Friday, January 19, 2007
Muqtada al-Sadr aide arrested in Baghdad, and reading al-Maliki's mind
We -- and some Iraqis -- grabbed one the Muckster's top guys:
U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested one of Muqtada al-Sadr's top aides Friday in Baghdad, his office said, as pressure increases on the radical Shiite cleric's militia ahead of a planned security sweep aimed at stemming the sectarian violence ransacking the capital.
Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, al-Sadr's media director in Baghdad, was captured Friday and his personal guard was killed, according to another senior al-Sadr aide....
Two Shiite militia commanders said Thursday that al-Maliki has stopped protecting the militia under pressure from Washington, while the fighters described themselves as under siege in their Sadr City stronghold.
The U.S. military accused the main suspect of having ties with the commanders of so-called death squads, which have been blamed for many of the killings that have left dozens of bodies, often showing signs of torture, on the streets of Baghdad.
The suspect was detained "based on credible intelligence that he is the leader of illegal armed group punishment committee activity, involving the organized kidnapping, torture and murder of Iraqi civilians," according to the military statement.
It also said he was reportedly involved in the assassination of numerous Iraqi security forces and government officials.
"The suspect allegedly leads various illegal armed group operations and is affiliated with illegal armed group cells targeting Iraqi civilians for sectarian attacks and violence," the statement read, adding he was believed to be affiliated with Baghdad death squad commanders, including Abu Diraa, a Shiite militia leader who has gained a reputation for his brutality.
Commentary
Assuming that this guy, along with the numerous other Shiite goons arrested in the last few weeks, stays arrested, then we can take it as some evidence that Prime Minister al-Maliki has decided to bet everything on American success. Suppose he keeps arresting senior Shiite militants? What might we derive from that?
Al-Maliki, like many Iraqis, has been walking a fine line. On the one hand, he would much prefer the vision that the United States has painted for the future of Iraq, that of an independent country with a reasonably effective, accountable and, yes, humane government. On the other hand, the "anti-war" movement and the political opposition of the Democrats has made it very dangerous for Iraqis to commit to the United States that they will fight for that vision. After all, there is the constant, looming possibility that circumstances beyond their control -- America's domestic politics -- will pull the rug out from under them and leave them to be slaughtered. If you are looking for a reason why the negative media coverage and the Cindy Sheehan's of the world have contributed to the conditions that prevail in Iraq today, your best argument is that they have undermined the confidence of Iraqi elites in American reliability.
Against that backdrop, a central objective of the surge is psychological. George Bush, virtually alone in the Washington power elite, is saying that he won't desert the Iraqis. The surge is his statement that the Iraqis can count on him, and in return he demands that they take a side, once and for all, and put their marker down. Iraqis that do put their marker down -- for or against the future that America prefers -- will have a very tough time of it if America leaves quickly. Al-Maliki knows this, which is why he was trying to wiggle out of his job before the United States decided to push matters to a final confrontation. Having failed to bail out in time, it is very heartening that al-Maliki is now supporting a severe crackdown on the Shiite extremists. He knows that his personal risk increases with every Shiite militia commander he arrests, and eventually he will pass through a door through which he cannot return. Still, he is going after al-Sadr's thugs. That means that al-Maliki believes, or at least hopes, that (i) the new plan has a chance for success (which suggests that he believes a sufficient number of Iraqis will join in the effort, they having put their markers down), or (ii) even if the United States does withdraw, there are enough Iraqis prepared to take on the extremists of both sects that he stands a good chance of surviving to the finish of the big fight to come.
There is, of course, a third possibility: that in the event of failure we have offered to resettle al-Maliki and his family in the Western paradise of his choice, and thereby we have diminished his personal risk. Perhaps we have done, but that would do nothing to secure the support of the second and third echelon officials -- most of whom are Shiite -- who have been conducting these raids against al-Sadr's militiamen, and who are now tightening the grip on the Madhi army. They, too, are putting their markers down. We should all hope that they win their bet.
28 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Fri Jan 19, 09:32:00 AM:
Hawk,
Your blame-the-left rhetoric for Bush's foriegn policy failure is either deliberately obtuse or radically misguided.
