Ramadi: North, South, East and West, and Operation Panther

Ramadi, the capitol of Anbar province, has long been the focus of a struggle between Coalition forces and the insurgency. Recently, we discussed how the Coalition is attempting to address the Ramadi problem by slowing bringing in Iraqi troops and pairing them off with U.S. units, and trying to avert a full scale operation like the one conducted in Tal Afar.

Coalition forces continue to press small scale offensives in Ramadi, which are designed to target specific neighborhoods as well as outlying areas of the city. Mountaineers in the beginning of October was one such operation, designed to disrupt activity in the south of Ramadi, and gain control over a bridge crossing the river.

The most recent operation is Panther, which is aimed at the Sufia region of Eastern Ramadi. About 150 Iraqi Army Soldiers and 300 Soldiers from 2nd Brigade Combat Team [2BCT], 28th Infantry Division are involved in Panther, which is “a continuation of operations to capitalize on three key al Qaeda in Iraq insurgents captured in Ramadi, during the month of November.”

Col. John L. Gronski, commander of the 2BCT, states; “We have recently knocked the insurgents off balance with the effective use of multiple combat systems. The (Iraqi Army) and the 2BCT Soldiers will continue to conduct aggressive offensive operations to further neutralize the insurgency and set the conditions for a secure December 15 election.” An example of the “effective use of multiple combat systems” would include the deployment of sniper teams in hot spots in an around the city. Another would be the usage of the Scan Eagle, “a ightweight unmanned aerial vehicle that provides live, high-quality video to locate and eliminate enemy fighters.”

In Western Ramadi, Iraqi Army Soldiers and Soldiers from Bravo Troop 1-104th Cavalry, 2nd Brigade Combat Team have arrested Hatim Asfur Asef, who was “part of an insurgent network in Ramadi that involved kidnapping, extortion and counterfeiting passports… [and] responsible for emplacing improvised explosive devices in and around the city.” Asef is one of the three high value targets captured in Ramadi this month.

In northern Ramadi, soldiers from the 2BCT uncovered a large weapons cache that spanned “an area several soccer fields in length… hidden among farms and a residential area” .

The December 15th parliamentary election is fast approaching, and splits between al Qaeda and the domestic elements of the insurgency in Ramadi are beginning to surface. The Coalition would do well to create a secure environment in Ramadi to facilitate a large voter turnout. This would create further rifts between the foreign terrorists and the local insurgents, and give the citizens of Ramadi a voice in the new Iraqi government.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD's Long War Journal.

Are you a dedicated reader of FDD's Long War Journal? Has our research benefitted you or your team over the years? Support our independent reporting and analysis today by considering a one-time or monthly donation. Thanks for reading! You can make a tax-deductible donation here.

50 Comments

  • Justin Capone says:

    We will have one last chance to turn things around PR wise at least for a little while with the election. The WH and the Iraqi government better be preparing a full docket of media events to draw in the media vultures. If it were up to me I would have the President visit Iraq two or three days after the election to boost the story from a three day news story to a week long news story.
    On the war side if we can significantly reduce our casulties after the election, we will have far longer to train and build the Iraqi Army.
    The media was on the verge of forgetting about Iraq last April until Zarqawi seeing the media and public was losing interest began one of the largest suicide bombing campaigns in world history. Sadly, his campaign worked very well on the US public and media.

  • GJ says:

    VERY good point on Zarqawi. The instability seemed to have started with Teddy Kennedy and his rantings and picked up by Al Sadr and his like. As far as Bush after the election, That is a Great idea. He doesn’t have to go into any contested areas to get the good coverage. Just Being there would put focus and force the media to Cover what is really going on.

  • TallDave says:

    Ramadi’s a big city. Not surprising they went for a gradualist approach.
    Give it a couple months of this and it should turn around just like Mosul has. Then the pro-democracy Iraqi gov’t forces (up to 210,000 now) can hold it and our boys can come home.

  • GJ says:

    I heard another Congressman is wanting us to pull out NOW. I’m not believing the Dems are running scared. It’s looking more and more like we’re succeeding in Iraq and they certainly don’t want that to happen. So the’re in full Attack mode to draw attention away from that fact. When the Parliamentary elections are held and success is near Bush will look vindicated and that scares them to death. When that happens they have NO chance in gaining back the Hosue and Senate.

