Pssst...[whispering]...The Surge Is Working
Don't tell the Democrats
By haystack Posted in defeatists | Democrats | Iraq | Surge | Victory | War — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Contrary to popular belief amongst the Democrats, the surge continues to enjoy progress and show signs of ultimately working according to plan. There are many indicators of our finally approaching "success" (as President Bush started calling it when, after so much hatred and vilification from the anti-war crowd and their Democrat puppets in Congress, we were all forced to retool our expectations away from a once-hoped-for "victory").
It's ok...you say to-may-to, I say to-mot-to...whatever floats your boat.
So, we find in this little gem a rather significant piece of news that very little fuss is being made about:
Iraq's army and police could be ready to take over security in all 18 provinces by the end of this year as the U.S. military moves toward a less prominent role in the country, U.S. officials said on Thursday.
"We look at it every month. We make recommendations. I think that if we continue along the path we're on now, we'll be able to do that by the end of 2008," Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said when asked when Iraqi forces could take the lead in all provinces.
WHATEVER you do, don't tell those idiots running the House and Senate. Why, they might stop focusing on Roger Clemens' steroid scandal and find some nifty NEW way to muck things up over there...before our Soldiers can finish this thing and pull back into the support role we've been promised all along - and is getting closer every day to becoming a reality.
God bless our brave men and women - for they show us how to get things done in SPITE of the roadblocks Democrats put in front of them.
More below the fold...
I am rather amused at how oddly coincidental it is that good news from Iraq is all but non-existent in our so-called Mainstream media right now. In fact, I bet there's an algorithm some math whiz could muster to draw a corollary between the amount of Iraq coverage versus these silly Presidential Primaries...and which one gets more weight under the contrived notion that one is ONLY more important than the other depending on which one best aligns with the Media's "agenda." But, I digress...
It went right by all of us that the anti-war kooks have been forced to retreat from their lofty aspirations of usurping the powers of the Executive Branch...relegating themselves to the nonsensically naive notion that they can now define long-term Troop placement strategies with a blossoming "new" ally in the Middle East in the long war against terrorism:
In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.
The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.
What kills me in this last is the idea that the Democrats are no longer trying to hide the fact that their only concern regarding Iraq and the war on terrorism is just how they can wrangle and mangle truth, reality, and our long-term needs for securing this country against those who would see us dead by the millions if they could...solely because of their aspirations to ascend to power and retain it for generations.
No one is asking what exactly they'll DO when they have this power they lust so strongly after should another couple airplanes fly into buildings and kill innocents. Of course, many of us believe they'll just raise our taxes and send some blood money to the terrorists because they seem to believe poverty is what drives them...along with a healthy dose of repression. Why, of COURSE they'll stop wanting to kill us if they could live as well as we do...how could we not know that?
Despite every effort on the part of Democrats, progress continues. And while I'm sure it makes them all want to spit over there at the UN, even THEY have been forced to face a reality they've spent years trying to undermine:
The United Nations envoy to Baghdad said on Wednesday he would present a positive picture of progress in Iraq in a report to the Security Council despite earlier having serious misgivings about reconciliation efforts. U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura said the passing of a key law allowing former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to return to government jobs had changed what had been a pessimistic view of progress in a crucial year for Iraq.
"At the beginning of the year we were worried ... we were genuinely concerned by the lack of progress on national dialogue," de Mistura told Reuters by telephone.
"Today that has substantially changed. It has changed our mind from being worried or from being pessimistic," he said.
huh..."changed our mind"...welcome to the dark side of hope, persistence, and a willful refusal to accept anything but victory UN peeps. We like to call that America 'round these parts.
Now, if only we can keep this a secret from the Democrats. It's possible I suppose-it's not like they actually READ any of the reports from the ground in Iraq-why should they? They might have to adopt a position that actually RISKS their ascendancy to power over the defeatists in America. That, sadly, would be bad for business.
Attn. Congress: De-fund NOW!! — Comments (9) »
Pssst...[whispering]...The Surge Is Working 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Joe Conason, a standard liberal pundit for those that don't know, and I think his article says it all about how the standard down the line liberal feels about the success in Iraq. There was a ridiculous frustration and cynicism laced throughout the piece. It just goes to show you what happens when one is invested so much in a certain outcome. Here is how I analyzed the piece
The next major event political on Iraq is Petraeus' next dog and pony show in front of Congress. I don't know what some of the Dems, mainly Hillary and or Obama, will do. They may try and play the there is no political progress card. Who knows, however that will be the next major domestic political event regarding Iraq.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Might just be a tad busy with "campaign commitments" to show up to Congress that day.
Too bad the MSM and Dems have decided that victory is a bad thing. I truly feel that progress would have been much quicker if the MSM didn't fill the air waves with defeatist messages for so long. How many additional deaths can be attributed to Dems because they just kept the insurgents hopes alive that we were leaving? As many of said the coverage this war has received would have been treason in WWII.
