Iraq says Al-Qaeda cleared from main northern city

From Yahoo via AFP.

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. A total of 1,480 people have been detained since the operation began on May 14, 300 of them wanted suspects, Khalaf added. "Among those arrested were important Al-Qaeda leaders, including both military commanders and intelligence chiefs, as well as members of Ansar al-Sunna, the Army of Mujahedeen and the Brigades of the 1920 Revolution," all Sunni Arab insurgent groups, he said.

In 12 days of operations, Iraqi forces with assistance from the US have captured 300 high-level insurgents or an average of 25 per day. Of the 1480 captured, about 1000 insurgents maintain in custody. Put another way, this is 83 insurgents taken off the street per day.

In case one is wondering if the right people have been captured, understand in the 12 days since operations "Mother of Two Springs" started, attacks in Mosul are down 85%.

Couple these reports with the report that nine local emirs were captured in Diyala, and one begins to see a pattern of a complete collapse of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Al Qaeda in Iraq's last unassailable base was Mosul. From Mosul, Al Qaeda in Iraq carried out operations in Salaldin and Diyala Provinces.

While, Al Qaeda in Iraq attempts to regain a foothold in Al Anbar, it has been run out of Diyala and Salaldin Provinces and fled north to Mosul. Now its forces are being rounded up in Mosul. Simultaneously, 3ID forces have all but cleared the Triangle of Death south of Baghdad. The Marines are keeping Al Anbar quite. All of this is against the backdrop of Sons Of Iraq forces still growing in numbers daily.

Which was once of force of a few thousand Al Qaeda members who enjoyed tacit or active support from the population is now a force which is having its leadership decapitated daily with Sons Of Iraq providing security once Iraqi and US forces clear towns and communities.

Operationally, PM Maliki's forces have cleared the South of Shiite militias and Special Groups and are now walking freely in Sadr City. The Kurdish north has always been secure and is propsering well. Al Anbar was cleared in early 2007. Now the center of the country, known as the belts around Baghdad are being cleared of insurgents to include their last city held, Mosul.

Strategically, since PM Maliki's forces led the charges in the South, Sadr City, and Mosul, his Army is being seen as having the capability to secure its own country. In fact, they are not only securing their own country, they are clearing insurgents out of their country. Secure is a defensive term while clearing is an offensive term.

Because his forces are now going after not only Sunni insurgents, but also Shiite insurgents, PM Maliki is buiding up trust among Sunnis (and Iraqis in general), who are going back into the government. His military successes have resulted in political reconciliation as a strong central government has emerged. This strong central government will now be expected to maintain the peace and also begin to provide essential services throughout the country, especially in recently cleared and secured areas.

With violence dropping 85% in most areas, PM Maliki must transition his efforts from gaining security to maintaining security and reconstruction. Reconstruction will lead to further reconciliation. Reconciliation will lead to a strong, unified, democratic government which will continue to build capacity to provide essential services and security to the populous. Once both of these are provided, the new democratic Iraq will shortly become an economic powerhouse in the region causing other nations in the region to wonder aloud why they are not enjoying the same economic freedoms as their Sunni, Shiite, or Kurdish brothers.

The one answer will be democracy which can maintain security while promoting economic prosperity. A fundamental shift is about to occur in the Middle East. This shift will be away from dictatorships to democratic governments which allow the common man to rise up from poverty through hard work and propser.

If 2007 was the turning point militarily in Iraq, 2008 will be seen as the turning point economically and politically. I predict 2009 and 2010 will be seen as the turning point politically in the region as a whole.

All of this has been made possible by a bold initiative began in early 2003 to replace a dictator and install a democratic government in the center of the Middle East for all other countries to emulate. Ronald Reagan got the Soviet Union to drop the wall and freed millions of people in Europe. George Bush destroyed a similar wall in the Middle East which also freed millions of people. Unlike Eastern Europe where a transfer to democracy was executed from the ground up, in the Middle East it was introduced from the top down simultaneously with security being formed from the bottom up.

