Wow. Whoda thunk that CPT P would create such an uproar? It's amazing what happens in such a politically polarized election where each candidate has a LOT to prove if they want to lead this country. You may have noticed that I haven't removed CPT P's email that I posted a few days ago. The media and the Obama camp have gone through great strides to quell the email "myth" after it went viral. Many of you think I'm wrong to keep the post up after being specifically asked to take it down. You've sent me links to all the media reporting about this "false" email. I appreciate it. I have no problem saying that I'm wrong...when I'm wrong. I've done it before, most recently with the G.I. Bill.
This post will provide proof that ASP is not a Pentagon-sponsored website and, in fact, an individual blog showcasing the OPINIONS of active duty and veteran troops that are NOT representatives of our respective services. Even amongst the ASP authors, we do not all agree. I'm sure I'm frustrating Marcus over all this Obama talk, as a matter of fact. However, in reading these posts, let me assure I do NOT specifically endorse any candidate in this presidential election, regardless of my opinions of them. Each of you should vote your conscience after taking into account all sides. I'm subscribed to Obama's, McCain's, Barr's, and Paul's (though he's no longer a candidate) newsletters so that I know where each candidate stands from their own mouths on particular issues. Here's why I won't take down my original post. .. -->more--> Snopes called the email rumor from CPT P (notice how I still won't use the name, unlike others?) "FALSE". The main argument in proclaiming this particular issue false rests with a press conference by Bagram spokeswoman Army LTC Rumi Nielson-Green. "These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect," she said, who added that such political commentary is barred for uniformed personnel. First and foremost, this type of "political commentary" is NOT barred for uniformed personnel. Nowhere in CPT P's email did he say he represented the U.S. Army, CENTCOM, his unit, or any other official Pentagon entity in writing his email. It was directed towards friends and family and not released as a press release or official position; merely the opinion of a Soldier. The only way that CPT P would have been incorrect would be if he were trying to convince the Soldiers under his influence to vote one way or the other. The closest he came to this was his comment, "I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief." But, again, the email wasn't sent to his Soldiers. It was sent to friends and family. DoD Directive 1344.10 specifically states that active duty Soldiers may "express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues" as long as they don't do so as representatives of the Armed Forces. Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy (para 5-3), contains the same verbage and freedoms. CPT P could have even written the exact same email as a letter to the editor of any newspaper and still not violated any rules. LTC Rumi Nielson-Green is just plain WRONG and overstepped her bounds in making her comments and undermining CPT P's integrity.
The argument that the DoD discounted the email is that when this email went viral, a LOT of people up and down the chain were suddenly fearful for their careers. Let's face it, Senator Obama is most likely our next Commander In Chief. This is no doubt something the senior leadership recognizes and damage control went into full motion as careers were taken into account. It's a classic case of over-reaction from the military. The email was embarrassing and they had to do something fast. They did the same thing with the idiot Soldier using the Koran for target practice. Hell, we had General officers and the President apologizing for the stupidity of a junior Soldier who made a dumb choice. It was embarrassing!
The next item that Snopes uses to discount this email is the "recounting" by the Battle Captain himself. "After checking my sources, information that was put out in my email was wrong," he said in the follow-up email. Sure it was, but not from his perspective. Not from his limited view of events. Snopes also uses various emails from other Soldiers in Afghanistan to disprove the original email. However, through minimal analysis, a common theme arises from each email they use:
Obama only "ate lunch with a select few. I did meet him and shake his hand. There was[sic] pictures taken, but there were only a few who were allowed to take pictures..." said one Soldier. Photos are shared of him shaking hands with those select few in attendance as well. The next email directly contradicts CPT P's email, saying, "I don't know who this captain saw, but it wasn't the Barack Obama *I* just saw in Afghanistan." It doesn't take a genius to figure out who this guy was. He continues, "While Obama was out visiting the troops, what was John McCain doing ...?, playing golf with his rich cronies (Bush Sr.) in Kennbunkport and whining about how much press coverage Obama was getting." Uh oh, this guy mentioned McCain. Where's the PAO to put him in his place? No partisanship on the part of THIS Soldier! The final email attacks CPT P for "lying" and mentions he got to meet with Obama. Obviously, he was one of the few! Now, let me share some of my emails with you:
"CJ...reference your question about Obama...we weren't allowed anywhere near the chow hall at that time. There was a tight cordon around where he would be and only certain Soldiers were allowed close. A few days ago, the CO came around asking who was from any of the states of Obama the other senators with him. If you weren't from his state, you couldn't meet him." SPC B (not our SPC B). Is Obama running for President of Illinois or of the United States?
