30, 2008

Anonymous Justice said...


For one, I never said that the level of violence in Iraqi society is comparable to the level of violence in the States. Common sense would've assumed that was already an underlying assumption.

Two, one will find astronomical levels of anarchy in any situation throughout where central government control is weak and there are large power vacuums in densely populated areas.

You could imagine what the situation would be here in the States, or in any other Western country for that matter, if all of a sudden state authority if largely weakened or taken out of the picture (we all remember the looting that happened during Katrina in New Orleans).

The bottom line is, every society has its' bad elements, and those bad elements tend to blossom in the absence of a powerful state authority.

That is why there's a rainbow assortment of militias/armed groups in Iraq; because of the states' authority is just now picking up. And NOT because Iraqis/Muslims are inherently bloodthirsty animals (as you have continuously implied, without presenting any proof, but rather relying on an underlying sense of bigotry).

If you are so naive to think that Iraqis like living in a state of anarchy with armed groups roaming the streets preying on innocent people, well, that's a problem you have to address yourself via cognitive restructuring.

As a matter of fact, before Saddam screwed everything and drove the country into a shit hole, Iraq had the best educated population in the Middle East with the highest literacy rates, premium health care, relatively high standards of living, as well as the best education system.

As such, it is very condescending of you to imply that Iraqis are inherently "backwards," while you're sitting in the comfort of a stable country without having the knowledge or experience of what happens to a country and its' social fabric when anarchy comes into play.

Now, there's enough blame to go around for everyone for the way things have been over the past 5 years (e.g., Iraqi government, US mistakes, regional meddling, etc...). Your problem is you just refuse to acknowledge any responsibility on the part of the Bush administration with regards to how Iraq spiraled out of control during certain time periods. For Gods sake, even the Bush administration itself and several prominent figures within the Republican Party have acknowledged what is seemingly common sense!

As I've said earlier, there is enough blame to go around for everyone, and as far as the Bush Administration goes, perhaps they should've given more prerogatives to the democratically elected Iraqi government rather than micromanage everything in a country which they have shown themselves to have little skill in dealing with.

Perhaps you weren't following up on the reports of the complaints aired by various Iraqi officials regarding the substandard armaments they were receiving for the US? Or the reports about PM Maliki airing his frustration regarding the fact that, at one point, he wasn't even able to move a brigade of his own armed forces without the approval of US generals?

Not to mention the counter-productive political apparatus the US promoted whereby Maliki (and his ruling coalition, by extension) can't make executive decisions without having all the blocs in Parliament agree on them beforehand, including blocs with known insurgent affiliations. Can you imagine if the President Bush was made to split his cabinet with the Democrats in a way that reflects the election results, and every decision he had to make would have to be ok'ed by the Democrats? Nothing would get done because of partisan infighting.

That's just a taste of the mistakes we've made in Iraq that have contributed to the decline in security.

Again, lest you twist my words and attempt to articulate straw-man arguments again: I am NOT saying that the level of violence in Iraqi society equals that of American society (as you have stated me as saying) as common sense would nullify that argument, nor am I saying that the Iraqi government is free of blame (as you have stated me as saying) as I have explicitly stated otherwise on more than one occasion.

All I am saying is that it's very naive and shallow of one to make degrading and sweeping generalizations about an entire population, especially when one has no idea about the complex, dynamic circumstances that led to such a situation.

I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you!

Also, please do your research before attempting to convey false information as facts (and by "research" I mean try doing a simple google search).

1.) The Iraqi government did not give their "blessing" to the renewal of Blackwater's contract. To the contrary, they publicly voiced their displeasure.


2.) I had meant to include both Mahmoudiya and Haditha as examples in my previous post.

In the case of Haditha, all the charges were dropped!

Now I applaud the fact that the US government has prosecuted those US soldiers accused of war crimes (under Saddam, Sunni Arab officers were given medals for such actions towards Shia and Kurds), but the point I was trying to convey was that there are bad elements among every society.

The only difference is that the power of the Iraqi state authorities (up until the successes of the Basra offensive, which btw, was criticized by the US command for being initiated "too early.") was weak and unable to prosecute criminals in various parts of the country for obvious reasons. However, now that process of arrest and prosecution is under way now that the ISF have re-established control (largely on their own) over some of the worst areas in Iraq; and guess what, all reports indicate that Maliki's popularity is sky-high in such areas due to the fact that he is establishing law and order, so common sense would point to the fact that the Iraqi people, by and large, do want safety and stability and, contrary to your unfounded diatribes, are NOT bloodthirsty and "backwards."