Al Qaeda, Iranian Special Groups, and Shiite Militias have all been on the wrong side of this war for freedom and democracy. They are now suffering the consequences of their actions.

Iran cleric blasts US-Iraqi military agreement

From Yahoo via AFP.

A senior Iranian cleric on Friday slammed as treachery to Islam a security accord due to be sealed between Baghdad and Washington on the presence of American troops in Iraq. This agreement shows that "Iraqi tribunals will not be able to judge American military personnel and employees of firms who work for the US military," Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said during weekly prayers in Tehran.

Khatami then went on to say.

"American forces will keep the ministries of defence, interior and intelligence under their supervision for 10 years... and will be able to have private jails in Iraq," he said. Khatami charged that the accord will allow US troops to launch attacks from Iraq "against any country that backs terrorist groups." "It is open-ended slavery. It is the worst humiliation. "Any hand that signs such an agreement will be considered by Iran as a traitor to Islam, to Shiism and to the Iraqi people," he added.

I find Khatami's statements interesting and telling.

Obviously, he is concerned that the US will have private jails in Iraq which will hold terrorists and supporters of terrorists. The US will be able to attack countries from Iraq which back terrorists and those countries will be humiliated by the US. Finally, if Iraq signs the upcoming SOFA agreement, Iran will consider Iraq a traitor to Iranian Shiism.

If this isn't considered a military, political, and diplomatic victory in Iraq, what is?

Iran will be and is becoming more contained every day and it does not quite frankly like it. It will have US forces on both its western and eastern borders. It will have aircraft carriers along it southern coast. Economic sanctions are having an impact on its country because it refuses to give up nuclear production and state support of terrorism in the region. Its one ally in the region is discussing a formal declaration of peace with Israel.

Again, it is extremely interesting how much different a year makes. The US is in a position of authority again in the region. We could have cut and run last year and lost much of our international clout and prestige, but President Bush decided to surge combat forces to the region. Now, almost one year later from the start of the surge, Iraq is mostly secure, Al Qaeda in Iraq is effectively defeated, the Mahdi Army is subdued, Israel and Syria are discussing a peace treaty, and Iran is feeling contained and alone.

We can argue all day about whether we should have gone into Iraq in 2003. But in 2008, it appears the Bush Doctrine is well on its way to solving many long standing situations in the Middle East.

For a full read, click here.

ANALYSIS: Syrian-Israeli contacts worry Iran, Hezbollah

From M & C.

'Will there be another war this summer?' is a question frequently heard in Arab capitals these days.... Secret, indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel - held since April 2007 with Turkish mediation and publicly confirmed by Turkey and Syria for the first time last week - make no sense at all in this context. Or do they? Arab commentators conjecture that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is negotiating with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over the return of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in order to break Syria's tight embrace with Iran, Israel's archenemy. A commentator from the pan-Arab newspaper al-Hayat wrote that by concluding a peace treaty with Syria, Israel could 'strike Iran in the middle of the heart' and also weaken Hezbollah, which is said to be still getting Iranian weapons via Syria.

If this peace treaty is successful, Assad would get the Golan Heights back, end international isolation, and possibly stave off any further investigation of the Rafik Hariri murder. Israel would get a peace treaty with a as yet unfriendly neighbor to the northeast which would theoretically also weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon resulting in a secure north. There exists a lot of win-win in this agreement for both sides. The fact that a deal has not been struck between the two parties has probably less to do with the benefits both sides would gain from a treaty then the distrust of each of the participants for the other side.