"CJ, the basketball thing was dead wrong. I had heard that he played basketball in Iraq or Kuwait. Someone probably told him that or he assumed it since he wasn't allowed in. A lot of people actually thought that as well. However, we weren't allowed to meet with him. As a matter of fact, some of us had to cover down on the Soldiers who were allowed to meet with him because we weren't from his state. We weren't allowed to take pictures or shake hands." SGT Z
"CJ...the clamshell thing he is talking about is the HQ building, headshed, you name it. We have a million different names for it. The clamshells serve all kinds of purposes. Most are motorpools." SGT J
"CJ...I had to brief my Soldiers about what we were and were not allowed to say about political candidates because of this. They mentioned that directive you sent me, but it looks like we're trying to clamp down even tighter now. Everyone is in panic mode." 1SG (there aren't many 1SGs there, so I'll even protect his last name initial)
The fact is that CPT P is an officer. In the Army, there is, unfortunately, a "zero tolerance" policy. Officers are scared stupid at making a mistake, any mistake, because it's a potential career ender. What that causes is micromanagement of the worst kind and even compromised integrity as they're forced into saying things they don't mean. I can't say that CPT P's email was insincere since I haven't heard from him again, but I can assume (Yes I know what they say about assuming things).
Neither Snopes nor the Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has discredited the good CPT's email yet. Each refer to news items that refer to the CPT's own recanting. What neither addresses is a well rounded accounting of what happened over there. The DoD this time went so far as to release video of Obama eating lunch with those select few in the hopes that people would be convinced this was an open forum. Just like when Obama gave that speech in front of "veterans", this was a well-crafted media spin of real events. I have no problem with Obama only meeting with his own constituency. What I have a problem with is when he doesn't openly tell the country the met with select Soldiers and tries to make it look like anyone and everyone had the opportunity to shake his hand and take pictures.
Blackfive provides an additional email he received HERE.
I got this from a friend in Afghanistan. He's an active duty Army Captain who was present when Presidential candidate Barack Obama visited Iraq during his "I'm A Foreign Policy Genius" world tour.
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram, Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to "The War Zone". I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you. I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.
In service, CPT P Battle Captain
Is this how Obama is going to "prove himself" to members of the military who distrust him?
A lot has been made of Obama's trip to the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. While the media salivates all over his coattails, they are missing serious flaws in his logic and policy decisions.
Our country has long had a military strategy that allows us to fight on two fronts with reserves to defend the homeland. While this was made more difficult to achieve under the Clinton drawdowns and reduction in defense dollars, we've been able to do the job.
While in Afghanistan, Obama asserted that the war in Iraq was depleting our capacity to wage what he called the more important war (Afghanistan). Did the media call him on this? Did they ask tough questions? No. The war in Iraq is not depleting anything. We're more than able to send troops into both battlefields if we want. The problem is that politics has become so engrossed in military operations that our military has been hamstringed into allowing Soldiers specified and ever-increasing amounts of dwell time. Our military is not so weak that we could not sustain combat operations and deployments beyond 12 to 15 months, but our politicians want the American people (and our military) to think it's not possible.
Obama was adamant that the troop surge was not going to work. He even went so far as to loudly proclaim that it would do the exact opposite of its intended goal and would actually increase violence and lead to more casualties. In fact, the surge has done the exact opposite and Obama still hasn't openly admitted he was wrong.
He's quick to point out that changes need to be made in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but won't pontificate beyond "pull out". He has yet to lay out a long term strategy for success. Instead, he has fallen prey to the Moveon.org assertion that this war is "unwinnable." Why is it that a man who's call to arms is "Yes, we can" when all he keeps telling troops is "No, we can't"? His mantra to the American voter is that we have lost and will not be able to win. That doesn't sound like the optimist the presidential candidate wants us to believe he is.