In addition, Nibras has never made blanket statements generalizing all Americans; to the contrary he, like I, has always supported the American mission but not to the extent that he is blind to obvious mistakes that have been made (and there have been a lot of them).

Nibras was making very clear that his post was directed towards those Americans/Westerners that have a counter-productive, and self-defeating, attitude when it comes to blood-thirsty criminals (such as Abu Abed). Ned Parker is an example of such an individual. However, you were the one who took it personal and extrapolated what was supposed to be a clear, pointed criticisms of certain types of people to include ALL Americans.

Do ponder over this as it will help alleviate your seemingly inherent desire to blindly look down upon entire cultures and civilizations whose histories and accomplishments are far more numerous than you can imagine.



1:06 AM, June 30, 2008

Anonymous Justice said...


That was exactly the point that was I trying to make.

Somehow I feel that our efforts to convey common sense are going to be in vain.



1:09 AM, June 30, 2008

Blogger Tom W. said...


Despite your impressive verbiage and condescension, you still refuse to address the issue, which is the context in which decisions are made by Americans stationed for extended periods in Iraq.

The middle east will never advance until its own citizens recognize the backwardness--yes, I said it again--of the cultures there. This doesn't mean that all middle easterners are backward. The Fadhil brothers who blog at Iraq the Model come to mind. This also doesn't mean the region can't advance.

I assume you're British: The British armed forces in the southern part of Iraq took your approach. They felt it was wrong to judge, to generalize, to compare. As a result, they allowed the security forces to be infiltrated by brutal Iranian agents, and they let the population of Basra be terrorized for four years longer than the rest of Iraq.

When the Iraqi security forces went into Basra, their aim was to kill the bad guys. They judged them and found them wanting. Their behavior was unacceptable. After a rocky start, the army and police began getting the upper hand, and the bad guys gave up. Now, the Basrans live in freedom.

The Iraqi security forces did with armed might in a matter of weeks what the Brits couldn't do in four years. The Brits spent years smirking at the ham-fisted approach of the Americans, but look who turned out to be right.

It took us years to teach the Iraqi troops that in order to be a professional army, they had to show up and not sell their weapons and equipment. If this embarrasses Iraqis, too bad. It's reality. If you want to be a developed nation, you must act like one. No excuses. I have high expectations because I see no difference between me and an Arab. And the Iraqi special Forces prove me right.

Here they are in action, defending their country and performing as brilliantly as Americans.


In the end, however, you will close your ears to what I'm saying, because you suffer from your own bigotry, "the soft bigotry of low expectations," to quote the most hated man in the world.

My words seem harsh to you and Nibras, but people are dying by the tens of thousands. To paraphrase Nibras, I don't intend to play nice. The Lebanese are about to go to war against themselves again, having learned absolutely nothing from a quarter-century of slaughter. The Turks and the Kuwaitis are flirting with Islamic repression again. There seems to be a regression clause in Muslim cultures, and it's time we in the west recognize it.

You can dismiss me as a raving, xenophobic lunatic, but I'm not alone. Here's what an Iraqi said to the American soldier. Maybe you and Nibras think he's a bigot, too:

In an April 8, 2008 article titled "Apology to the Valiant American Soldier," Iraqi liberal Khudayr Taher bemoaned the ill treatment the U.S. Army received from those it liberated:

"We forsook you and betrayed you - we, whose history is an expression of massacres, conflagrations, and ruin. We killed you, and we killed our dream and aspiration of reaching the sun, the moon, and the stars - [we killed our dream] of availing ourselves of the opportunity to live as true humans, thanks to your presence.

"My dear, brave American soldier, you noble individual who traversed land and sea in order to write the story of Iraqi freedom for the first time in its modern history - you believed, in accordance with logic, self-evident truths, and rational thought, that a people who had been subjected to repression, starvation, and killing would dance for joy, and would thank Allah who sent you to them as a liberating angel. [You believed that] they would strew flowers and break out in songs of joy that would smash the chains of slavery, ignominy, and humiliation.

"Not even a writer of surrealistic [literature] or [theater of] the absurd would have imagined that the Iraqi people would revolt against their liberator and would rush ardently back to a new bondage of a different kind - that of the religious cleric, the tribal sheikh, and the gang leader. It was unthinkable that the people would go against logic, rational thought, and self-evident truths, in a mad rush towards the abyss and total ruin.

"My beloved, brave American soldier, we apologize to you, and we are saddened at our wretched and miserable selves. Since we are a people that slaughters itself, and kills one another, cutting off heads, what can you expect from us other than ingratitude, perfidy, and stabbing you in the back for the benefit of Iranian and Syrian intelligence and Al-Qaeda?"

2:26 AM, June 30, 2008

Blogger Don Cox said...