The treaty with Syria would allow Israel to focus on the Iranian nuclear issue without worrying about attacks from the North since Syria would theoretically not violate a new agreement and risk loosing the Golan Heights again. In turn, Hezbollah's power would be greatly reduced without a big brother resupplying them. We need not forget the fact that while Hezbollah did a good job of thwarting an Israeli offensive, they themselves never went on the offensive. Specifically, Hezbollah is a purely defensive entity. The only thing they could do to Israel is fire a whole bunch of rockets into Israel. Doing so without Syrian support would be risky. Once Israel finished with Iran, they could turn their Air Force back onto southern Lebanon.

Undoubtedly, Iran knew these negotiations were ongoing which begs the question. What was their reaction? Amir Taheri reported earlier that PM Maliki did not move into Basra on the offensive, but it was instead a defensive maneuver aimed at limiting Iranian consolidation of power in the south. If true, Iran's reaction was to consolidate power across Southern Iraq extending the Persian reach to Jordan in its quest westward towards the Mediterranean. If successful, this advance would have surely reduced the likelihood of Assad negotiating a peace with Israel. However, it proved unsuccessful. Iran is now weakened and within a few weeks, we hear of secret negotiations between Syria and Israel. In addition, attacks against Iranian sponsored groups, namely the Mahdi Army, continue in their strongholds of Sadr City and Basra, further weakening Iranian efforts across Iraq.

Turkey is not only a mediator, but it is an active participant as it cleans up the PKK problem in the north. While no state in the region wants a fully independent Kurdistan, one which is part of a greater Iraq is less threatening and acceptable for not only states, but apparently the Kurds also. Complete independence for Kurds can be something worked out in decades to come.

Last December (2007) PM Maliki's government signed a "memorandum of agreement" with the Kurdish and Sunni leaders which layed the groundwork for the continuation of PM Maliki reign after national elections in 2009. His recent action into Basra not only further consolidated his power in Iraq with the Kurds and Sunnis, but also limited Iranian influenced control in the South which is why the Sunnis just came back to the government.

Currently, Iraqi diplomats are in Iran proving to the government Iranian sponsored unrest in Iraq. While Iran can continue to deny, the fact that Iraqi officials are showing the Iranian leaders what proof they have is significant in and of itself. It shows the international community, and more importantly Sunni dominated countries bordering Iraq in the Middle East, that while Iraq will be Shiite dominated from now on, it will not be a puppet of Iran. Why is all this important?

In order for a Shiite led Iraq to persist for decades to come, the Iraqi leadership has to show its neighbors it is not a puppet of Iran else it will be in constant conflict with its Sunni neighbors, most notably Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Turkey. Preventing Iranian control in the south clearly showed Sunni neighbors this fact which is why Iraqi Sunnis shortly afterward returned to the government. Showing Iran directly further proves this point, not to Iran who knows darn well what it is doing in Iraq, but to Iraqi's Sunni neighbors. The uncertainty of continued US presence in the region is only intensifying this diplomacy since that the US sponsored surge has allowed the Iraqi government the breathing room to consolidate power and grow its Army to defend not only its borders, but its interior.

I have stated before The Battle of Basra completely changed the dynamics in the region. The new dynamics are now starting to show themselves. Iran is becoming further isolated which is what all Middle East players wanted. Iraq is showing its independence from Iran and is building up its future role as a mediator between Sunni dominated governments and Iran in the future. No government, not even an uncommitted US has the military to take over Iran; hence, the only way to prevent further confrontation in the Middle East is to continue diplomatic pressure on Iran to further isolate it, just like Syria for the last few years. Syria, seeing the writing on the wall, is closer to peace with Israel in hopes of resecuring control of the Golan Height.

The sacrificial lambs in these latest developments are the Mahdi Army, Hezbollah, the PKK, and Al Qaeda. The beneficiaries are a stable democratic Iraq, a stable democratic Lebanon, a stable Turkish southern border which is doing a banner business with the Kurdish north who can focus its efforts on getting into the EU, a Syria which will be allowed back in the international community, Saudi Arabia and Jordan which no longer have to worry about a strong extremist salafist movement within their borders or a strong Shiite Theocracy in the east, and finally a free-independent Israel which can in the near term focus on Iranian nuclear aspirations and then later on an independent West Bank now that it has a new peace treaty with a former unfriendly neighbor, Syria.

While none of this could have been planned in March 2003 when the United States went to war in Iraq, it was a major tenet of the Bush Doctrine that a democracy in the heart of the Middle East would lead to a more friendly and stable Middle East. If even half of the above comes to pass, the invasion of Iraq would have accomplished its objectives.

The trouble makers of the Middle East will have been tamed. Iraq was made into a democracy. Syria is being turned away from Iran. Iran is being further isolated with not only enemies on its borders, but now US friendly enemies on its borders. Israel is seeing more friendly neighbors in a democractic Lebanon, a peace wanting Syria, and a Saudi government who, below the scenes, is cooperating with them against terrorists. Saudi Arabia is also able for the first time to confront Wallabism as intellectual turbulence created by a violent Al Qaeda has Muslims the world over wondering how they created a force which kills not only fellow Muslims but also innocent women and children. Simultaneously, the Great Satan, the United States, has gained international respect since it is shouldering the military burden of cleaning up the mess which was the Middle East.

Not a bad two terms for President Bush to say the least. The battles currently ongoing are either part of World War IV, continuing battles of the Cold War, or the final battles of World War II, but that is for another article. Whichever proves to be correct, it is why I have always stated that we are doing the Lord's work in with military operations Iraq and Afghanistan and diplomatic operations in the Middle East. Thank God President Bush had enough faith to not listen to defeatist liberals who wanted to pull defeat from the jaws of victory and defiantly executed a surge of forces in Iraq which again, by everything above, has been a resounding success, not only for Iraq, but the greater Middle East, which by the way, was exactly what was intended as part of his Greater Middle East Initiative, which most pundits would say failed, or has it.....

Dubya's Middle East Agenda - Can He Consolidate His Revolution.

From Amir Taheri.

Once again, Amir Taheri has his hand on the pulse of the Middle East and apparently a better understanding of President Bush's purpose of his Middle East visit.

GEORGE W. Bush will set a new presidential record on his Middle East grand tour, visiting at least 10 countries in a short period. In some, he'll be the first US president to make a state visit. But what is the visit for? Cynics would suggest that Bush is looking for photo opportunities that might add some spice to his future memoirs. More generous commentators might see the tour as the continuation of an American tradition: All US presidents since Woodrow Wilson have dreamed of themselves as peacemakers and tried to help others sort out ancient disputes.

While he states that both of these opinions may be true, he point to a larger reason.

But Bush realized post-9/11 that it was the very status quo that America had helped preserve that had produced its deadliest foes. He became the first US president to adopt an anti-status quo, not to say revolutionary, posture toward the Middle East.

While he notes that Iran, Russia, and China (America's chief rival) seem to have benefitted most from the change in the status quo, I believe he misses the point of a capitalistic democracy emerging in Iraq. Yes, countries such as Iran, Russia, and China have benefitted, in the short run. However, as the beacon of democracy which is Iraq begins to shine brighter each day and becomes a new model of government in the Middle East to replace the historic models of Turkey and Iran, the rest of the countries in the Middle East will benefit as will the rest of the world, to include the United States.

The United States always benefits where freedom and democracy prevail. While the war is costly, the benefits from a free, democratic Iraq will pay the United States back tenfold in commerce, which is our true benefit. Whether or not we own the corporations currently coming into Iraq is immaterial because the United States always benefit from more commerce as does the rest of the world.

President Bush has indeed kick started a revolution in the Middle East by bucking the status quo. Over time, more and more countries will become free, some may need to be forced, others will turn to freedom and democracy on their own. All transitions will be painful, as they should be since in order to remain free, a people need to have the courage to stand up to tyrannical forces that will appear and reappear in their country to challenge their freedom.