Notably absent from all the press coverage of the trip was Obama's sharp criticism of the lack of progress the Iraqi leaders have made. Instead, Obama played the perfect politician and pretended that everything was hunky dory.
He's also ignorant on the war on terror. What Obama doesn't realize currently is that we don't get to decide where the central front on the war on terror is going to be fought. In an interview with the NYTimes, Obama said, ""what's adequate for our security interests, factoring in the fact that not only do we have Afghanistan, which I believe is the central front on terror, but also the fact that if we're spending $10 billion a month over the next two, four, five years, then that's $10 billion a month that we're not using to rebuild the United States or drawing down our national debt or making sure that families have health care." Al Qaeda would say otherwise. By their own admission, Iraq has been the center of their operations for a few years. Now that they're getting their asses handed to them, they are beginning to refocus. But, that refocus isn't necessarily in Afghanistan. Africa is getting nasty and no one, including McCain, seems to be paying much attention to that fact. A commander in chief, liberal or conservative, needs to realize that in any conflict, the enemy has a vote.
It's also telling that Obama wants to shift the "$10 billion a month" that we're spending on killing those that want to kill us to pay for universal health care, which includes illegal immigrants. That's right, you and I will pay for free universal health care to people sneaking into this country who haven't paid a dime. Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?" It's common knowledge that virtually all illegal immigrants lack health insurance. This begs the question, which would you rather pay $10 billion a month for: Health care for everyone, including illegal immigrants and criminals or killing, capturing and deterring terrorists wherever they may be?
The fact that Obama felt safe enough to travel around Iraq without a ballistic vest speaks volumes about the progress that has been made in Iraq. By visiting the country, Obama faces some tough decisions. His entire campaign hinges on the fact that Iraq is a lost cause. By visiting Iraq, he has been forced to see the truth of reality in the country. By admitting that Iraq is a drastically different place than it was two or even four years ago, he would be admitting that he was wrong. And, honestly, there's nothing wrong with that. I would actually have a lot more respect for him if he did that. If he chooses to ignore the progress, McCain will eat his lunch in the general election.
For someone who is so adamant about publicly announcing timelines for withdrawing troops from Iraq, I found it odd that Obama's trip was shrouded in such secrecy. I mean, what's the difference in broadcasting the departure of Obama from Iraq and announcing the departure of American troops? Is he saying that his life is more important than the lives of those willing to sacrifice their lives for us? Don't get me wrong, I know why there is so much secrecy and a lot of it is out of Obama's hands, but I wanted to highlight the irony. He accomplished his goal - to be seen with Soldiers and military leaders in an effort to make him look more commander-in-chief-like! Now there's irony.
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Duk akis pr omised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in t he state. These are radical left, Hollywood , and San Fra ncisco values , not Middle America values.
The real Mr.Obama is an easy target for the general election. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs. But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream. It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilization war. Kind of scary, wouldn't you think---
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??
...if they're anti war. You won't find this kind of in-depth reporting on Obama anywhere else. I actually did my homework.
A lot of mainstream press was given to Presidential hopeful Barack Obama when he spoke to veterans in Colorado earlier this month. On July 2nd, Obama spoke in Colorado Springs before a group of veterans. The context of his speech was to contrast his military experience and agenda with that of his main opponent, John McCain.
At the rally, Obama said he hopes the military community will see him as "a guy looking out for us and not someone trying to score cheap political points." Really? Is that why Barack stocked the audience behind with members of "Colorado Veterans", an anti-war group based in the area?
"Colorado Veterans" is another one of those kook organizations calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and also prominently display the death totals on their website, highlighting a supposed toll of poor, Iraqi children killed "in cold blood" by the murderous United States troops.
In an interview with Military Times, Barack admitted that due to his lack of military experience he would have to work twice as hard to earn our respect and trust. "Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform." Since Obama's event was an invitation only event and the only ones on stage with him were anti-war veterans, how exactly is that going to earn the trust of men and women who are fighting and support their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The answer is that Obama just wanted to LOOK like he supported the troops by having a bunch of "veterans" behind him that made him look good. He was even introduced by the wife of an Army Sergeant at the event who got all veclempt at the opportunity. I guess when you're thinking about all the innocent children our Soldiers are "terrorizing" in the "dead of night", but the tears sure wowed the press and those in attendance. The Military Times writer said that "Corinne Gadzia's voice choked as she looked out over the audience."