The problem with this argument is that it involves generalisations about "Iraqis" and "Americans". I suggest that 1) Many individual Iraqis are to blame 2) Many individual Iraqis have suffered 3) Some of those who are to blame have also suffered - Saddam himself comes in this category. 4) Some Americans are to blame 5) Some Americans have suffered. 6) Human nature is much the same everywhere. Iraqis vary enormously, and so do Americans (and the British etc).

2:37 AM, June 30, 2008

Anonymous Justice said...


Well, I don't agree with the approach of the British in Basra as I've said all along that their stay there has been disastrous.

It took an Iraqi force ordered by PM Maliki, who went against the will of of American, British, and even some Iraqi commanders, to go and retake Basra from the criminals.

That said, it seems as if you've misunderstood my point. Are there backward elements within segments of the Middle East? Of course, there are!

But does that mean the culture in and of itself is inherently backwards? Of course not.

That's the whole point I was trying to make. There are those who are twisting the beautiful religion of Islam to achieve their various interests, but that doesn't mean that Islam is inherently "oppressive" and "backward."

Yes, the level of violence and incidents of savagery are at a much higher proportion in Iraq than in the West, but that's due to the circumstances at play. Not to mention that the US had big head start at democracy (and we made a lot of mistakes during our early stages).

That said, I can point to many elements within American society, that aren't representative of the overall society, to prove my point of "backwardness" being present within all societies. As Lee mentioned, 50 years ago people were being lynched in front of enthusiastic crowds because of the color of their skin (or do give incidents such as those an exemption because they didn't occur outside of the States?).

In any case, I've made my case thoroughly, but if you still choose to believe that Islam and/or Iraqi culture is inherently "backwards," then you're going to have a hard time spreading your version of "democracy" by talking down, with an undeserved sense of superiority, to the same people who are supposed to be our allies.

You have a lot of nerve to call Iraqi/Muslim culture "backwards" considering how many sacrifices the IAF have made (much more than we have) to stabilize the country. Are you going to tell their families that their culture is "backwards"? Are you going to tell our allies in the Iraqi government (Dawa, SIIC, KDP, PUK) that their culture is "backwards"?

Your rhetoric reminds me of some of those condescending pricks ("diplomats") who were sent to "help" our allies in Vietnam and other parts of the region during the Cold War, but instead ended up alienating and making them lose faith in our ability to come through as equal partners. Such moments were some of the darkest in our history; let's pray that the diplomats in Iraq representing us don't repeat those mistakes (exemplified by your rubbish statements) by carrying themselves with an arrogant manner in front of the people who are our allies.

Thank God most Americans don't support your condescending view of others (save for the nut jobs on both sides of the right-wing, left-wing divide).



P.S. I'm American born and raised.

3:15 AM, June 30, 2008

Anonymous Justice said...

Don cox,

That's the point I've been trying to make. Right on.



3:16 AM, June 30, 2008

Blogger Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي said...

Dear Basil/justice,

Thank you for doing a great job responding to Tom W.: you made all the points that I would have made and then some.

I don't think that this guy can be reached; he's cocooned in a parallel reality where counter-narratives have no place, hence a blog that projects itself as "Unconventional Thinking About the Middle East" is problematic for him. His is probably a Robert Spencer-Fox News-Michelle Malkin world, just like for some leftists it is a Noam Chomsky-MSNBC-Daily Kos world; these two worlds are mirrored in their shrillness and myth perpetuation by the Middle East's Hassanein Haykal-Aljazeera-Jihad Khazin alternate universe.

The next time there's a big attack on the west, and by big I mean one involving WMD as the jihadists keep talking about these days, then it's off to internment camps and tactical nuclear weapons. There will be voices on the right and the left shrieking for blood, any blood, and these will drown out any reasonable voices. The west's democracy will turn into a police state for tens of millions of Muslim immigrants, and the jihadists will gloat all along that liberalism was just a facade and they knew it all along.

I really do believe that this is what will happen if thinking people in the West don't do the hard work of understanding the jihadist enemy and seriously preparing their publics for what may come. The lack of patience with the Iraq War, where the enemy's menace is so clear, is very very scary. It is this instinct for quick fixes that led to the likes of Abu Abed. Such an instict will likely want quick fixes in the form of tactical nuclear weapons.

The terrorist WMD attack could single out a small European country that had pissed off the jihadists in some way, maybe Denmark, or Sweden or Holland.

How will the world react? Will it tempered and smart? Or will it be wrathful and dumb?

As regards to "backwardness", I always like to cite this example: as the clouds of Fascism were beginning to gather in "enlighted" Europe in the early 1930s, Baghdad's Jewish community was busy establishing a school for blind girls. In the alleyways behind shorja market, the entrance to this former school still bears the porcelain tiles that used to identify the school in Arabic, Hebrew and English.