For a full read, click here.

Middle East indebted to Bush

From Salim Mansur at the Toronto Sun.

This week's journey of U.S. President George W. Bush to the Middle East -- the itinerary beginning with Israel includes visits to the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt -- is greatly significant and yet, in keeping with his temper, a low-keyed affair as the last remaining months of his presidency unfold. We likely can surmise there is one more visit to the region still to be made by Bush. This will be a visit to Baghdad with an address to Iraq's democratically elected parliament before Bush takes leave from the White House for his ranch in Crawford, Tex. When Bush stepped into the Oval Office -- a long time ago now it seems on that cold January morning in 2001 -- the Arab-Muslim world was furthest from his mind as it was from the minds of most Americans. But the malignancy of the Middle East, ignored by the West and the previous occupants of the White House, would strike New York City, bringing the Arab-Muslim world's politics of fanatical hate, deep-seated resentment and a mountain of grievances to the shores of the United States. The Arabs had squandered the 20th century just as they slept through much of the previous four centuries, while the West created a whole new world of science and democracy. The independence won for the Arabs from the rule of the Ottoman Turks by Britain and France at the end of the First World War eventually became a cruel mockery with a people -- despite the resources and goodwill available -- incapable of lifting themselves up from the broken ruins of their tribal culture. This is the root cause of Arab failure, and instead of embracing the modern world by reforming its culture the Arab political class has indulged in blaming others, most particularly Jews and Israel. George Bush could have remained indifferent to the Arab-Muslim world's malignancy, mouthing pieties as members of the ever fashionable lib-left political class in the West endlessly does, while watching the Arabs sink deeper into the political squalor of their making. Instead, Bush struck directly at the most rotten core of the Middle East -- Iraq, the land of two rivers, choked to death by the vilest of Arab tyrants in recent memory, Saddam Hussein -- to give the Arabs an opportunity one more time to make a better future. Regime change in Baghdad has brought a new Iraq to emerge with American support despite the fanatical opposition of the most backward tribal warriors of the Arab-Muslim world. Iraqis -- Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds -- now bear responsibility that comes with freedom to write a new history for Arabs as, for instance, the far more populous and ethnically diverse people of India are doing. The Arab leaders greeting Bush remain frozen in their hypocrisy, unable to say publicly what they will say privately, being relieved in knowing the United States remains committed to maintaining order and security in the Persian Gulf region. But free Iraq looms large in the capitals of the Arab states, and if Iraqis keep progressing in freedom their example will be an irresistible attraction for the Arab-Muslim world spread between the Atlantic and the Persian Gulf. A democratic Iraq is George Bush's formidable legacy, and the Arabs will be talking about him long after his contemporary critics bite the dust and are forgotten

I could not have said it any better myself.

Fatah (and Hamas) lose support among Palestinians

The Jerusalem Post reports that Palestinians are losing faith in not only Fatah, but also Hamas.

Fatah still commands a strong lead over Hamas that controls Gaza, with 39 percent of Palestinians trusting it, as opposed to 16 percent backing for Hamas. But in November, 46 percent of those surveyed for a similar poll favored Fatah, and 13 percent backed Hamas. Forty-one percent of those polled said they didn't trust either faction, up from 32 percent in November.

The article goes on to state.

While most Palestinians trust and approve Fatah's peace moves, they have little trust in Fatah's ability to improve their own living conditions, said Jamil Rabah, director of Near East Consulting. "People don't have a problem with the thinking and ideology of Fatah, but they are not happy with the symbols and leaders of Fatah," Rabah said. "They are getting so much money, but will they bring an end to the (deteriorating) situation?"

A plurality of Palestinians (41%) do not trust Fatah or Hamas to improve their living conditions despite donor nations promising $7.4 billion over the next three years. In addition, Palestinian trust and approve of Fatah's peace moves.

Hamas took over Gaza due to is popularity slipping. The polls show their coup has not helped their popularity, standing in the teens.

