Ideologies v. Guns, and Hope as a Strategy

It is good to know that leftist logic never changes.  

A quote from President Obama yesterday, that would have been right at home in protests of the 1960's....

"...in order for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al Qaeda it's going to also require us to discredit their ideology -- the twisted thinking that draws vulnerable people into their ranks.  As I’ve said before -- and I know our military leaders agree -- this broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort.  Ideologies are not defeated with guns; they’re defeated by better ideas..."

Hmmm, are we sure about that?

http://www.protestwarrior.com

Now, yes, evil ideologies must be supplanted by better ideas, but most times that supplanting must be done at the point of a gun.  Those nasty evil guns....and lots of soldiers with guns, occupying enemy territory, and delivering defeat.

"Know what really discredits ideologies? Unconditional surrender, occupying their capitals, wrecking their cities, defeating their armies." - @20Committee

To use a time tested maxim, "Hope is not a strategy".  And "No Boots on-the-Ground" is not a winning strategy either.  

Better ideas can't retake Ramadi.  Better ideas can't retake Mosul.  And better ideas can't defeat ISIL.

Not on their own.  Our better ideas require guns to conquer the evil ideas that are washing over the landscape unabated.

Evil ideologies are not just defeated with guns, they’re defeated by better ideas backed by the threat, even the use, of guns.  The sooner the President realizes that, the better.

Gulf War - Air Campaign: 20 Years On...

While it may get lost it the official holiday, Monday is the 20th anniversary of the start of Operation Desert Storm.

The Air Campaign was kicked off by Task Force Normandy, as 2 USAF MH-53 Pave Low helicopters led 8 Army AH-64 attack helicopters across the Iraqi border...

At 2:38 a.m. on Jan. 17, 1991, U.S. Army 1st Lt. Tom Drew launched Operation Desert Storm by speaking into his radio microphone: “Party in ten.” The pilot of an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, Drew was part of a joint Army-Air Force strike team making a secret, nocturnal attack on Iraqi radar stations. Drew’s radio call told others in the force that AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles unleashed by Apaches would detonate on their targets in ten seconds.

It was called Task Force Normandy. The strike team consisted of a dozen helicopters – eight missile-firing Apaches with a ninth as a backup, a UH-60A Black Hawk for combat rescue if needed, and two Air Force MH-53J Enhanced Pave Low IIIs. The Pave Lows were equipped with a terrain-following and global positioning navigation system to bring the attackers to their destination.

The target was a pair of Iraqi air defense radar installations. On the first night of a conflict, destroying these stations would open a path to Baghdad for warplanes of the coalition arrayed against Saddam Hussein. The timing of Task Force Normandy’s attack was determined by the projected time when Iraqi radar would detect Air Force EF-111A Raven aircraft preceding F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters in attacks on downtown Baghdad. Destroying the radars would open a pathway for the bombers to proceed.

Army Lt. Col. (later, Gen.) Richard A. “Dick” Cody – a future vice chief of staff – led the strike. Lt. Col. (later, Col.) Richard L. “Rich” Comer led the Air Force contingent.

The attack was devised after U. S. Central Command, under Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, decided against inserting Special Forces troops to destroy the sites. Apaches could bring firepower to bear on the targets and confirm that they had been destroyed.

After months of training, on Jan. 14, 1991, Cody’s force positioned itself under radio silence at Al Jouf, near Saudi Arabia’s border with Iraq. Cody divided the force into two teams. After an ultimatum to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein went unheeded and the order for war came, Cody led the White team out of Al Jouf. The Red team, led by Capt. Newman Shufflebarger, followed 12 minutes later.

The radar installations were close to the border but were separated by 70 miles. About 30 miles south of the target, the MH-53Js delivered their last position update and then peeled off to loiter nearby. The two Apache teams approached their respective radar sites. Each team split into two two-ship groups positioned half a mile apart.

The Hellfire warheads must have created a horrendous mess of concrete and metal churning inside the orange fireball associated with the missile. But the American helicopter crews never witnessed this. They turned home seconds before blowing up the radar sites and opening a 20-mile wide strip for coalition warplanes to travel into Iraq with impunity. Cody transmitted a radio signal indicating the strike had succeeded and led his helicopters back to safety. Minutes later, above a command center in Baghdad, an F-117A dropped the first bomb of the war. Thereafter, air operations faced little danger from what had been Saddam Hussein’s vaunted air defense network. Operation Desert Storm achieved its goal of liberating occupied Kuwait from Iraq six weeks later.