I just read a very good article in American Thinker this morning about the war and Bush Doctrine. Again, this kind of message won't make it into the MSM and the Dems would never acknowledge it was the right thing to do, but it makes me feel better to know a factual analysis supports the efforts of our Heroes to make the world a better place.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/world_war_iv_a_military_perspe.ht...
Kudos to Bill Krystol and John McCain for having the moxy to support the surge way back in early 2007 when it took courage to bet on doubling down in Iraq.
May liberal surrender-monkeys like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi choke on their white flags.
Romney 2008
The surge is helpful, but most of the drop in violence is attributed to the Sunni Concerned Citizens from the Anbar Awakening.
The surge is a vestige element realistically and it's trumpeting has only minimal long-term significance.
Even in the immediate term it's impact not felt in key cities:
Basra and Nasiriya are now under curfew.
Southern Iraq is becoming real a security nightmare. Basra is Iraq's second largest city and the major port for Iraq oil exports.
What appears to be worrying everyone now is Basra may be the next Baghdad-type conflict.
So when you say "progress continues," I suggest next time contextualize it with the dark realities of the prerequisite McCainian "100 years" of occupation there. At least in that context our wack-a-mole "progress" can appear to abide in a helping to "keep a lid on things" sort of manner.
The Surge isn't the key. Just getting "more boots on the ground" wouldn't have made a difference, based on my readings of Jeff Emanuel's dispatches.
The credit needs to go to Gen. Petraeus and his new strategy. The surge is just a tool he's used to make progress.
Of course COIN is working. I never had a doubt. (It's just too bad GWB was 3 years late with it.)
But for how long? From RCP a few days ago:
The last several years have seen a spike in negative international sentiment toward the United States coupled with American surprise that efforts at exporting democracy haven't always gone over well, or proven successful.
[...]
3) Iraq
In 2008, Iraq will show that the United States has for the second time gotten the military decisions right but the politics wrong, with implications not just for Iraq but for the broader Middle East.
[...]
The troop surge has led radical Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtadr al Sadr to stay on the sidelines - not risking confrontation with U.S. military power - and seriously degraded al-Qaida in Iraq's capacity for attacks. All of this has meant fewer casualties - U.S. military, Iraqi military and Iraqi civilian.
But politically, the United States has actually lost ground. This is clearest in Baghdad, where Washington has all but lost its influence on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's administration - a stunning political fact given the extraordinary amount of cash and military support still funneled by the U.S. government into the country. This change became clear following Baghdad's refusal to attend the Annapolis conference on the Middle East, despite direct lobbying by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or to sign up for the American pact with Iraq's Sunni tribal leaders to fight al-Qaida. The greatest political influence on Baghdad is presently Iran - a factor that will likely grow over time as Iraqi political actors await the withdrawal of American military forces and Washington loses the political will to provide economic support.
Which means that the military gains - though real and important - are temporary and cannot continue with a significant reduction in the American troop presence. U.S. domestic opposition to the war remains at its highest levels, and as the U.S. scales down its presence, the likelihood that the insurgency will grow precipitously is great. Sadr will stay on the sidelines until it's safe to come out - but no longer. Ultimately, all this will likely produce a fragmentation of the country and a proxy war between Saudi-supported Sunni and Iranian-supported Shia, with the Kurds eventually going their own way. This makes Iraq increasingly less of a mess domestically but more a factor for regional instability throughout the Middle East. This will become increasingly evident in 2008.
If McCain runs on the success of the surge, and an interventionist nation-building foreign policy, we will lose to Hillary come Nov., whether the above comes to pass or not.
I want a strong military defense, not a weak offense.
When did Gen. Petraeus finish his manual?
Neil, the point is, we never had enough troops on the ground in Iraq, which has been McCain's complaint since this whole thing started, and one of the few points I've agreed with him on.
"You go war with the army you have" is hardly a strategy for success. There was no long-term planning, and no exit strategy, and the restrictions put on our troops (prior to COIN) wrt engaging the enemy were ridiculously restrictive and a recipe for disaster.
They went to war on rosy assumptions, and at some point we have to just admit they were dead wrong. It took the '06 thumping to get GWB to finally change what had been an abject failure for 3 years running.
If you're going to go in, then go in, go in hard, get the job done, and get out.
The Iraq War has been GWB's biggest mistake, and considering his other less-than-conservative, costly actions (his NCLB Act, his "compassionate conservatism" (aka expanding entitlements that would make FDR blush), his borrow-and-spend policies) that's really saying something.
I have no doubt the party will continue to support the war in Iraq, and the surge, and interventionist foreign policy, and it will be to the party's (and our nation's) detriment.
The Bush Doctrine is a loser's game. If the Rs have any hopes of winning in '08, they will renounce it whole-heartedly, or we can expect another thumping, because the Dems are already running against Bush 2.0.
I don't see how McCain's complaint was useful. Had we just sent in more troops like he wnated, under the old strategy, they'd just have been cooped up in Super FOBs, hiding out to try to minimize combat while letting the Iraqis take the lead as much as possible. It wouldn't have been effective.
The key to the Anbar awakening and other victories has been in the new strategy, not in some mere bookkeeping of having more troops over there.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised