Redstate Jeff Emanuel

Bravo-Zulus to the whole team.
Well Done.

Read the whole thing here:
The Story of a Successful Rescue (and a Democratic Administration’s Attempt to Claim Credit)

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin today’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four-day-and-counting standoff between a rag-tag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

Instead of taking direct, decisive action against the rag-tag group of gunmen (such as outlined here; note how close #1 is to what actually took place), the Obama administration dilly-dallied, dawdled, and eschewed any decisive action whatsoever, even in the face of enemy fire, in hopes that the situation would somehow resolve itself without violence — thus sending a clear message to all who would threaten U.S.
interests abroad that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has no idea how to respond to such situations, and no real willingness to use military force to resolve them.

Any who think they weren’t watching every minute of this are guilty — at best — of greatly underestimating our enemies.

Like the crew of the Alabama, which took swift and decisive action to take back their own ship rather than wait for help from Washington that they knew could not be
counted on, Captain Philips took matters into his own hands for the second time in three days this afternoon, leaping into the water to create a diversion and allowing the NSWC team to eliminate his captors. The result, of course, was the best that could possibly be expected: three pirates dead, the captain unharmed, and a fourth Somali man who had surrendered late Saturday night in custody.

Iraqis are happier with the M-16

M-16 replacing AK-47 as weapon of choice in Iraq


This is more good news that you won't easily find in the MSM. Yes, its been reported as cronyism and pork between Colt, that EX-Marine Murtha, (see comments there) and other assorted lobbyists/politicians. Yes, it probably is exactly that. BUT, there are MANY reasons why this is a necessary improvement.

For one thing, the weapons currently being used by Iraqi soldiers and militia are not standardized. Saddam's military had been supplied with weapons by numerous foreign and domestic sources And face it, those AK's are old, worn out, and need to be replaced. Why would we replace them with a weapon not made in the USA?

The AK-47, while a fine weapon in its own right, does not lend itself to precision shooting. A break with the weapon of the past will necessitate the Iraqi soldier in learning new and improved warfare habits. "Spray and Pray" will no longer be an option. Fire discipline teaches small unit discipline. And, after awhile, with training, the good habits compound themselves into professionalism.

While the argument about which weapon is better; or whether the 5.56 round is adequate; or even about the actual quality of the Stoner design for the desert; will never end, the adoption of the M-16 and M-4 as the Iraqi military standard as a political move is OUTSTANDING.

Iraqi soldiers, if nothing else, have grown to respect our Marines and Soldiers while fighting by their side. They want to be as professional as our military, especially their enlisted ranks. Respect for the non-com is unheard of in the mid-east. And then they meet ours. No one shows disrespect to a Gunny or First Sergeant. The Iraqis see that officers depend on the non commissioned officers to carry out the mission. They want that responsibility and respect.

“Most of the soldiers think they will be just like the Americans, and that is making them very happy,” said Capt. Rafaat Mejal Ahmed, the Iraqi 1st Division weapons and ammunition officer.

At Military.com:

In a move that could be the most enduring imprint of U.S. influence in the Arab world, American military officials in Baghdad have begun a crash program to outfit the entire Iraqi army with M-16 rifles.

The initiative marks a sharp break for a culture steeped in the traditions of the Soviet-era AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle, a symbol of revolutionary zeal and third-world simplicity that is ubiquitous among the militaries of the Middle East.

"We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK ... it's more durable," said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who's in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.

"Our goal is to give every Iraqi soldier an M-16A2 or an M-4," Scott said. "And as the Iraqi army grows, we will adjust."

Scott added the mass of AK-47s from various manufacturers floating through the Iraqi army's inventory could cause maintenance and reliability problems.

"I'm also a fan of AKs," Scott said. "But keep in mind most of these AKs have been sitting around in bunkers or whatnot for 30 or 40 years [and] are in various stages of disrepair."

After seeing some of the firing range training himself, Scott added that he "asked the Iraqis how they liked the weapon and they said it was far superior, it was more accurate ... and more reliable."

And, at the least, weapons found in enemy hands will be easily traced back to the source. Allied units will be harder to infiltrate. And captured weapons will be harder to supply.

All in all, this is a good development.