In some ways and certainly not in all, the ideological violence that brought regimes such as the Ba'ath to power were imports from 1930s Europe. It certainly had a lot to do with the expulsion and persecution of Iraq's Jews who had lived on that land for over two millenia. Something to ponder.



9:04 AM, June 30, 2008

Blogger Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي said...

Tom W.,

I don't buy your act.

Bigotry, like pornography, is a thing one recognizes when one sees it. You're not interested in fixing problems; you're just interested in maintaining a sense of superiority by shunting blame.

Another word for it is demagoguery. Yeah, this blog, while at many times mean and testy, does not serve up demagoguery for its own sake. I'd rather have 30 readers who understand what I'm talking about than an audience of 3,000 mindlessly clapping and hurraying. It's so easy to rile up crowds with rhetoric and flashy number, just ask Barack Obama, but it is hard to get them thinking in a deep sense.


9:14 AM, June 30, 2008

Blogger Maury said...

Awakening recruits are supposed to be vetted by the Iraqi government. The process is designed to catch people like this before they're hired. We should be asking why Baghdad signed off on this guy if he was so bad. The Awakening movement has been a huge success. The resulting drop in violence allowed the IA to shift troops to Basra and Mosul. And it was all America's fault....tyvm.

9:23 AM, June 30, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nibras, the basic problem here is that you are too smart. Your thoughts are too advanced for tom and maury. You need to create another version of Talisman Gate along the lines of Nibras-For-Dummies.

I'm not that smart myself but I am smart enough not to get into a match of wits against heavyweights.

10:05 AM, June 30, 2008

Blogger Tree Frog said...

Small note: the more you bold sentences, the less I pay attention to them.

As always, thanks for the different perspective on things.

10:20 AM, June 30, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...


Your reply to Basil/Justice is worth riffing into a newspaper op ed.

Your foreshadowing of a jihadi wmd attack on a small european country is very discomfort-making given your record of clarity and prescience on this blog.



2:12 PM, June 30, 2008

Blogger Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي said...


Your wish is my command.

I shall do so while connecting this sudden turn towards fantasizing about WMDs among jihadists to the collapse of the caliphal state, the Islamic State of Iraq.

I think the Islamic State of Iraq has become a demoralizing embarassment that exceeds in magnitude any emotional setbacks that may result from the a loss of a charismatic leader. Seeing their vision of a caliphate destroyed in Iraq is a fate far worse than the death of Osama Bin Laden. It's hard to explain these things across cultural barriers, given (...and these are just my own sins of generalization) that Americans think in terms of personal payback, while Middle Easterners think in terms of humiliation as revenge.

The jihadists need to hit the reset button on worldwide jihad after their military and doctrinal defeat in Iraq. It is very unnerving as to how they think of WMDs since in their minds it is all very rational: an attack that results in 90,000 to 200,000 dead would be a deterrent by which the West would stop interfering in Muslim affairs, and would allow the jihadists to go ahead and de-stabilize regimes in the Middle East region unimpeded.

But I'll try to write it anyway. Plus stay tuned for my long-ish paper on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Caliphate due out soon.



2:28 PM, June 30, 2008

Anonymous gj said...

Was Nostradamus an ancestor Nibras? Come clean.

2:51 PM, June 30, 2008

Blogger Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي said...

Dear gj,

No he isn't. My powers derive from Sheikh Abdul Rahman son of Sheikh Ahmad of Taleban (...the good Taleban, the one that Prez Talabani is from, not the Mulla Omar variety). He was a super-mystic of the Qadiri order (18th cent ?), with all sorts of "magical" feats. You'd appreciate this: he has a shrine in Kirkuk, and despite my shrine fetish, I have yet to visit it!

Now, that's my mom's side. My dad's side were merchants, and although they seemed to be clairvoyant (and rich) for a long time, they lost their powers (and wealth) sometime shortly before investing in Tsarist rubles right ahead of the Bolshevik Revolution. Yup, that's didn't go very well for them.



3:27 PM, June 30, 2008

Anonymous Kafir said...


I'm not all on board with Tom, but he does make a couple of points worth defending. First, I believe it is true that right after the liberation, Iraqis did not act in their own best interests. However, to be fair, I don't believe many Iraqis even knew what their own best interests were. I do believe there were a lot of individuals (Mookie, Izzat al-Douri), who knew what their personal self interest was.