But, in all the press about this event, did anyone explain who these "Colorado Veterans" are? No. All we get is this:
As Obama spoke, a handful of men with "Colorado Veterans" on their shirts were seated behind the stage. And after the event, an Air Force captain wearing a flight suit worked his way through the crowd to shake Obama's hand.
"Thank you for your service," Obama told the captain. As people filed out of the gymnasium, the captain covered his name tag with his hand.
He probably didn't want to be outed by me!! When it comes to military issues, Obama is the candidate of change. He will change (read: repeal) the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He will change whether people are bound to contracts they legally sign by getting rid of the stop loss policy (he better get to work on the enlistment contract). Basically, he'll change the whole concept of accountability. He will change how the Commander in Chief listens to the troops on the ground. His policy can be summed up in his "I'm a pretty persuasive guy" philosophy. ie: They'll do what I tell them to do, right or wrong!!
The media may not care that Obama is the consummate illusionist when it comes to military issues, but I'm not letting him off the hook. It would be one thing if he admitted that the veterans behind him were there to support an agenda, but his intent was to make us believe that he had the support of the military. I don't think either candidate can proclaim that victory yet!!
Here's the video of the event from Obama's own YouTube page:
This is a great op-ed I wanted to share with you on Obama and National Defense. Arends is a fellow member of Vets For Freedom.
Senator Obama: Mission Illogical? [Joel Arends]
What's the deal, Senator Obama?For 915 days now, you have avoided Iraq like the plague and have refused to meet one-on-one with General Petraeus. You've continued to ignore the truth about Iraq — violence is down, the Iraqi military is taking control, political progress is accelerating — in favor of spreading false gloom and doom.With all the good news coming from Iraq, where's this so-called "change we can believe in?"It's becoming clear that facts on the ground, the strategy adopted by our top-level commanders, and the desire of our troops to complete their mission all undermine the whole purpose of your candidacy.
When the president announced his plans for the surge in his 2007 State of the Union address, you scoffed: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there.In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A year ago this week, only one month into the surge, you made this bold and completely erroneous statement:"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked."Last November on "Meet the Press," you said, "not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there," and stated: "I would end this war, and I would have the troops out within 16 months."On March 19, 2008, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, you stated that upon becoming President you would "immediately begin to remove our troops."Today, everyone knows the surge has worked — even John Murtha and Hillary Clinton have admitted it.You consistently claim to have the judgment to lead our great nation, Senator Obama; now it's time to use that judgment and acknowledge reality.
Your senior political advisers are desperately trying to rewrite history when it comes to your position on the surge.How can your communications director, Robert Gibbs, and senior strategist, David Axelrod, look the American people in the eyes and say you've never disputed that the surge would work? You say you will "respond directly and forcefully with the truth."We're all waiting for the truth, Senator.We've been waiting for quite a while.
The 25,000 members of Vets for Freedom offer this message of hope and change for you, Senator Obama:Not only are things changing for the better in Iraq, but the surge has succeeded, and for the first time in decades, the Iraqi people have hope. Yet, the only thing you want to change is the current winning strategy, by insisting on a rigid and illogical timetable for retreat.
In an interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division, gave his unvarnished opinion regarding timetables for withdrawal from the battlefield.When asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month, Hammond said: "We still have a ways to go. Number one, we're working on security and it's very encouraging, that's true, but what we're really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let's look at the conditions.
"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question."
Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."
It's obvious, Senator, why you don't want to take the time to meet with the commanders on the ground — they won't tell you what you want to hear to validate your campaign.But it's not just the generals telling us that the current strategy is succeeding; our young company commanders on the ground are saying the same thing. On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West said he wants to finish the mission, and any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground:"If we pull out of here too early, it's going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave."
Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, "The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that's what we want. I don't want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this."Ussery added, "You can't put a timetable on it — it's events-based."