  • Dave From Chicago says:

    GJ,yeah but keep in mind the MSM is on the DEMS side.According to the MSM nothing is happening in Iraq besides soldiers dying. the Bush team needs to keep responding to DEM attacks and start showing the good things. It doesn’t matter what channel you turn the tv to there is nonstop negativity.

  • Dave From Chicago says:

    BTW, I agree with the president going to Iraq for a visit. Heck, why not have him go during Thanksgiving and after the election?

  • Justin Capone says:

    No way Dave From Chicago
    The media works in a certain way. If he went in Thanksgiving the main story would be Bush is running off to Iraq to put a brave face even though everything is falling apart and his ratings have fallen through the floor. And, then the media wouldn’t cover him going after the election because it wouldn’t be as big a deal going there the second time in a month.
    By going in December after the election he gets the media to focus on the election for alot longer, and the main storyline the media will talk about is about the election instead of Bush’s ratings or pre-war intel.

  • Cruiser says:

    I suppose this could sound a little paranoid, but I agree with GJ’s comment above. The Democrat rhetoric is ramping up at the very time that we are beginning to have some very concrete success (especially in Western Iraq). I think they are very concerned with solidifying the theme that Iraq is a failure before they lose the opportunity as conditions improve and U.S. deaths go down.
    Unfortunately, I think they are succeeding. It is a terrible shame and disgraces the great sacrifices of the members of our miltary.

  • Justin Capone says:

    Cruiser, you give them far more credit then you should.
    The average Dem in Congress isn’t looking at the facts on the ground before they give a speech, they are looking at the poll numbers in the US. The only fact on the ground the US public or most Dems in Congress are aware of is the higher casulity rate for US forces since the insurgents got their hands on better IEDs.

  • liberalhawk says:

    let Dick Cheney retire for reasons of “health” and have W appoint John McCain as VP. Make McCain principle spokesman on the war.

  • ikez78 says:

    libhawk,
    I don’t like McCain on a lot of things but on the war he has been right on from the beginning.
    I wish the media would also make as big a deal out of Lieberman’s comments the other day supporting the war as this guy today, but then again, it doesn’t fit their Iraq=Vietnam template so I know why they don’t do anything that would support Bush and damage their anti-Bush agenda.

  • Dave From Chicago says:

    Hey guys, I was just watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN and John Warner said something very positive. He said of the total 6 trips he’s made to Iraq not one soldier has complained to him about no progress being made or that it’s time to bring us home. He mentioned during Vietnam that was not the case. It’s sad that the majority of the voices we hear replayed over and over are the morons like John Kerry Harry ried and Ted Kennedy. People like Lieberman, McCain, and Warner are smart people who know the military and are actually aware of whats going on in Iraq. I wish Liberman would go on Meet The Press or something to calm everyone down. Like I’ve said before, the one thing I dislike about Bush is his lack of communication skills. Although the MSM isn’t doing him any favors Bush needs to use the media to his advantage somehow to update people on the war. All people know about Iraq is the total # of dead soldiers the AP reports.

  • liberalhawk says:

    personally I like Lieberman more than McCain, but Lieberman doesnt have the expertise, the communication skills, or the broad credibility that McCain has.

  • liberalhawk says:

    an examination of Brookings Iraq Index shows a key communication problem. The number of carbombings, deaths of civilians, and deaths of Iraqi forces has been down in recent months. However US combat deaths were high in October, and are likely to be down only modestly if at all in November. Now thats consistent with what Bill has been posting here – a high op tempo in Anbar province, which means high casualties, but disrupts the insurgency.

  • vuc says:

    It’s now 2 and a half years after the beginning of this war. The number of attacks per day on US soldiers and Iraqi soldiers has been on a steady uptrend. Sectarian killings, torture, etc. are increasing and disparate groups in the country are growing apart. At this point, it probably could be called a low-level Civil War. If the war was going to be won, it would have been won by now. In 2.5 years, the situation has not gotten better but gotten worse. This next election will be the last opportunity. If it does not bring peace and reconciliation to the country, then there is only so much we can do.

  • Justin Capone says:

    vuc, Zarqawi just killed four US civilians in Jordan. He was able to do that inspite of massive US pressure. If we let off the al-Qaeda in Iraq network even a tiny bit more Americans will die.
    The biggest problem in Iraq right now is that the current government is run by a bunch of pro-Iranian idiots who spend more time trying to build their militias then the Iraqi Army. But, I do think that will change quite a bit after December.

  • MikeE says:

    How then do you explain the large decline in deaths of ISF in recent months.