Second, from what little I've learned, it seems that Islam and specifically Sharia tend to enshrine the culture and legal system of seventh century Arabia. If that is indeed the case, then it is correct that the culture of the middle east is inherently backward. During the Reformation, Christians set aside the legal aspects of their religion by saying that it only applied in the absence of other government. I believe Muslims need to come to a similar accord and find a way to have Islam without Sharia.

As for this abu Abed character. After WWII, it was learned that a German scientist named Wernher von Braun was working for the Americans. This was the guy who built the V2 rockets that nearly destroyed London. I'm sure the Brits would have loved to get their hands on him. However, he went on to help the US build their arsenal of ICBMs that held the Russians at bay during the Cold War as well as the Saturn V rockets that took us to the moon. So don't be surprised to find a few people from Saddam's regime missing only to show up in America. I'm thinking about people like Rihab Taha ("Dr. Germ") who was working on Saddam's WMD program.

Abu Abed doesn't seem to fall into this class. He seems like a low-level thug. Maury is probably right that he somehow slipped through the cracks of a system designed to keep his type out. If the Iraqis can't get this guy back through diplomacy, perhaps they can get an assurance that he won't come back to Iraq.

5:16 AM, July 01, 2008

Anonymous Herschel Smith said...


I absolutely must challenge you on much of what you have said. I really don’t care much about the political sensibilities of Ned Parker. At issue of not his leanings – even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time. At issue is whether he has put his finger on something troubling. Also at issue is not the singular individual who is the subject of the article. He is a placeholder, or example, for the members of the Sons of Iraq, or previously “concerned citizens.”

In order, I would like to address these issues: (1) whether the tribal elements were previously aligned with the insurgency, (2) the wisdom of the program, (3) the lack of reconciliation with the Sunnis, (4) the singular focus on the “crimes” of the Sunnis while totally dismissing any related crimes of the Shi’a, and finally, (5) the cavalier way in which you dismiss the potential coming crisis due to the failure to incorporate the Sunnis.

I have made it my business to know something about the Anbar campaign, and not only have I been in touch with Army intelligence officers who were deployed to Ramadi, but I have followed the campaign closely, most particularly since my son was deployed to Fallujah with 2/6 in 2007 as part of Operation Alljah. I may not carry credentials as an Iraqi analyst as you do, but I know a little something about the work in Anbar.

First, it is commonly known that many (or most) in the Awakening movement were former insurgents. Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha (whom Bush stood beside for a photograph), it was known by Army intelligence at the time, was heavily involved in the insurgency, as was his tribe. Kinetic operations were necessary to shut down his lines of smuggling before he “saw the light” and flipped sides. At the time of befriending Sattar, many in the Army had great difficulty with not killing him and his tribe, knowing full well that so many of their brothers had perished at his hands. This was a mighty struggle within the Army and Marines at the time, and one source within the Army still hates him with a passion that I still today have difficulty completely understanding (because I wasn’t there).

Nibras, this was the hard choice. It wasn’t that a group of tribal elements suddenly decided to fight al Qaeda from a position of neutrality. It was that there was a turning. They turned on AQ and decided to switch sides. Literally. They switched sides. This wouldn’t have been so emotionally hard on U.S. forces if in fact so many in the tribal awakening hadn’t been involved in the insurgency. Their involvement with the insurgency was THE reason for the controversial nature of the bargain within the U.S. military (and by the way, it still is VERY controversial based on recent communications). Way before you and I began to write about this, hard core arguments ensued within the Army and Corps, tears were shed, and emotions were suppressed in order to make this deal. When you say that most were not involved in the insurgency, you are flat wrong. I mean no disrespect to you on your own blog, but you are just flat wrong.

This practice continued into Operation Alljah in Fallujah in 2007, where the plan to split off the hard core fighters (AQ, criminals, Ansar al Sunna, Fedayeen Saddam, etc.) and kill them ensued, right alognside the tactic to make peace with those who would do so. The foreign elements died at the hands of Marines in the summer of 2007, and those who would make peace went home, many to the Area of Operation of Lt. Col. Jason Bohm in the al Qaim region. The notion of a few scattered fighters unfortunately still embedded within the Sons of Iraq is just flat wrong. The Sons of Iraq ARE former insurgents.

Next, as to the wisdom of this program. I strongly supported this program when it happened, and still believe today that it was the wisest course of action that could have been taken. Writers like you and I did not contribute to the Marine campaign in Anbar. While the Marines (and some Army and National Guard) fought bravely and brilliantly, and while it was in my opinion the kinetic operations that set the stage for the Sunni Awakening, the Marines took heavy casualties in loss of life, loss of brain function (TBI), loss of limbs, loss of eyesight and loss of hearing. They paid a great cost for your Iraq in blood sweat and tears – and the tears of their loved ones. My own cost was in not knowing if a son died today or yesterday, or will tomorrow, for seven long months, and he returned to me. I cannot imagine the loss of a son and the cost borne by those grieving loved ones.