It is hard to imagine that it has been 20 years, and how far we have come as a military since then....

Consequences of Delaying the Afghan Decision

Over at Bouhammer's Afghan Blog, an Afghan vet lays out why President Obama's delay in making a decision on an Afghan surge will make things a lot more complicated.

Dear Mr. President:
Posted By The Dude on December 6, 2009

Now that I’ve had a few days to ingest, digest, and perform my own mission analysis on your new plan for Afghanistan, I’m a bit concerned. My concerns are based from my experiences of being on one end of the spectrum at the tip of of the spear defending freedom in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions, to the opposite end of that spectrum in Kuwait serving in the logistical nerve center for both Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

Some points to consider....

- Winter is coming has already arrived in Afghanistan. Had this decision been made during the summer, any surge of forces to the north and the east of the country could have beaten the winter conditions. Now it will be more difficult.

- With the upcoming drawdown in Iraq, logistics hubs and transport will be very busy in 2010. Add ina surge to Afghanistan, and you get a logistics nightmare. Had this decision been made during the summer, then some of the surge movement could have preceded the Iraq drawdown, and thus avoided future scheduling conflicts. I feel for my Army logistician and Air Force airlift brethren over the coming year...

Perhaps this should not come as any surprise, especially concerning the office of the President of the United States, but decisions (or lack thereof) have consequences. And even seemingly trivial decisions can have cascading effects. However when it comes to military matters in times of war, there are no trivial decisions, and the cascading effects can have serious consequences.

It can only be in Washington where 'a decision delayed is a decision made'. I don't think they teach that up at West Point, Mr. President.

Brothers at War

"Two Brother Went To Fight...One Went To Find Out Why"

After a spate of the to-be-expected left wing Hollywood tripe about the war in Iraq, we are finally starting to see some quality treatments of soldiers and their actual life (and death) in war.

First was HBO's 'Taking Chance', set to premiere next weekend. (Of course lets not forget Outside the Wire either...)

Now we have 'Brothers at War'



"With a desire to know his brothers better, and see the war in Iraq first hand, Jake Rademacher journeys to Mosul, Iraq to embed in his brother's unit."

From all appearances this appears to be a true personal journey of a film with no agenda. I hate to have to caveat this with 'appears, but as I alluded to above, Hollywood has me jaded on the subject. I have great hopes, since it gets a good review from Hooah Wife, and her West Point hubbie.

Go see it, and make up your own mind....

The Action Afghans Need

Afghanistan is in crisis.

We need action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis. No time for delay. In fact delay is inexcusable and irresponsible!

Ooops...sorry, those were the President's invectives about his bloated "stimulus" bill....

Unfortunately, the strategy for victory in Afghanistan is imbued with no such sense of urgency from the new Administration. And this is despite the fact that we are being told this is the toughest war in the last 50 years.

"President Obama's national security team gave a dire assessment Sunday of the war in Afghanistan..." [WaPo]

Of course this is no different than anything that has been said over the last year, but I guess it needs to be said if only to tag the last administration with guilt.

However it is the language that the Dems use that one can infer the "dire" nature of the task.

Holbrooke Says Afghan War ‘Tougher Than Iraq’
The war in Afghanistan will be “much tougher than Iraq,” President Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan said at a security conference here on Sunday.

Interestingly, less than 2 years ago, Holbrooke also said this:

“Let me start by making a statement that I never thought I would make: the situation in Iraq today is worse than it ever was in Vietnam..."

So...through my special powers of analysis I can draw the conclusion that Afghanistan is worse than Iraq, which was worse than Vietnam...which would make it the worst situation in the last 50 years. (Grenada of course brings up a close fourth.)

And I am OK with that analysis. It is indeed a tough, intractable military problem beset by outside influences much like the other two. Of those two, one got better because we took action, and one got worse because we hog-tied ourselves.

This leads to the question, what will Obama do? Action or inaction? So far the signs are not encouraging:

Obama puts brake on Afghan surge
PRESIDENT Barack Obama has demanded that American defence chiefs review their strategy in Afghanistan before going ahead with a troop surge.

There is concern among senior Democrats that the military is preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops without a coherent plan or exit strategy.

The Pentagon was set to announce the deployment of 17,000 extra soldiers and marines last week but Robert Gates, the defence secretary, postponed the decision after questions from Obama.

Great, we are back in the "Exit Strategy" era of foreign policy...