Where do you stand, Senator Obama?Will you continue to defend a military strategy offered up by left-wing fringe groups such as MoveOn.org?Or will you listen to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, and their commanders on the ground, who repeatedly speak of great success?
In a recent Army Times interview, you stated that you need to gain the trust of our troops.How do you expect to accomplish this when you continually ignore what they are saying?In the heart and mind of this former soldier and Iraq veteran, as well as in the hearts and minds of thousands of my brethren, Senator Obama, you've got a long way to go.
— Joel Arends served with the 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq and is currently the Executive Director of Vets for Freedom.
Sadr City has long been a crick in the neck of US Forces and the Iraqi government. It was also a problem for Saddam. Why? Because that is where he kept the Shi'ites in poverty. The slums of Sadr City (formerly Saddam City, formerly Revolution City) has the highest rate of unemployment and worst housing in Baghdad. When Saddam opened his prisons populated by jailed and tortured Shi'ites, they fled and congregated in Sadr City. Like Mos Eisley spaceport in the Star Wars movies, Sadr City was a "wretched hive of scum and villany" (yes, I'm a Star Wars nerd). Every time I had to go into Sadr City (called Saddam City back then), I got into a firefight or had to fight through explosions. Al Sadr militia eventually obtained control over the city and exacted a brutal stranglehold over its population. Thanks to our brave troops and the brilliant surge strategy, Sadr's militia has no power or authority in the area and Sadr City is no longer a lost cause.
BAGHDAD - Hundreds of women in black abayas crowd outdoor food markets, snapping up groceries and fresh vegetables. Stores are open again. Children play soccer on dirt fields until dusk — or later, when there's electricity.
This is Sadr City, where black-clad militiamen of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army once enforced discipline across the sprawling slum of 3 million people — half of Baghdad's population. The Iraqi army won control of the district in May after weeks of battles that damaged scores of houses and emptied the streets.
"Security is better without the Mahdi Army," said a 42-year-old resident who wanted to be identified only by his nickname, Abu Israa. "We don't want them back."
Most residents do not seem to miss the Mahdi Army, and the U.S. and Iraqi governments hope that sentiment sticks. So Sadr City is witnessing a flurry of public works projects — part of an effort to build confidence in the government and make it more difficult for the extremists to return.
The U.S. military has tried the same strategy before in Sadr City after cease-fires but with limited results. This time U.S. officials are more confident that they can do a better job of managing the effort and maintaining the flow of money. They also believe that support for the militia has dropped sharply because residents are tired of bloodshed.
The Iraqis apparently hope to avoid the disappointment that's growing in the southern city of Basra, where many residents blame the government for failing to deliver on its promises to improve basic services, provide jobs and distribute enough food after winning control from Shiite militias last spring.
Taking no chances in Sadr City, hundreds of city workers have spread out across the district to spruce it up. They are resurfacing roads and sidewalks, repairing the sewer system and collecting garbage.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pledged $100 million to upgrade the quality of life. The U.S. military is also providing some reconstruction and economic aid to help rebuild parts of Sadr City — with about $4 million already being spent and more on the way.
"The Iraqi government is rebuilding Iraq, one area at a time," says a large billboard on one of Sadr City's main roads — part of a U.S.-backed propaganda effort.
To make sure everything goes smoothly, Iraqi troops man scores of checkpoints and are even directing traffic. They have set up small outposts deep inside the district, complete with blast walls and sandbags.
U.S. troops continue to stay in the area's outlying neighborhoods, but residents report nightly forays by American forces and their Iraqi allies to arrest Mahdi Army commanders — moves the government once roundly condemned and the Mahdi Army pledged never to allow.
On Monday, the top U.S. military officer visited Sadr City, where he met with U.S. troops at a coalition observation post and strolled through a market.
"We saw extraordinary progress there," said Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "A few months ago no one could go into Sadr City. I was able to walk openly down a street that until recently was extremely unsafe, and I'm encouraged by that."
With a canny mix of persuasion and intimidation, Mahdi Army fighters and clerics loyal to al-Sadr had governed the enclave since 2003 like a mini-state. They set up Islamic courts, punished offenders and operated hospitals and gas stations.