  • MikeE says:

    I strongly disagree that the situation has got worse in the last two and a half years, after all, the al Sadr uprising has been crushed, Fallujah liberated, Sammara largly cleared of terrorists, Bakubah is quite quiet, the violence in Mosul is down dramatically, two impressive democratic elections have been held and the Iraqi army is passing 100,000 men.

  • Enigma says:

    Yes, the number of insurgent attacks is trending upward, but let’s try to keep the numbers in context.

  • hamidreza says:

    vuc – these are the hard statistics:
    Iraqi army and police deaths DOWN 38% since summer (May – Sept) from 260 a month to 160 in November (projected).
    Iraqi civilian deaths DOWN 35% since summer (May – Sept) from 575 a month to 375 a month in November (projected).
    Despite some very intense fighting going on in Islamist territory, overall deaths are down significantly.
    source: //www.icasualties.com
    WARNING: this moonbat website has started to doctor the data upwards. The US reported 55 insurgents killed on 11/12 after bombing runs in Husayba. These western fascist leftists are now putting that to the account of INNOCENT CIVILIANS, because that is what some “doctor” in Qaim (who probably never saw the bodies) claimed. My statistics have been normalized for this bias.

  • vuc says:

    MikeE and Hamidreza:
    If the situation was improving, troop drawdowns would be possible. Troop numbers would definitely not need to be steadily increased. 6 months ago, there were 135,000 troops in Iraq. Today, there are 160,000. Although this is done through rotations, etc., the increase in number seems to be a tacit recognization from the military that more troops are needed (because Iraqi security forces cannot do the job now and security is worsening).

  • Justin Capone says:

    vuc,
    What a pathetic answer, that isn’t a sign of anything other then the US really wants to to protect from anything Zarqawi throws at us during the elections.

  • cjr says:

    #21
    No, its a tack recognition that the Dec 15 election is particularly important.
    As a matter of fact the draw down of US forces has already started. It stated last summer.
    -In June, the 26MEU was slated to go to Iraq. It was kept back and assign as CENCOM reserve.
    -Its replacement, the 22MEU is not going to Iraq either, it is being kept as CENCOM reserve also.
    -The 1st brigade/1st ID, slated to go to Iraq in early Dec has had its deployment postponed.
    -After the election, you will see the deployment of the 2nd BDE/1stAD and 3rd BDE/1st AD also postponed.
    -The units for OIF rotation #5 (starts June2006) have been announced. Unlike the announcement for OIF#4 were 17 BDEs announced, only 6 BDEs were announced this time.
    So by April, US troops will drop from a base level of 17 BDEs to 14 BDEs. And by early 2007, it will be down to 6-8 BDEs.
    Another thing to note. Per General Lynch in his press conference on Nov10: The increase in attacks in not due to the increase in insurgent attacking coalition forces. It is due to the increase in Coaltion forces attacking the insurgents. Quote:
    “The thing that I don’t talk about that I want to mention this time is in that number,(of 647 attacks late week), 132 of those attacks were generated by us. They were combat operations that were initiated by coalition forces or the Iraqi security forces. So about 20 percent of that attack number are significant acts of combat operations that were initiated by the coalition or the Iraqi security force.”
    So Vuc, interpreting statistics blindly is a good way of getting it wrong.

  • vuc says:

    Justin:
    Actually no, It’s not a stupid response. If the Iraqi security forces were doing their jobs, we wouldn’t have to increase troops for this election. Why is this election so much more important than the last one when we had 135,000 troops? It’s not. Troop levels are being increased because they are needed to deal with increasing violence. This is the case in any conflict. When you are in a tough battle, you send reinforcements.
    Attacks increasing is not a positive sign because we are “taking the fight to the enemy”. Increases in attacks are a bad sign. The number of attacks per day at the beginning of the insurgency was 20. Now it is 100. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that that is not a positive sign.
    How many more operations in the same area have to be undertaken? There have been dozens. Dozens of operations in the same places and people actually believe that number 26 or number 27 will be different than the one before. There have been so many operations in Western Iraq that not many people can remember them all. But every one is spun as if this is the one that is going to root out the enemy when none of the previous ones have done anything to secure the area for any reasonable length of time. Doing something repeatedly and hoping that the outcome will be different the next time is utter insanity.
    If you can’t win in 2.5 years, what’s to say you’ll win in 5 or 7.5 or 10? Iraq is in a long-term Civil War and we have taken a side. Short of killing every Sunni man in Iraq (probably every Turkman too), this insurgency will not end. The election is the last hope for some type of reconciliation but it is unlikely. I’m not advocating immediate withdrawal but I think it’s time to be realistic instead of just spinning everything. If the situation is not significantly better in Iraq by next summer, we will probably have done all we can at that point.
    The Iraqi security forces number 300,000. The insurgents are estimated to number 30,000. What is wrong with withdrawing most US troops and just keeping special forces and air power there to aid the security forces? They already outnumber the insurgents 10 to 1. If they can’t hold down the insurgents, then they don’t want to too badly. The presence of American ground troops is greatly inflaming the Middle East, leading to an unneccessary loss of American lives and is creating terrorists every day. Most of what Jack Murtha is saying is right but I think we should give it another 6-8 months and see what happens with the election first.