The strategy was simple and yet brilliant. The real fight was with those who fight for religious motivation. It has been reported to me by multiple Marines who fought in Fallujah in 2007 that “we killed Africans, Chechens, men with slanted eyes, and others, but not a single Iraqi. They went home.” The ones who needed killing were killed, and al Qaeda’s last holdout in Anbar was pacified. We made peace with the others because when considered, there was no reason to fight. Hence, lives were saved: Sunnis, and Marines. Frankly, your cavalier treatment of making friends with this group seems to portray a cold-heartedness to the awful suffering that was occurring all around by indigenous tribes and U.S. Marines and their families.

But … there was a risk then, and still is today. While I was writing articles praising the concerned citizens program, I was receiving notes from VERY high ranking officers deployed in Iraq that the risks were great. We are shooting our wad, so to speak, and have no more after this. No more blood, no more money, no more time, and no more credibility, if in fact the Maliki administration will not reconcile with the Sunnis. Civil war may ensue, but it doesn’t have to. The Iraqis will decide their future.

If Ned Parker’s piece is right, there is still a failure to reconcile at the highest levels. It doesn’t matter that it is Ned Parker, or the man in the moon, for that matter. What matters is that this is nothing new – I have heard this from men on the ground in Iraq already – months, and even more than a year ago.

Finally, you let your own bias get in the way of seeing some things for what they are. The Sunnis have been dealt with, killed, co-opted, and now ignored. The Shi’a are beholden to Iran (not just Sadr, but the real power, Hakim). To have incorporated Badr into the government without so much as a promise to reject Iran has got to be the most stupid, simpleminded policy of the campaign. I have recommended that Hakim, knowing all about weapons caches, training bases in Iraq, IRG and Quds elements within Iraq, can make his loyalties know very easily. He can point them out and send his forces after them, repudiating Iran in the process. Has he done so?

Do not so quickly dismiss what may happen in the future. The Sunnis are watching. While perhaps only 15-20% of the population, aligned with AQ (if they turn on the government), they will put an end to relative peace and stability, and Maliki will sit at the head of a failed state. Thus he will have proven himself to be the ultimate fool.

The choice is his.

Herschel Smith

12:46 PM, July 01, 2008

Blogger Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي said...

Dear Herschel,

While I admire your hard work in trying to understand Iraq, I find that your tendency to expound forcefully and authoritively on the topic to be a tad bit eccentric and over-blown.

Too often you simplify things (eg. the loyalty of the Hakims or Maliki) or you take it as a given that the word of these military intelligence guys you speak to is as unassailable as gospel (...you do identify yourself as a believing Christian) when often it is mistaken.

You also seem to discount that other sources, namely Iraqis, are valid points of reference too. As much as you've learnt about Anbar, you still can't pass yourself as an authority on the place without sufficient language skills, without ever having traveled there and without enduring the necessary training as a Middle East and Iraq expert, either by exposure to its history, society, economy and culture, or through academia.

It is wonderful that you're trying to get to a better understanding, but your rhetorical bravado is getting ahead of your knowledge. For some, this subject is a hobby just like all those WWII buffs out there, for others, it is a job and yet for some others, this is a calling and a war.

I've laid out my opinions on the tribes (...and on Abu Risha, again, you and your sources are mistaken as to the significance of his former 'insurgent' self) in my post, Of Tribes and Men.

That deals with tribes. As for ex-insurgents:

I've also addressed some of the other points that you've raised, in my paper that was published today: The Caliphate Attempted. This paper offers a diverging perspective from the conventional view; that the victory against Al-Qaeda had more to do with intra-jihadist doctrinal disputes rather than the grit of the Marines.

And since you've written all sorts of things about me on your blog, I gather that you've followed my arguments (...though it's not clear that is the case from the questions you pose in your comment) as to the viability of these ex-insurgents as a destabilizing threat. Thus, I don't feel that it's necessary for me to re-hash all that.

You can hold me accountable when and if there is large breakdown in security in Iraq as a result of these SOIs sulking. In the meantime, kindly don't waive shrill press reports and blurbs from panicked junior officers in my face; I've never taken them too seriously, as anyone who's followed my writings can tell. Until such a time as you can hold me accountable for getting it wrong, keep expanding your source materials.

Furthermore, you shouldn't assume things about the personal inclinations and loyalties of others when you don't know all that much about their backgrounds (...just as you were initially adamant that Dr. iRack was Michael O'Hanlon, before minimizing your assertion. You should also acknowledge mistakes when made and keep the initial error on record, followed by the correction). It just could be that I've chosen not to share all that there is to share from my experiences or the experiences of family members.