Thus I must ask... If the current economic situation is the worst in the last 50-60 years, and we must brook no delay in the passage of the "stimulus", then is it wise that we delay the DoD's planned solution for the worst military dilemma in the last half century? Should we not have the same sense of urgency?

Maybe it would go quicker if we included even more troops to teach the Afghans about STDs, establish the National Endowment for the Afghan Arts, handout digital-TV coupons, and provide hybrid vehicles for the Afghan government.

That might just do the trick....

Two Beers in the Desert

ESPN has an interesting piece on the military in Iraq and the following of the Super Bowl...along with the news that they will get 2 beers a piece during the game.



Good news for them...I wish I could have had a few during my 6 months in Afghanistan.

Taking Chance

I actually remember reading this moving 2004 post at Blackfive:

Taking Chance

The following is Marine Lieutenant Colonel Strobl's account of escorting the remains of Lance Corporal Chance Phelps. It's a long and beautifully written and it deserves to be read in it's entirety. It's about Valor, Honor and Respect....

On Feb 21, HBO will premier its new film "Taking Chance", starring Kevin Bacon as LtCol Strobl.



It is also an "Official Selection" for the 2009 Sundance Film Festival. Given this, and the record of Hollywood films on portraying anything to do with the war in Iraq, I was at first wary. However, a viewing of the trailer for this film would seem to show a production that is true to the intent of Strobl's original writing. In the words of the Sundance Festival programmer, "...its potency comes not from melodramatic or political statements but simply from its reality and execution." Let us hope this is true.

Echoing Blackfive's words from 2004, the USMC and the Army, who have taken the brunt of the pain over the last several years, need this film to be all about "Valor, Honor and Respect", and not the usual melodramatic political staement that Sundance is used to.

Bush Subjected to Torture by Iraqis

Isn't it funny how one election can change everything.

Not too many years ago, simply subjecting people to humiliation and insults was defined as torture. Now, if someone subjects someone else to "the worst possible insult...meant to show extreme disrespect and contempt...", he is somehow a hero and probably a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Change has arrived! Now we are just waiting for hope to show up....

Wild Dreams and Military Strategy

Instapundit has linked to a disturbing quote from Obama, which reveals much on what we can expect from his prospective administration's national security strategy.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

This quote is absurd on many levels, but here are two thoughts:

1 - The surge did not "[succeed] in ways that nobody anticipated". It in fact succeeded in the ways that the military strategists who devised it had anticipated. The goals (broadly) of the surge were to reduce the internecine violence that was rife, and set the conditions for democratic governance. When Petraeus et al set forth with the "Surge", this is the result they "anticipated". Had it not been, then they probably would not have executed the plan. Perhaps someone should tell Mr. Obama that you only execute a strategy with the anticipation of success, not with the anticipation of failure.

2 - Military and National Security strategies, when properly done, are not based upon "wild dreams". Perhaps this best demonstrates the difference on how the two ends of the political spectrum devise these strategies. On the left, strategy is often based on "our wildest dreams". This "peace-in-our-time", "can't-we-all-just-get-along approach". Somehow this is now referred to as "realism". Unfortunately, "Hope" is not a strategy. The surge was not based on the hope that we could be victorious, or the wild dream that we could succeed, it was built on many hours of sober and realistic assessments of the existing situation, and study of what had succeeded in the past.

Unfortunately, our future may hold security strategy that is based on the "wildest dreams" that the Iranians will give up their quest for nuclear weapons based on our newly installed, and ever so hopeful Ivy League diplomats. Or based on the "hope" that Russia will play nice if we simply ignore their attempts to re-annex portions of other sovereign nations.

A sober review of history will reveal that this sort of approach does not have a record "[succeeding] in ways that nobody anticipated". But rather it has a disturbing tendency to "fail in ways that many anticipated", except for those who were implementing the approach.

Once again, Hope is not a strategy.

What we really meant was....

Allahpundit has an excellent takedown of Dem angst over McCain getting verbally pugilistic with their messiah candidate. Read it here.

The best bit that comes out of it is the new Dem line that Iraq can't be lost, so why are we staying?

Interesting....
Not too long ago, according to Democrats, we needed to get out of Iraq, because Iraq couldn't be won.

Now, according to Democrats, we need to get out of Iraq, because Iraq can't be lost.

Unfortunately both arguments simply demonstrate the Dems lack of understanding of reality.

You see, not too long ago, we needed to stay in Iraq, because Iraq could be won.

Now we need to stay in Iraq because Iraq can be lost.

It is their simple misunderstanding of this reality that bothers me. For a good simulation of how the Dems line of reasoning would have affected events, please also read Bob Owens great piece: The Iraq We'd Have If We'd Heeded Obama

Also read Blackfive's comments on Obama's surge contortions here.

Good News is No News in Iraq

It has always been readily apparent that the major news outlets were more than willing to broadcast/print any bad news that emerged from Iraq. And it has been equally apparent recently that there is a reticence to give equal treatment to the good news that turned from a trickle to a regular flow. The MSM have scoffed that there could be any bias influencing their reporting from this war zone, and equal scoffing from the conservative blogosphere at that claim.
Well apparently there was a copy editor asleep at the switch over at the Old Grey Lady, because they have published a very interesting article titled "Reporters Say Networks Put Wars on Back Burner". I guess no one sent them the memo on obscuring any evidence of bias....

Other mainstream blogs like Powerline and Danger Room are right to point out the amazing numbers:

"According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007."

However no one I have seen yet (though my reading time is limited here in Afghanistan) has noted the real smoking gun, found in the quote from a CBS news bigwig:

"Paul Friedman, a senior vice president at CBS News, said the news division does not get reports from Iraq on television “with enough frequency to justify keeping a very, very large bureau in Baghdad.” He said CBS correspondents can “get in there very quickly when a story merits it.”

Oh I see. So we finally have an admission of guilt on the bias front.

CBS news has now admitted that good news from a war zone does not merit coverage. Death, carnage, mis-doings of individual soldiers, and lack of good planning all drown out positive stories when they happen at the same time. But when those negatives all dry up and disappear, and the positive stories are left standing alone, the "journalists" lose interest and can't "justify" sticking around to do their jobs. If you can't justify a bureau because not enough reports from Iraq get on television....then put more reports from Iraq on television! This magically wasn't a problem a year ago. There were plenty of stories then. Gee, if we could only figure out what has changed during that time.....

Sad. Shameful. Disappointing.

How the once mighty have fallen.

In deference to Glenn Reynolds, we don't need and "Army of Davids". We desperately need an "Army of Yons", and "Army of Roggios", and an "Army of Tottens"....

Images and their Messages

Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee points out a new DNC ad against McCain which contains the usual selective editing and some video of U.S. Soldiers in an explosion.



As disturbing as the use of such video is to make political hay, it is slightly more disturbing that television networks would allow it to run, apparently without question.

Are these the same television networks that put heavy restrictions on showing imagery from the attacks of 9/11 because they might be disturbing and (unstated) send the wrong message (e.g. retribution) to the American public?



By that measure of thinking, the DNC ad could prove traumatic for military families and veterans. But I suppose that is justified, if it will help swing an election and get the troops home faster, right?

At the very least if the networks are to air this ad, they should use an introduction warning of graphic images. But that would just highlight the crassness of the effort even more.

H/T - Instapundit

Words of Warning

I am just starting to work my way through Steve Coll's 'Ghost Wars', in preparation for my vacation to the Shomali Plain.

Early during a recitation of William Casey's efforts of working with the Pakistanis to support the burgeoning Mujahadin, Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq offered the following insight that Iraqi leaders may want to keep in the back of their minds:

"...being an ally of the United States was like living on the banks of an enormous river. 'The soil is wonderfully fertile,' he said, 'but every four or eight years the river changes course, and you may find yourself alone in a desert."

This is not to say that Iraqi leaders should root for one result or another in this fall's election, but just be warned that we are going to fight this Long War, with a many short term strategies.

But they probably figured that out already....

More 'Grim Milestones', or just Grim Outlooks?

Today Gateway Pundit and NRO's Tank point out the good news in Iraq, the continuing and rapid decline of US troop deaths. Why is it that despite this good news, the MSM can only give us their own grim outlook?

I have opined on this subject before, and would like to point out that the news is even slightly better than it appears. The casualty statistics that have been trumpeted in all the media's "grim milestone" reporting are all inclusive. They include everything to include traffic acidents, heart attacks, and even deaths outside of Iraq.

Take a look at today's reporting which hypes the fact that this year was the "deadliest year".



While all the numbers you will read like those above will say 901 (UPDATED) troops died this year. But in fact, if you look at true "hostile fire" casualties, the number is only 765. That is a 15% difference, which is not insignificant.