  • Justin Capone says:

    The presence of American ground troops is greatly inflaming the Middle East, leading to an unneccessary loss of American lives and is creating terrorists every day.
    ———————————————-
    Wrong, Zarqawi’s biggest recruiter by far in Iraq due to the hatred of the Shia.
    This is all about the Sunni community making a play for power, this has nothing to do with resisting occupation and everyone in the ME who isn’t a moron knows it. The entire Arab world wants the Sunnis to crush the Shia. They don’t want a major Arab country ruled by Shia.
    The fact you can’t see these things that are plain as day means you aren’t looking hard enough.

  • vuc says:

    Justin:
    I can see that it’s a play for power and you can but we’re both educated individuals. Can an average Arab living in the slums with no education see that? My guess is probably not.

  • Warthog says:

    Another thing to keep in mind is that we are slaughtering the insurgents at a rate of 25-1 kia. There is no way an isurgant force can viably operate at that rate of attrition for any long-term period.

  • Nicholas says:

    This discussion has inspired me to write a post in a blog I recently created. Here’s an exerpt, which is the crux of my point:

    In short, when areas become safer and therefore coalition casualties drop, that’s an indication that it’s time to move some troops into more dangerous areas, as they are no longer needed where they are. This creates a rise in casualties. Essentially, if the battles are being fought intelligently and troops are being distributed properly, coalition casualties should be essentially flat. And for all statistical intents and purposes, they are.

  • Tom W. says:

    vuc:
    During WWII, the U. S. suffered its greatest casualties in the final months of the war, right before total victory. The same thing is happening here.
    The “insurgents” have been unable to stop or even slow Iraq’s progress into becoming a full-fledged democracy, as evidenced by the public outcry over the torture of Sunni detainees. The Iraqi people have accepted democracy, and they will never revert to totalitarianism. We’ve already won, just as we’d already won against Japan after the Battle of Midway. We still had two more years of war to go, however, before we could formally declare victory.
    The only difference back then was we didn’t have so many defeatists airing their doom and gloom publicly. People were made of sterner stuff in those days.

  • Mac says:

    Question:
    How many of the Bush bashers such as Kennedy, Reid, and Kerry have actually visited the troops in Iraq? How many times? With what frequency? At least Hillary has paid the troops a visit. I get the feeling that all those DC politicians that are wringing their hands are all the DC politicians who haven’t been to Iraq in 18+ months and haven’t been talking to the troops on the ground. They’re only talking to MSM about how bad it is. Anyone got the visit stats?

  • Jeff Wasel says:

    Socio-political arguments aside, the reason for upward troop strength fluctuations are based on the fact we are fighting for, and holding greater amounts of territory than in the past. Before these most recent excursions along the border, opns were limited to surgical efforts on towns or in areas already thought pacified. 29’s post about casualties in the last part of WW II isn’t correct in regards to the present situation in Iraq. The high deaths towards the end of WW II were due to poor, hurried training and a limited pool of 18 – 30 year olds from which to draft. Effective veterans were a premium. Unlike the Muj, the Germans were experts at the tactical retreat and defensive warfare and made the allies pay dearly for each small gain, particularly once over the Rheine. Meanwhile, in Iraq, it’s the opposite. Casualties are up due to operational tempo of well-trained and led, highly motivated doggies and Marines; the finality of the looming end state of combat and the elections spelling defeat for AQ, the Baathists, and the remaining lot. Moreover, our kill ratios are unsustainable for the Muj, a result of their unsophisticated tactics. For instance, the 5 Marines that died in the booby trapped building were just unlucky, and luck has a lot to do with warfare. Think that will happen again? Not. We tend to adjust and react far quicker than the enemy. Furthermore, the Muj have no real force multipliers outside of surprise, and with the increased use in drones and more timely, locally proffered intel, the element of surprise will soon abate to a farily low level of sporadic successes. All these factors are starting to coalesce in a pattern of sustained success for the coalition; too bad no one is properly articulating this success inside the beltway.