1:31 PM, July 01, 2008

Anonymous Herschel Smith said...

Thanks for your response, but I also know a great many things about the campaign in Anbar that I am not in a position to share. There are things I know about parts of the campaign that I can never divulge to anyone.

My reports do not come from junior officers. On the contrary.

As for the demise of AQ, my opinion is that without the U.S. Marines, your Iraq would be failed right now.

I still find the way you state your views to be rather arrogant and cold-hearted - towards the Sunnis, the American warriors who have perished for your Iraq, and towards commenters who disagree with you.

People can disagree, that happens all of the time. To be heartless is another matter entirely. By the way. Most of what I have written about your prose on my blog has been with the utmost praise and sincere admiration.

1:52 PM, July 01, 2008

Blogger Brian H said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:07 AM, July 02, 2008

Blogger Brian H said...

Basil: your commentary is a perfect example of why Nibras is far off the mark with his, "(...the problem with the left is taking on too much blame, the problem with the right is acknowled[g]ing too little)". The blame the left takes on is only as uninvited proxies for the right; they themselves are far too caring and pure at heart to warrant any. They think.

Justice: "But does that mean the culture in and of itself is inherently backwards? Of course not."
Well, it might, though not necessarily. Certainly doesn't rule it out. As for the "beautiful religion of Islam", that's a matter of taste. You don't have to watch "Fitna" to find major components incompatible with beauty.

Lee: excellent, balanced post. Whew! such a relief! The point about "strange fruit" is strong, but doesn't quite measure up in terms of numbers or diabolical viciousness. Like Tom W., I have some problems with a culture ANY of whose members can, as a lesson to resisters, remove children's faces with piano wire. That is so far beyond the pale that it makes me, a borderline atheist, rather hope that Christ meant what He said in His "never been born" threat. And Nibras, not all the abuses and war crimes of the US soldiery in Iraq balance out even one such incident. Deal.

12:28 AM, July 02, 2008

Anonymous gj said...

I found Herschel Smith's initial post very informative and also, in parts, extremely moving. It was a valuable depiction of the US' on-the-ground-perspective. The courage and sacrifices made in Anbar by the Marines notably in Fallujah at the end of 2004 but also elsewhere and, overall, the cruciality, indispensability of the US military in defeating the insurgency. Which Nibras declines to give credit fo.

My qualifying observation is this: the US reconciling with former insurgents is one thing; expecting the Shia government, and the Kurds for that matter, to reconcile easily with former Sunni Arab insurgents is another matter entirely.

For the following reasons:

It seems to have been long forgotten but the religious Shia, that is, the Sistanis, the Hakims, the Jafaaris and the Malikis et al all took part in the prolonged drafting and negotiating of the Transitional Law in 2004 and later the draft Constitution that was finally adopted by an overwhelming 80% "yes" vote of the Iraqi people in Oct 2005.

In those negotiations the religious Shia, the Kurds, the seculars and the (tame cat) Sunnis on the IGC and later, drafted a Constitution that placed stern limitations on the executive power. I assume this was to ensure there would never, ever be a repeat of Saddam/Baath style tyranny in the new Iraq.

Furthermore, the Kurds, seculars and Sunnis allied together against the religious Shia attempts to insert sharia law into the constitution. The religious Shia compromised on this with the result that the Constitution does not impose sharia law on Iraq.

Just as crucially, the religious Shia agreed to the proportionally representative electoral system for Iraq even though the Shia outnumber the Sunni Arabs 80/20 in Arab Iraq and would have easily dominated in a US or UK style "winner take all" system.

Adopting the PR ensured that substantial (ie 20%) minority groups such as the Arab Sunnis and the Kurds can never be marginalised and coalition governments dependent on negotiation, consensus and compromise will forever be the future of Iraq. That is, unless its constitution is overthrown by internal forces like the Sadrists and the Sunni insurgency who want "winner take all"


Even though they are a 20% minority in that country, the Sunni Arabs were guaranteed powersharing by the new majority in the new Iraq. This after more than 40 years of Sunni Arab political representatives, Baath and Saddam, having ruled the shia (and Kurd) 80% majority by all the means of brutality a totalitarian state has at its disposal.

And what did they get for this generosity of spirit? During all that time the Sunni Arab population in the Sunni provinces and in Bagdad were supporting actively or passively, financially and otherwise, the Sunni insurgency that was blowing up, kidnapping, capturing, torturing, executing and beheading thousands upon thousands of shiites. And that's not counting the Sunni Arab insurgency attacks on shiite civilians? And maiming tens of thousands of others.