Rogue militiamen also ran extortion rackets and black-market rings in food and gas, and formed kidnap-for-ransom gangs.
Residents tolerated the abuses because the militiamen protected them from Sunni militants during sectarian strife in Baghdad in 2006 and 2007. But when violence abated, so did the Mahdi Army's welcome.
The setback for the Mahdi Army in Sadr City, its largest stronghold, has presented the once-feared militia its biggest challenge since al-Sadr created it in 2003. The uncertainty over the militia's future is deepened by al-Sadr's voluntary exile in Iran, where he has lived for more than a year.
Behind the scenes, al-Sadr is quietly reorganizing the militia into a smaller force to fight again, according to a senior militia commander. The commander, who fled Iraq in May at the end of seven weeks of fighting in Sadr City between the militia and U.S.-backed Iraqi troops, spoke by telephone from Iran's holy city of Qom.
The commander said al-Sadr and a small clique of trusted aides are working to organize groups of militiamen into small fighter cells that can operate in secrecy and in isolation of each other. Speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media, he said about 20 commanders have been picked to lead the new cells.
The new structure will mirror that of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite guerrilla group backed by Iran whose popularity soared in the Arab world after it fought Israel to a standstill in the summer 2006 war.
"The last round of fighting was a lesson to everyone and it is the reason behind the restructuring," said the commander.
The recent fighting in Sadr City ended with a truce that allowed the government to take control of the vast district and obliged al-Sadr to take his soldiers off the streets.
It is unclear if the smaller, more mobile force foreseen by the commander would have trouble controlling Sadr City the way the full Mahdi Army did. But it would likely give al-Sadr better control over the proposed fighter cells. His aim likely is to bolster his standing as Iraq's top anti-American figure.
Publicly, the Mahdi Army has melted away.
Gone are the small groups of militiamen hanging out on major roads or racing through dusty streets in pickup trucks. They have even stopped guarding al-Sadr's office and manning checkpoints to search worshippers headed to outdoor Friday prayers.
Many commanders have gone into hiding or fled.
"Anyone with a beard and a black shirt now risks arrest," said Hussein al-Mohammedawi, a 36-year-old, midlevel commander who first joined the Mahdi Army in 2004.
"I often spend the night away from home to avoid arrest," he said.
But others say this is just a waiting period.
"We are still here even if you don't see us," said Mahdi al-Freiji, one militiaman. "There is a time for everything. You just have to wait and see."
By HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers AP Military Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.
All these great positive stories are making me vaclempt. It's about time. Now if these can just be mentioned with the fervor all the negative news that populates our nightly newscasts, we'll be golden.
Obama Tells Americans To Teach Kids Spanish
Current mood: angry
Instead of forcing illegal and legal immigrants to speak English, Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama admonishes parents to teach their kids Spanish:
Much like our own military, the NCOs of the Iraqi Army are quickly becoming the backbone of the Iraqi Army. Their NCO academy has already graduated thousands of Iraqi Soldiers who are on the front lines protecting their nation against insurgents and foreign fighters and influences.
Iraqi Soldiers demonstrate the new NCO Academy obstacle course during a recent ribbon cutting ceremony.
To emphasize the importance of the NCOs, there were no official speeches by the senior officers at a ribbon-cutting event commemorating a new obstacle course in Besmaya, Iraq at the NCO Academy. Instead an Iraqi Soldier read the Iraqi Soldier's Creed followed by an Iraqi NCO who read the Iraqi Non-Commissioned Officer's Creed:
I am an Iraqi Noncommissioned Officer I lead soldiers I am professional and highly experienced I lead from the front I am an example of discipline and high morals I ensure (keep) the discipline of my Soldiers I place the interests of my country and my soldiers over my own personal interests I ensure that my soldiers are well trained and prepared to fight courageously I work hard so the officers over me can accomplish their missions without having to accomplish mine I obey those above me and work on gaining their trust I will never compromise my integrity I will never forget nor will I allow my brothers and colleagues to forget-- that we are professional Noncommissioned Officers I will always be loyal to my country, to the people of Iraq, and to the army of Iraq I am an Iraqi Noncommissioned Officer
gallant
angry
optimistic