  • GJ says:

    This is a story that can have serious consequences.
    //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4442204.stm
    If the ‘Brotherhood’ gains politically we certainly need to take notice. This is where terrorists had their beginning. A fact overlooked by the MSM et. al.
    As far as all this insurgency you can lay the deaths of our soldiers at the Feet of the leftists. They’ve been encouraging these uprisings by their rhetoric. Those leftists seem to be the majority in the Democrat party right now. It is in this way Iraq=Vietnam. They most certainly want us to lose. A local Public Radio station has insinuated such. If you want to see how bad it is just listen to Democracy Now with that ‘communist’ Amy Goodman or watch most of Link TV.

  • desert rat says:

    There is in Iraq, in a multi faceted conflict.
    The Shia – Sunni conflict, Iraq is the center of a proxi battle in that Mohammedan ideological War.
    The Baathist vs Federalists, Iraq’s indiginous Civil War.
    The Mohammedan Jihad against the West, Iraq has become the most active battle front in that battle.
    President Talabani, of Iraq, has stated in the past that the US helped his side when we engaged, against the Baathists, in the Iraqi Civil War.
    He believes the Jihadists are not part of the Civil War, but merely criminals. He said so the other day in Germany, I believe.
    For US the conflict centers around the Authorization for Use of Force. If you read it, you’ll see we’ve won, already.

  • Jeff Wasel says:

    The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is an umbrella movement for various pro-Arab nationalist and pro-Islamic organizations, found predominately in Egypt, (where it was founded in 1928), along with Syria and in the West Bank and Gaza. Jordan has members as do most other Arab states, however numbers are hard to ascertain due to the MB’s continued suppression over the years. While the Muslim Brotherhood is no friend of the west, it certainly is not as concerted in its hatred of all things western as the more doctrinal Wahabbist bunch whose ideology is the locus of AQ and other Jihaddists.
    I would argued that much of the problems in Egypt, Algeria and other ME states undergoing the transition from authoritarian rule to fledgling democracy lie at the exclusion of the MB from the political process. Indeed the nasty Algerian insurgency that was suppressed only recently resulted from an Islamic party winning multi-party elections then being denied rule. The MB win in Egypt is encouraging, in that it shows that Mubarak is at least paying lip service to a plurality, a direct result of the democratic breeze that is picking-up momentum in the ME as a result of the Iraqi elections and US efforts in general. The MB in Egypt must be looked at in context. It is as much a part of the political process in Egypt as the Greens or Libertarians are in the US, except with more moral authority. 33 seats is quite a start for a supposedly “banned”

  • GJ says:

    I’ve gotta leave so i haven’t a chance to read all this, but the MB was banned due to terrorists activities. It is akin to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others. The MB spread throughout the ME and formed these splinter groups. It was Zawahiri that went to bin Laden in Afghanistan, being banned in Egypt, as part of the Brotherhood.

  • GJ says:

    Also, the Brotherhood is much like Hezbollah, a terrorist group, trying to gain legitimacy by saying it is merely a political group. But we know better.

  • desert rat says:

    To be banned from effective political action by a tyrant often leads to ever further radicalization and finally revolt. An example we are all familar with occurred in North America, circa 1773-1779.
    The banning of political parties, their issues and ideas is no way to advance our believes. Mr Begin could have never been a Peacemaker if he was never redeemed for the King David Hotel terror attack.

  • Jeff Wasel says:

    Respectfully GJ, your information is incorrect. Again, context is key when analyzing MB’s structure and methods. Perhaps some more context will help. It was founded as a anti-British, nationalist organization, and was primarily concerned with restoring the links between Islam and modernity, rather than the stated AQ goal of a revitalized Caliphate. MB was labeled in Egypt and other authoritarian Arab states as a terror organization along the same vein as colonial Americans were by the British, as they were vocal in their opposition to heavy-handed colonial government or Arab authoritarianism. In Syria, the movement was primarily student-motivated, and crushed by Sadat in a vicious military campaign in 1982. Terrorism as a political act was not an MB tactic, as it was viewed as un-necessary, given that the masses consider MB the valid political opposition in those states it is most prevalent.
    The only MB connection with a “mainstream”