To suggest that a central reason for Al-Maliki's reticence to rein in the militias is because 70% of the American people (Note: that's more than The Left) see that the Bush administration has created an unmitigated disaster is to ignore all of the Iraqi domestic and Bush foreign policy failings.
Ridiculous.
By your geometry, ought to commit to staying in Iraq forever because that would really make the government confident.
It might also perpetuate the mistakes we're already making.
If this is truly the "ideological struggle" of our time, then Bush either needs to commit hundreds of thousands of troops via a draft or he needs to STFU. Dropping 21,000 troops into this cauldron won't end anything. Bush is the one who holds responsibility for failed Iraq policy, not the American people.
By NahnCee, at
Fri Jan 19, 09:38:00 AM:
Agreed. Not the American "people", but the American "left" ... such as apologist Mr. Screwy.
You now that, Screwy, when history gets through judging, Bush is not going to be deemed the biggest Bad Guy during this era. It's going to be ilk like you, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. You can tell your grandchildren in 20 years, "Yes, I used to surf the internet and advocate for the overthrow of America."
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jan 19, 10:21:00 AM:
Screwy, you either did not read what I wrote closely, or you deliberately mischaracterized it to score a debating point.
By 
, at
Fri Jan 19, 10:38:00 AM:
Screwie,
Please enumerate the "mistakes we're already making" in an intellectually honest manner. Then please balance that with some things that we're doing well. Or perhaps you've already done that and can provide a link for my education.
Your either/or proposition at the end of your comment is -- as you accused TH -- either deliberately obtuse or radically misguided. There are hundreds of thousands of troops already in Iraq -- Iraqi troops. I've spent the better part of the last week with them, and watched one of them die at the hands of a sniper while an American medic worked valiantly to save his life.
Iraqis read the newspaper and watch TV. They know history, and know how we abandoned Vietnam. And while there aren't too many parallels between the current conflict and that one, abandoning Iraq would have a similar, albeit slower and less dramatic, effect.
I think we should commit to a presence in Iraq forever, or at least as long as we've stayed in Korea, Japan, or western Europe. How long has that been now?
I would also like to hear your rationale -- to include the qualifications you have to make such a judgement -- behind calling Iraq an "unmitigated disaster." The issues that we deal with here go much deeper, and are much more complicated, than you let on.
I don't agree with everything the Bush administration has done in Iraq. But the one thing I do agree with them on is this: victory. We have to win, and we will, if: You yet us do our jobs, give us more support of the other elements of national power, and then stand back, shut up, and watch the best and brightest of America shine.
Sometimes I wonder if Eisenhower or MacArthur could have defeated the Axis were they in the environment we are now...
By skipsailing, at
Fri Jan 19, 10:50:00 AM:
Sometimes I recall the wise old sayings my mom taught me. Perhaps screwy should do the same.
If this is truly the "ideological struggle" of our time, then Bush either needs to commit hundreds of thousands of troops via a draft or he needs to STFU. Dropping 21,000 troops into this cauldron won't end anything. Bush is the one who holds responsibility for failed Iraq policy, not the American people
Screwy, it is far better to be thought a fool than to post a comment that proves it.
what I find so amazing about the anti victory people is the absolute conviction with which the propagate their blather.
I see absolutely no support for what amounts to screwy's opinion. Certainly none is offered by screwy himself. he said it, he believes it, that settles it.
Hardly. Further, screwy's current postion can be accurately summarized this way: If at first you don't succeed, F*ck it"
While I admire the blind self assurance of these latter day military experts, I find their demand that heed their uninformed opinions tiresome. Four years of bitching and moaning and these guys still aren't tired of hearing themselves talk. My goodness if we could harness that endurance for a good cause we'd be visiting the stars by now.
By , at
Fri Jan 19, 11:13:00 AM:
Is this like getting all of those Al Qaeda #2's?
By , at
Fri Jan 19, 11:47:00 AM:
Screwy: "Doctor, I have a bad headache that just won't quit. What can I do, I've already taken an aspirin and it didn't stop the headache!"
Doctor: "Well Screwy, I suggest you take two aspirins."
Screwy: "You stupid doctor, more aspirin is the answer, why don't I take 200?"
Doctor: "Good idea Screwy. You just do that. It should cure both of our headaches."
By , at
Fri Jan 19, 12:32:00 PM:
U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested one of Muqtada al-Sadr's top aides Friday in Baghdad, his office said...