So, what is the significance here?

First, this is the first poll I have seen that a plurality (41%) do not trust Fatah or Hamas

Second, this is also the first poll I have seen where a majority ("most" according to the article) want peace with Israel.

Third, Hamas, who won the Palestinians first elections, now only have support of 16% of the population.

Finally, Palestinians only had a choice between two parties in their first democratic election. Having lost faith in Fatah, they brought Hamas into power. Having seen that Hamas also does not have their best interest at heart, Palestinians became disenchanted Hamas. However, instead of support moving to Fatah, it has now moved to a third, yet undetermined faction or faction who will lead the Palestinians to peace with Israel and serve the people who elected it into power.

I have stated this before in this blog. The fascinating dynamic of the January 2006 election is not that the Palestinians were able to freely elect Hamas into power, but that Hamas (and Fatah) could be unelected in the future if they did not govern for the people since they were now elected by the people.

It now appears the Palestinians would vote both parties out of power. This is the gift the Palestinians were given in January 2006. Many concluded the Palestinians squandered this gift by voting Hamas into power. I contend they did not vote Hamas into power as much as they voted Fatah out of power due to its inability to govern for them. For its part, Fatah rather peacefully conceded power, a first for Palestinians.

Fatah, for its part, seems to have generally gotten the message, and its leaders are attempting to govern for the people to a certain extent. Hamas, on the otherhand, conducted a coup in Gaza to maintain its hold on power. Both parties poll data reflect accurately the amount of trust Palestinians now put in their parties.

Israel should use this poll data to push for peace with the Palestinians. In addition, America should help the Palestinians find a leader for the disenchanted 41% who neither favor Fatah or Hamas and who will govern for the people.

However, even without America's or Israel's meddling, the Palestinians were given a special gift, the gift of democracy, in January 2006. As with all young democracies (including our own), it initially has to overcome significant graft, develop the spirit of a democracy, and fully understand what a democracy gives to its people. This two year old democracy is still young and learning. It is no older or wiser at this point than is a toddler. In fact, some may say, it has entered into its "terrible twos". Yet, this young democracy will continue to grow and florish. It will go through puberty, sweet sixteen, and finally become a respectable adult providing for it children.

Everybody wants to end the Palestinian crisis, but what is forgotten is the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was ended on January 2006. It is now something completely different. It is a democracy. Its people were liberated, not from the Israelis, but from their own totalitarian rulers. Yes, Hamas brought forth a coup in Gaza to retain power, but Fatah is moving ahead with peace towards Israel and peace for its people. Right now there are two divided Palestinian areas, but over time, the power of the people will reunite these separated people.

George Washington gave this country a gift on 23 December 1797. Another George gave the Palestinians a gift on 25 January 2006 as part of the Bush Doctrine which declared one of the goals of the United States was to spread of democracy to prevent the rise or continuation of terrorist's regimes. While not yet a fully developed democracy, the Palestinian people are going through their "terrible twos" enroute in their path to get there.

The Spark of Democracy is Now Burning Intensely in the Middle East

According to a recent poll by the AAFAQ Foundation, support for Hamas is foundering.

41% of respondents support Fatah while 34% support Hamas, and 25% reported not supporting either.

A few things are important about these numbers. First, it marks the first time in a few years that Fatah came out ahead, but even more important it shows that 1/4 of Palestinians do not support either party. I believe this is a first and very significant fact.

Eighty-seven percent of poll respondents said that they disapproved of Hamas's policies towards residents of Gaza, while 13% disapproved of the Fayyed government's performance in the West Bank

While Abbas is not without blood on his hands from his Arafat days, his current moderation to Israel and promotion of democracy is apparently gaining approval from Palestinians while a large majority (87%) of Palestinians disapprove of Hamas' policies towards residents of Gaza.