As Gateway and The Tank mention, the month of Dec 2007 has seen only 24 (up from earlier) deaths, the lowest since Feb 2004. However, this number does include 10 non-hostile deaths which includes injuries and traffic accidents. So in reality, there were only 14 hostile fire deaths in Dec.

No matter how you cut it the statement that this was the "Deadliest Year Ever", while factually acurate, is a loaded statement and willfully disregards the current ground truth.

Additionally, I have always thought that a better way to look at this 'metric' (if you will) is to look at it as "Hostile Deaths per day".



While the graph looks much the same as the regular monthly metric, the ratio takes some of the ambiguity out of the numbers.

The bottom line of course is that no matter how you look at it, the numbers are down dramatically, and it leads back directly to the change in strategy.

Why is it so hard for the media to recognize this and change their tune? Could it be that they are pursuing an agenda??

The tragedy of Ice and IEDs

Tragically, 32 people have died in the US since Sunday as a result of ice storms in the midwest
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that during the same time frame (Sun-Wed) only 2 US military service members have died in Iraq, and only one of those was due to hostile action.

In fact only 7 troops have been killed thus far in December (only 5 to hostile fire), putting it on pace to be the most casualty-free month since the war began.

I am reluctant to be flip about casualty numbers, since every death is one troop too many, but does anyone honestly think that is 32 troops had died in 3-4 days in Iraq that it would be relegated to the bottom of the stories on the wire?

Of course not....because the well has to be poisoned.

Evolution of Terrorism

Lets examine the recent history of terrorists on film....

1994 - When terrorists were still from the Middle East....

('True Lies', Islamic terrorists with nukes....)

2002 - Let the "white"-washing begin....

('Sum of All Fears', Islamic terrorists from the original Clancy book magically become Nazis...with nukes...)

2007 - A movie about 'terror' in Vietnam remade for modern times.

('Redacted', look who's terrorizing innocents now, US Troops! Oh, wait, I think John Kerry warned us about this...)

They told me if Bush was re-elected, artists would lose their civil liberties and would fear to express dissent... Ummm...not so much!

The next time someone says that the Bush administration has been crushing all dissent since 9/11, point out to them all the movies that somehow avoided the government censors and made it into distribution.....

The Irony of Pancakes

So the news is good today....

1) How the War was Won (Part one)

2) Former Iraqi insurgents kill 18 AQI terrorists

3) Anti-war movies tank at the box office

On that latter subject.....

I strolled into the living room earlier, where my wife was knitting and watching one of the Austin Powers movies that was playing on the cable channel E!

The movie went to break and there was an ad for a show on the channel about Robert Redford's boring and poorly reviewed new film, Lions for Lambs.

The best part? The show was being sponsored by IHOP's new special dish....'Pancake Surrender'.....



You can't make this stuff up.....

"To surrender is the only option" I wonder if IHOP will cater the Democratic National Convention next year?

Mr Redford, what type of syrup would you like with your order of surrender? Ironic Boysenberry, or Pompous Pecan, or Melodramatic Maple?

Whereforartthou Bruce Willis??

It has been two years since I read with great anticipation, Michael Yon's ongoing saga of embededment (Hey, new word!) with the "Deuce Four" in Mosul, Iraq. Better vivid depictions of men and battle cannot be found in any other media source, IMHO.



Upon their return home, I was excited to read that none other than Bruce Willis (an ardent supporter of the military) wanted to turn their story into a major motion picture. Given the dreck that passes for "war films" in present day, that would have been a much welcomed addition.

Alas, two years have passed and doing a brief search I can find no evidence that any "Deuce Four" movie project is on Willis' radar scope.

Instead, I read today that one thing that Willis will be doing is starring in an Oliver Stone picture called 'Pinkville', a 'drama' about My Lai. Yeah...because that's just what we need right now. A rehashing of a decades old anti-war cudgel of the left.

C'mon Bruce. Lets get things in gear! Produce an inspirational military movie (and factual to boot) for a time that needs just such positive inspiration.

Are you that hard up that you must help make an anti-war themed film before you can make a pro-military story of courage?

Or is it that no one in Hollywood wants to join you in that endeavor?

If that is the case Bruce, act like Michael Yon from whom you took your original inspiration. Break out on your own, to get the story told.

UPDATE: Here is some related good news from our friends at OPFOR, a movie (with Harrison Ford) to be based on 'No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah':

"One year after a shotgun blast full of Hollywood anti-war films tank at the BO, we get a nitty-gritty Blackhawk Down style flick that will (presumably) focus on the individual heroism and ultimate nobility of US Marines."