  • Dave From Chicago says:

    GOP to Dems: Pull Troops Now? Okay, then let’s vote…
    Troop resolution Tonight; hitting the House floor between 5:45 and 7:45…
    Ultimate showdown…
    IT’S A GO: IRAQ WAR SHOWDOWN IN CONGRESS: VOTE ON TROOP PULLOUT

  • MikeE says:

    If anyone thinks that significant improvements are not happening in Iraq and that we need to run now they should read this.
    //www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2005/20051118_3383.html

  • Patrick says:

    Just heard we had a big gunfight in Ramadi and took down around 30. That’s rare they congregate like that.
    //www.kuna.net.kw/home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=788454

  • Patrick says:

    Here’s a Marine in Anbar that keeps updates on the situation there:
    //shepherdaway.blogspot.com/

  • ikez78 says:

    //www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/13184867.htm
    Sunnis surprised and happy of reports that U.S. troops saved those found in the “torture” chambers.

  • Jeff Wasel says:

    A quick correction to my last post – In regards to Syrian suppression of MB it was Hafez Assad, not Sadat…

  • GJ says:

    My information is partly from John Loftus who has been a reliable source in the terrorists trails. It was other sources I found the MB also were affiliated with the Nazi’s. Most noteably referred to as Al-Banna. But to discuss this would take pages and pages, so, for me, I won’t go any further.

  • Enigma says:

    Those among us with a more negative outlook on the war in Iraq complain that, if we really were winning, troop withdrawals should already be occuring. The fallacy in that thinking is to ignore that there is a difference between we ARE WINNING and we HAVE WON.
    To say that we are winning today is not to say that the fighting is nearly over and victory is right around the corner (though it may very well be). There is likely still a lot of hard fighting left, and though we may be winning, WE COULD STILL LOSE THIS WAR. Only time will tell if lack of resolve on the home front will lose for us the victory that is being gained on the battlefield.

  • Jeff Wasel says:

    GJ, I’m not defending these folks in any way – just trying to point out that things are never as they seem on the surface when looking at politico-religious institutions in the ME. Yes, the MB explored working with the Nazis during WW II because of 1) their stance on the Jews 2) the transfer of technologies that Arab governments could use to quash Israel. I make no pretense that these guys are choir boys, nor do I take issue with your basic thesis that the MB is a threat. I expanded the discussion a bit to ensure we don’t make the same generalizations here that plague responsible commentary in the MSM and on other blogs. “nuff said. Feel free to email me off line at [email protected]

  • hamidreza says:

    Jeff Wasel, I think the real tragedy in Egypt is that the seculars and democrats are being squeezed from both sides and eliminated politically. It appears that Mobarak is more than happy to play the MB bogeyman card to get the middle class and moderates behind himself at the expense of the democrats. And of course MB would have no issue with attacking their secular rivals.
    Isn’t it interesting that PFLP and other Marxist formerly secular organizations have morphed into an Islamist one in the form of Islamic Jihad? This mirrors the transition of western fascist-left to a pro-religious pro-Islamist dictatorship movement.
    It is funny that you compare the MB, a fanatic religious organization that wishes to install a theocracy and Shariah law, and do away with the little freedoms that Egyptians have, with western Green parties. Is this another “alliance of western leftists and Islamism” in the making?
    Can I ask you what is MB’s position with respect to fundamental freedoms and rights? Do they wish to enslave women and unbelievers, install a repressive state, complete with Islamist Shariah Law with rulership by a self-selected group of clerics? What is their position w.r.t. civil society, civil liberties, and free and open democracy complete with the criticism of Islam?
    If you put aside the typical fallacious argument that “if they are oppressed then they must be good people” – you will see there is little about an Islamist despotic organization, clamoring to install a theocracy, that one can write home about.
    BTW, does Egypt ban the clerics from running as candidates in parliamentary elections? I wonder if this precept which is standard fare in the west has currency over there?

  • hamidreza says:

    According to the Boston Globe, the Moslem Brotherhood wishes to install an Islamic theocratic dictatorship on Egypt. And on purpose, they are vague about the details of the Islamic regime.

  • Ramadi: The Jewel of Anbar

    Lying seventy miles west of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, the city of Ramadi stands as a symbolic bastion of Sunni Arab strength, and remains home to elements of anti-coalition forces. This past weekend, 150 Iraqi security forces and 300 U.S. Marine…

Iraq

Islamic state

Syria

Aqap

Al shabaab

Boko Haram

Isis