In addition, the Sunni insurgency was assassinating major Shia religious leaders( the first in in the same month in 2003 that the insurgency blew up the UN headquarters AND the Jordanian embassy) and attacking or blowing up their major religious holy places (the most spectacular example was the Sammarra mosque, but there were others before that).

I submit that the religious Shia would have cause to be very cautious about embracing holus bolus reconciliation with former Sunni insurgents? For a start they would be profoundly stupid not to assume there are AlqI sleeper agents in the Awakenings? Anything other than adopting caution and suspicion in the circumstances they have experienced simply does not stand to reason.

And yet, given all they have faced I am yet to read an utterance from the religious shia heavies in the government or even read a prognostication from the so-called pundits that their ultimate aim is to resile from the Iraq constitution? How come?

Feel it is this pervasive lack of understanding of Shia and Kurdish realities of their past experience with the minority Sunni Arab hegemeny that makes Nibras so unforgiving and unprepared to give the US its proper due, imo.

In my mind, the question is to Herschel Smith is why the Shia/Kurd government seems to be so automatically demonised by him and others on military bogs and websites? Not why Nibras is so prickly!

4:11 AM, July 02, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Herschil Smith is a whackjob. He calls himself the 'captain' of his blog when he hasn't even served in the military. He uses the royal 'we' when writing. He doesn't allow criticism on his blog. he is a shoe salesmen in Nevada. Many officers and veterans feel insulted that Herschil is pretending to be a Marine Captain.

8:25 AM, July 02, 2008

Blogger pandorasell said...

Silver pandora jewelry store comprises replacement atomic number 79 equally the metal by choice in that pandora jewelry website flavors manners. .925 alright superlative Ag Jewelry checks 92.5% complete silver pandora jewelry online and comprises assorted with extra debases to beef up them and abbreviate maculating pandora style jewelry coming through a hard-nosed alloy as pandora bracelet beads . The rise in metal prices, especially gold, have begun to alter pandora leather bracelets dashes. Designers are applying sterling pandora style bracelets a lot of today because of its gold pandora bracelets appeal and affordability. Designers care Jacques Louis pandora charm necklaces David Yurman and those from pandora’s cause changed their focus and are making A-list assembles by .925 Fine Sterling pandora necklace charms Although Silver is affordable its price has quietly risen 300% inch the last 5 years and is astir across 50% pandora silver beads these class entirely. Many investment advisers* recommend a portion of your wealth be inward Ag and amber. Trend setters who comprised the first to begin wearing pandora necklace leathers metal to match tatto last word and additional electric current styles as well do good along accepting pandora bracelet charms worth more than they paid for it.

10:24 PM, November 22, 2010

Blogger 一笑千年 said...

In reality, almost almost all colors enables you vbnfuyt to brush or perhaps tint prescribed oakley frogskins . Generally, cheap Oakley sunglasses virtual test can become fallen directly into several sorts and different online vendors could have their distinct ones. oakley frogskins can be abbreviated directly into "try-on" or perhaps "virtual try-on". In any manner, one can easily open this kind of item when he desires to choose his / her beloved low-cost oakley jawbone . Another extremely professional low-cost Oakley sunglasses virtual test is founded on the info of peoples' faces and also heads. Such test oakley flak jacket will be professional and also complicated, yet very correct. Some blanks concerning people's face can be filled, like the length, size, height with the face, brow, and a great many other oakley radar

7:00 PM, July 08, 2011

Anonymous Oakley Frogskin said...

Even so, that may very well be not plenty of. typical type of Cheap Oakley Sunglasses cannot normally ensure that eye projectiles and skins all about them usually are effectively guarded and many other increased sized sunlight don are kjfhg9l desired. Oakley Jawbone are supposed in larger sizing and may Oakley Jawbones include very greater region and may prevent many dangerous rays which may possibly get there to eyes balls in addition to skins all around. Another distinction concerning these Oakley Frogskins together with other items is usually wearers. With latest days to weeks, Oakley Frogskin perform a fundamental set up every people lifetime.

5:12 AM, July 25, 2011

Blogger dong dong23 said...

christian louboutin outlet
nike basketball shoes
jordan shoes
timberland boots
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
ed hardy clothing
nike outlet store
louis vuitton
toms shoes
cheap toms shoes
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
tory burch flats
michael kors outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap oakley sunglasses
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
air jordans
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton outlet
gucci outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin sale
adidas originals
adidas uk
celine handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
adidas outlet store
ralph lauren polo
coach outlet store online

6:52 PM, June 07, 2016


Post a Comment

<< Home