Amen!

Good War News....from Atlanta

I recently refreshed my Milblogroll (right side), as many of my regular "downrange" reads had rotated home from their respective wartime locations. One of the blogs I found was 'Bill and Bob's Excellent Afghan Adventure'.

Today Bob posts some good news from the war that he experienced himself firsthand....at the airport in Atlanta.

"...I wasn't prepared for what happened today.

As my flight from Cincinnati to Atlanta was beginning its descent, the flight attendant began her normal spiel about landing and gates, and assistance finding your connecting flights and so on. Then she announced that I was on board and on my way back to Afghanistan after spending two weeks with my family.

The plane erupted into applause. I was stunned."

But it doesn't stop there....

"They formed us into a line upstairs at the USO, probably 200 or more of us, and took us downstairs in two long lines. Soldiers and Marines paired two by two in a long line snaked through the airport towards the Army Personnel Command desk to do our formalities. As we wove through the airport, the throngs of travelers began to applaud.

I wasn't prepared for that, either. Again, I struggled not to lose it. It was like cracking the seal on a warm, freshly shaken coke. All the bubbles rush towards the cap, bringing the contents of the bottle along. That's what it felt like. I managed to keep all my fluids contained; but it was another close call. "

While these stories are not unique, I believe that this is a great demonstration that the public opinion battle over the war is not lost as some might want to claim. I am sure that not all of those applauding support the war in Iraq, and maybe not even the War on Terror, but were merely showing their respect.

But if the public opinion had truly been lost, I don't think we would see such public displays of support, even if the military is highly respected.

Success can breed further success. Staying the course with our current strategy can continue to bring good news, even if it isn't reported widely. If that continues, the next good news story from the war will be the news from home.....

Anti-War Films 3 Years Too Late, Part II

In a follow-up to my post below, here is another example of an anti-war film being too late to the game.

This weekend marked the opening of a documentary titled "Meeting Resistance", which appears to delve into the 'root cause' of the insurgency in Iraq. (Trailer here)

"What would you do if your country was invaded? "Meeting Resistance" raises the veil of anonymity surrounding the Iraqi insurgency by meeting face to face with individuals who are passionately engaged in the struggle, and documenting for the very first time, the sentiments experienced and actions taken by a nation's citizens when their homeland is occupied. Voices that have previously not been heard, male and female, speak candidly about their motivations, hopes and goals, revealing a kaleidoscope of human perspectives. Featuring reflective, yet fervent conversations with active insurgents, "Meeting Resistance" is the missing puzzle piece in understanding the Iraq war. Directed by Steve Connors and Molly Bingham, this daring, eye-opening film provides unique insight into the personal narratives of people involved in the resistance exploding myth after myth about the war in Iraq and the Iraqis who participate. Through its unprecedented access to these clandestine groups, "Meeting Resistance" focuses the spotlight on the "other side" leaving the viewer with clarity as to why the violence in Iraq continues to this day."

Now, I will say this is an interesting premise, (and will overlook the fact that these US/UK filmmakers apparently had no interest in stopping their sources from killing US and British troops), but it is nothing we don't already know.

Let's see, they went and hung out in a former Husseini/Baathist stronghold, and consider it "eye-opening" that they would fight back against U.S.? That is "daring"!

Unfortunately, fate has thrown these filmmakers a big curve-ball.....

You see the production was filmed in 2003 and 2004, not recently. So the violence is high, but relevance of the testimony in it is now of diminished value. Much like most of the anti-war histrionics that have occured in Washington, the impact of this film was dependant upon continued and increasing violence from the 'resistance'.

It would appear to me that the filmmakers took their time in editing and releasing this documentary because they thought that by 2007 or 2008, it would serve to offer "unique insight" and "clarity" as to why the U.S. had lost the war. But as I said, fate can be a funny thing.

Somewhere along the way to the film's release, the very types of people who they feature as the 'resistance' changed their minds. If you want to see what many Baathist strongholds are actually like today, watch this, and then watch the trailer for the film again. Quite an interesting contrast, no? This film will serve to provide a first hand historical record of what went on between summer 2003 and summer 2006, but its intention to pass judgment on the war through a third party fails, since the pretext of 'resistance' has fallen dramatically. This film would have fit in perfectly in 2005/2006.

Want to take any bets on whether these filmmakers will go back an re-interview their subjects for "Meeting Resistance II: The Awakening"?