LIES! All lies! That was not one of my aids! There are no Iraqi or US forces within 100 miles of Baghdad!
May your stomachs roast in Hell for all Eternity! May the fleas of 1000 camels infest your Undergarments, demon Infidel!
The arrogant cowboy Bush and his wicked Jewish lackey Condi Rice cannot touch me - they shall soon taste of my wrath! A la la la la la la!!!!!!!
By Georg Felis, at
Fri Jan 19, 12:42:00 PM:
Hey, don’t be so hard on Screwy. He has done what the vast majority of the Left could not bring themselves to do: He has proposed what he believes to be the solution to victory in Iraq, i.e. a draft and 200,000 more troops in Iraq.
He’s still wrong, but he tried.
I too believe that more trained troops in the conflict will be a Good Thing. Iraqi troops. And we’re training ‘em.
By , at
Fri Jan 19, 02:34:00 PM:
As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, the standard philosophy for an occupying power to stabilize another country is 1 soldier for every 50 civilians. If Iraq has ~25 million (a number that makes math easy) then we need ~500K troops to stabilize the country. If we have 150K...this seems a little low. On the other hand, I must say that I find it funny to hear the right making the comment of 'if you really don't support the war, cut the funding!' It is the equivalent of the left's 'if you support the war, re-enstate the draft!', IMHO. Buth are political suicide for the party that follows through with them, so both are not going to be followed. I believe we are putting in 21,500 troops instead of a larger number because of political reasons, but also because that is all we have left of our volunteer army.
By skipsailing, at
Fri Jan 19, 02:58:00 PM:
You should be thankful that you're a free thinker, having to pay for such faulty thoughts would be a crime.
You mean shiite-militia-infiltrated iraqi troops that would sooner shoot at americans as they would jihadists? The ones who will be stationed at shiite-militia-inflitrated police stations? The ones we will be embedding with our troops?
Are ther shi ia "militia" members in the Iraqi army? How can you be sure?
Are you saying that there are recorded incidents of Iraqi army units firing on American military units? Can you provide some support for this?
If you are saying that the Iraqi police are dreadful, I would heartily agree. the question is why.
As luck would have it Bing West provides an answer in the recent edition of National Review.
"After wresting control of the police from an incompetent U.S. State Department jealous of its bureacratic turf, the U.S. military intended to train the wretched Iraqi police by 2006."
The State Department has been unimpressive at best. In fact I believe that State is in the throes of an outright coup d'etat. They are doing everything possible to thwart the implementation of the bush policies.
The Iraqi police are an issue. Thus the need for additional troops. Until a reasonably uncorrupt and difficult to intimidate police force emerges, its the army (theirs and ours) that must fill the void.
Oh and the US military advisers will embed with the Iraqi troops, not the other way around.
further, I'm not saying that 20,000 more troops will win the war, and neither is bing west. What both Mr West and myself (and many others) ARE saying is that eliminating "catch and release" will win the war. The additional troops will help, but nothing will help as much as incarcerating the thugs for a good long time.
By skipsailing, at
Fri Jan 19, 03:09:00 PM:
I rarely reply to "anonymous" comments but I would like to clear up one falacy contained in the anonymous comment of 02:34:02pm
Here's a quote from the new counter insurgency field manual. It should be noted that this manual was co-authored by General Petraeus.
During
previous conflicts, planners assumed that combatants required a 10 or 15 to 1 advantage over insurgents
to win. However, no predetermined, fixed ratio of friendly troops to enemy combatants ensures success in
COIN. The conditions of the operational environment and the approaches insurgents use vary too widely.
A better force requirement gauge is troop density, the ratio of security forces (including the host nation’s
military and police forces as well as foreign counterinsurgents) to inhabitants. Most density recommendations
fall within a range of 20 to 25 counterinsurgents for every 1000 residents in an AO. Twenty counterinsurgents
per 1000 residents is often considered the minimum troop density required for effective COIN
operations; however as with any fixed ratio, such calculations remain very dependent upon the situation.