In addition, 74% of respondents blamed Hamas for the coup in Gaza, while 15% blamed Fatah; 11% held both parties responsible.

Note, the poll blames Hamas for the coup in Gaza, it does not praise them for the coup in Gaza. This is also significant showing Hamas has lost popular support.

The poll also found widespread demand for early presidential and legislative elections in the Palestinian territories.

Now, this is the most important statement. I wrote about a year ago that Palestinians for the first time experienced democracy (a government elected by the people, for the people) while other authors pointed to the elections as proof that Muslims cannot live in a democracy because when they do, they elect terrorists to lead. I pointed out that this country (an established democracy) has often chosen the wrong leader at the precisely wrong time (think Jimmy Carter as a recent example). Palestinians were only given a first choice between Fatah and Hamas, an election of having to chose for the lessor of two evils.

This brings me back to my first point, 25% of Palestinians support neither Hamas or Fatah.

Lets think back into history a bit. The PLO was created as a terrorist organization as a banner for Palestinians to rally under against Israel. Later, it became a political party, ruled by Fatah. However, Fatah members were known for filling their own pockets and not helping out their people, hence Hamas, who begin a greass roots movement of education and support of the people, was thrust into power. Palestinians then saw that once in power support not only stopped, but terror and coups prevailed.

This is not what they elected Hamas for and it is precisely why Fatah was defeated. Fatah learned (apparently) its lesson and is trying to rectify itself in the West Bank and with the international community in general.

Whether either party survives will depend on whether they learn that the spark of democracy has been lit among the Palestinians. Palestinians want a representative government who will guarantee their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Where did they get this idea? Looking northeast, they see a young democracy, called Iraq, pursing the same course and fighting against the same enemy, namely evil salafists who are taking their sons and using them literally as human bombs for their own evil purposes.

The democratic experiment in Iraq, whether or not one is for or against the U.S. goal their, was a bold move by President Bush to put the spark of democracy in the Middle East. The spark has survived, the fire has been lit, and it is now starting to burn with intensity in all people of the Middle East. Young, and old, democracies often do not make all the right choices; however, in the long run, they always become more supportive of the people precisely because they are elected and more importantly unelected by the people.

Time is moving fast in the Middle East to bring these feudal societies into the 21st century. The internet is ensuring the free passage of information. It will be interesting to see what the new decade brings a short three years from now, compared to where it was seven years ago and centuries before the present.

Sometimes democracies elect the right person at precisely the right time. George Bush's bold move into the Middle East with information flow from the internet available to most people has ensured the truth is getting out to people. The truth about Al Qaeda, the truth about Hamas, and the truth about Iran are all being exposed. Most importantly, the truth that all people were endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights has been given to people of the Middle East. These unalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All people want these rights, and the U.S. democracy is the world leader of implementing these rights abroad. It has recently stated to all who will listen that the only way to ensure these rights is the ability to elect and unelect our leaders.

Middle East leaders need to take note. Al Qaeda wanted to kill and subvert this democracy, but instead, they highlighted and enhanced it for all to see.

Jordan's Abdullah: PA gov't must adhere to Quartet conditions

Haaretz, has text of an interview with King Abdullah of Jordan which Israel's Channel 2 will air today. In it King Abdullah states,

There's international common ground - not just Western but also Arab and to an extent Muslim - that believe that there have to be certain criteria that the new government has to accept if we're going to move the process forward

He further explains,

It's not just ... the international players, but also the Arab countries are also expecting the new Palestinian government to adhere to the policies that we have set out in the Quartet, and in the Arab Quartet also

So, not only does Russia, the EU, the UN, and the US believe Palestinians must recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by interim peace deals, but King Abdullah is also saying that Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates expect the Palestinians adhere to these conditions too.

The Palestinians now have two major Quartets pushing for them to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by interim peace deals. It will be interesting to see how this push against the Palestinians plays out now that they are being threatened by not only western governments, but also major Arab governments.