This makes it clear that rules of thumb are helpful but ultimately it is the situation on the ground that must dictate force requirements.
since Mr Petraeus was recently nominated for the postion of top commander in Iraq, those who question the troop strength data are asking us to believe two things. First that Gen Petraeus would accept a job knowing he would fail, because the resources allocated to him are LESS than those he knows he needs. Next, that the assessment indicated in the foregoing excerpt was done by the questioner and, based on their specific knowledge, experience and insight, found to be lacking.
since anonymous addresses neither of these issues, I will assume that he, she or it is simply parroting the latest "it won't work and here's why" party line.
By , at
Fri Jan 19, 03:38:00 PM:
The reel goons are allthe liberuls and chicken cut and runers that want to leeve right when were wining. The presidents plan is working not only agenst the terosests but for the econemy and are morels. Dick cheny is right, anyone not going along with the program is ading the terorests and should be considered an enemy. Comon america, lets suport are president and come in for the big kill!
By , at
Fri Jan 19, 04:22:00 PM:
Skipsailing:
I posted anonymously mostly because I am lazy, like my privacy, and don't like to sign in at every blog I visit. Anyway, I really wasn't trying to troll, although it is understandable that you might think that I was - it was an honest attempt to have a normal conversation. You may refer to the 'as I understand it' and 'in my opinion' statements I made if you question this. To answer your statements, I can make the total hand-waving argument that General Petraeus WOULD take a job that he believes would fail, due to the fact that a) he is a good soldier, and b) he believes in the mission even though c) he knew that he would not get the support needed to get it done right. I also must apologize - your next sentence 'that the assessment indicated in the foregoing excerpt was done by the questioner and, based on their specific knowledge, experience and insight, found to be lacking' is beyond my (admittedly small) ability to figure out. Please repeat it, and use smaller and more clear words for those of us (namely, me!) who lack your intelligence and skill. I really want to understand this point, as I do not really agree with the position of the President, and it seems to me that General Petraeus does not either. Based on President George Bush's track record of success so far, I don't want to trust his assessment of what is militarily necessary under the circumstances. However, thank you for taking the time to find the exact quote that I was looking for, and answering my questions.
By , at
Fri Jan 19, 04:48:00 PM:
Is it the Second-in-Command; No. 2 Man; Second Banana? Boy, we have captured LOTS AND LOTS of those in the G.W.O.T., haven't we? I'm sure it'll be just like all those other times; let's dust off those "Mission Accomplished" banners right now, and call a midnight session of Congress to authorize a victory celebration worthy of V.J. day!
George Bush, virtually alone in the Washington power elite, is saying that he won't desert the Iraqis.
Whooppdedoo!!, George Bush mugs a guy, sticks a knife in his back, then stands there howling at the moon, yelling how he's the only one who cares and he won't let the poor victim bleed to death. What a great leader.
The ironic part is that Bush could have pushed through his "surge" is it weren't for his vanity, arrogance, and Republican fanaticism. If he'd had the balls and the integrity to stand up before the American people and say, "I was wrong [not mistakes were made]; this war was based on a flawed strategy that has failed. Now I realize we need to ask for the sacrifice of the American people. I will handle the decisions in a different manner from now on, and will make major deicisons about the war with open and honest consulations with Congressional leaders."
But of course, being a Republican means never taking real responsibility for anything. The reason for the very existence of Republicanism is the reactionaries' endless political war against Blacks, Mexicans, feminists, liberals, unions, Muslims, liberals, and everyone else hated by their "base."
Thus, anyone who opposes any aspect of the Republican G.W.O.T. is a traitor; an appeaser; a cut-and-runner; etc., etc, etc. But when Congress proposes a policy to inspect 100% of cargo coming into U.S. ports, then the issue suddenly becomes how expensive the policy is. Economic considerations are completely irrelevant until the Democrats might possibly get credit for the policy. Disgusting. Truly disgusting.
By skipsailing, at
Fri Jan 19, 06:03:00 PM:
hey, on a second reading I don't get it either. and I wrote it. Must be that concussion
By , at
Fri Jan 19, 06:31:00 PM:
Actually, Rumsfield was the bungeling idiot in this. Bush's sin is loyalty way too long. McNamara must have prayed daily for someone stupider than him for the last 40 years, and he finally got him. The answer to the surge vs. withdraw is that you can't stop half a war. We simply have no choice but to slog on.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Jan 19, 07:19:00 PM:
We don't need to pacify and stablize the entire country. Isn't it something like 15 of the 18 provinces are just fine, and the problem areas are pretty much greater Baghdad and Al-Anbar Province? If that is indeed the case, we don't need 500k troops to meet that 20-25 troops to 1000 residents ratio.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jan 19, 09:15:00 PM:
"Economic considerations are completely irrelevant until the Democrats might possibly get credit for the policy."
Republicans and Democrats--the difference is droll. Like optimists, the Republicans see the doughnut. Like pessimists, the Democrats see the hole.
Hopefully America will become a democracy one day.
Right now at least 95 percent of the decisions in the federal government are made by career bureaucrats. In many cases the bureaucrats are well-schooled, but not well-educated. (Frequently the two are not the same.)
Politicians make the remaining decisions. But the bureaucrats have tremendous influence on those political decisions through reports and recommendations.
Yes, you probably can find bureaucratic memos in opposition to the war in Iraq. Many bureaucrats regularly write dissenting memos, hoping to become a star.
Over the years I have met many bureaucrats in the federal government. Quite frankly, I wouldn't hire most of them at half of their current salaries.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Jan 19, 11:29:00 PM:
On the subject of how many troops we might need - here's a very interesting post comparing our troop commitments in Vietnam to our troop commitments in the New Iraq.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Jan 20, 12:37:00 AM:
American military technology today is light years ahead of American military technology during the Vietnam War, Screwy Hoolie. I don't see how anyone can make a valid comparison between troop levels in the two wars.
Another thing to consider: The ratio of support soldiers to combat soldiers in the country. During the Vietnam War roughly 85 to 90 percent of the U.S. Army soldiers in Vietnam were support personnel (clerks, cooks, mechanics, etc.), not rough-and-ready soldiers with a combat MOS (military occupation specialty). I don't know the ratio for Iraq.
By , at
Sat Jan 20, 01:09:00 AM:
Screwy is not concerned with the right answer, he's concerned with the partisan one.
I notice you didn't answer any of my questions, Screwy. I'm the first anonymous from the top.
The link is interesting but irrelevant. Despite the best efforts of some people to conflate the two conflicts, there are few real similarities. Are they both unconventional wars? Yes. Were they both prolonged? Yes, which follows from the first answer. Beyond that, almost every significant fact about the two conflicts are different: the terrain, the enemies, the political environment, the religions involved, the military background and theory of the combatants, and the technology and weaponry involved on both sides. And I will challenge you once again to provide intellectually honest rebuttals to these arguments.
Smart professionals can disagree with the conduct of this campaign, and I would submit that there are several points of contention or debate. But your entry argument cannot be that idiots are running the war, because they're not. There is sound reasoning behind everything we've done. Perhaps if you accept this fact, we can have a more constructive debate about the way ahead.
By , at
Sat Jan 20, 03:02:00 AM:
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our 'surge' will not include too many of these types...
I followed the link & viewed the videos – 2 of soldiers teasing children, which the commentor apparently finds ominous. The 3rd was of some soldiers punishing looters by crushing their getaway car. Contrary to what appears to be the commentor’s point I think there is a need for MORE crushing of looter-cars. In fact I think adult looters should be shot on sight instead of merely having their vehicle destroyed. BTW, the same comment by Minor ripper with the same wording showed up at another blog before it was posted on TigerHawk.:
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2007/01/vietnam-on-mind-congress-jockeys-for.html
Minor Ripper’s previous comment on the other blog was posted January 4rth. Looks like an organized, methodical cut and paste effort to discredit US soldiers. A hit and run operation. I’ll bet Minor Ripper never stays with the discussion, just pastes, posts and moves on. One wonders how many times this exact comment with the same wording has been pasted in the comments of how many other blogs between then and now. Kind of sickening.
By , at
Sat Jan 20, 09:46:00 AM:
[btw, I post this as a (still) registered Democrat that renounced his party on 9/11/2001 when it was made clear by CNN and other moonbat media that the Democrats were going to be isslamic-apologists and "blame-America-firsters."]
That "70% of Americans against the war" is a statistical abortion made up by the left.
The liberal media "news" formula:
1.construct a biased poll to get the answers we want (make it easy: poll only Democrats LOL).
2. report the poll results as "news": "55% of Americans are against troop increase in Iraq" (do NOT mention that 100% of the people polled were libs/Democrats).
3. re-take poll after blasting days/weeks of the 55% number...this will convince others and then report the "new" poll numbers: "60% of Americans are against the troop increase in Irag. [now the fun part] AN INCREASE FROM 55% LAST WEEK."
hehehe...."those poor little Republicans and sheeple won't know what hit them."
4. rinse and repeat ad nauseum (or until the number hits 70%).
I will debate ANY liberal at ANY time with the FACTS. I love to watch them cry because basically they are cowards. They quiver before the isslamists. The only weapon they have is appeasement.
All we need is ONE non-lib MSM news station (replace Katie Couric with Brit Hume? Bill O'Reilly?) and it's OVER when the American people finally have a choice and not just leftist, anti-American propaganda.
[btw, and eff fRance, the planets iSSlamist collaborators along with the Democratic Party.]
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jan 20, 11:52:00 AM:
I cannot for the life of me figure out why cafe' going academics and other liberal types think that they are the greatest military analysts in the history of the profession, that they have all the answers and everyone else, bless their hearts, are just ignorant peons blinded by the system. If you can't disassemble an M-16, don't try to tell others how to use them. No one likes a back-seat driver.
There will be no draft because the military is dead set against it. I'm not going to bother outlining the reasons because some fool with no military experience will just try to argue with me.
As was mentioned above, Iraqi troubles are isolated in a relatively small geographic location. You don't need half a million (or whatever else idiotic number you want to pull from your ass) soldiers to 'occupy' the country. Iraq has its own army and its own police. Our troops are there as reinforcements. Look up 'Vietnamization' for an explanation of the concept here, you historical geniuses.
And for those of you who failed Civics 101, the President cannot reinstate the draft. He is not a king. That is a power of Congress. (i.e. to 'raise armies') The *Democrats* now control Congress. "Bush hasn't brought back the draft to raise the troops necessary for this, so his actions don't match his rhetoric" is ignorant, ridiculous, partisan horse shit that simply declares to everyone that you have no idea how the government works and your opinions should be discounted. Good going.
As for the doom saying that 'oh this is a lost cause' and 'we need hundreds of thousands of troops to blah blah;' have you read the news? In like, 2 weeks, dozens of Iranian and Shi'ite milita movers and shakers, including a senior Iranian military advisor, have been nabbed by the US/Iraq. Mahdi men are throwing away their 'uniforms' and hiding their weapons, and their leadership has gone to ground and started whining about being 'under siege.' And the 'surge' hasn't even arrived yet.
As I've been saying for months, we don't need more troops, we just needed to let the troops who are there to act against the criminal elements. Now we are, and they seem to be scattering like cockroaches. It's a little disappointing; I was hoping for a climactic battle to slaughter them all.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Jan 20, 08:50:00 PM:
"scattering like cockroaches"
Cockroaches believe in democracy. From a Discovery News report last April: "Cockroaches govern themselves in a very simple democracy where each insect has equal standing and group consultations precede decisions that affect the entire group, indicates a new study."
More at:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1607034.htm
By Sirkowski, at
Mon Jan 22, 01:01:00 AM:
Kick that football Charlie Brown!
By , at
Tue Apr 22, 12:57:00 PM:
Brand Duromine Ionamin weight loss drug is a popular brand name timed-release resin
version for the weight loss diet pill phentermine, and is used in combination with diet and exercise,to help you lose weight. It works by decreasing your
appetite.
Generic Meridia/Reductil SIBUTRAMINE HCI drug is a prescription medication thats used to
help people lose weight by acting on the appetite control centers in the brain. Studies have shown that using Meridia helps patients lose weight and maintain
weight loss for up to 2 years.
Xenical Orlistat weight loss drug blocks some of the fat that you eat from being absorbed
by your body. Orlistat is used in the management of obesity including weight loss and weight maintenance when used with a reduced-calorie diet.
Generic Xanax Alprazolam drug without prescription is used to treat anxiety disorders and
panic attacks. Alprazolam is in a class of medications called benzodiazepines. It works by decreasing abnormal excitement in the brain.
Generic Valium Diazepam drug is used to relieve anxiety, muscle spasms, and seizures and
to control agitation caused by alcohol withdrawal. Valium brand medication.
