The Discerning Texan

Labels: Petreaus, President Bush, The Surge, War Successes

You probably missed this in the evening news...
The Ramadi Fun Run-

In the city of Ramadi, a former violent enclave for terrorists inside the Sunni Triangle, city officials held the first 'fun run' in nearly a decade.
Matt Sanchez reported this amazing news.

There was a formal handover ceremony Wednesday at the Basra palace.

And, this news didn't make it into the Basra reports.
Local Iraqi leaders vowed to crack down on militias and strike down on outlaws "no matter what their ethnicity, pedigree or religious robe they wear."

A British soldier salutes during a handover ceremony of Basra Palace to Iraqi forces, in Basra, 550 km (342 miles) south of Baghdad, September 3, 2007. British troops quit the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Monday, an Iraqi general said, ending the British presence in the oil hub for the first time since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003. (REUTERS/British Forces Media Office)

Insurgents hamper U.S., Iraqi forces in Ramadi
Stalemate in dangerous region may be formidable challenge for new PM


U.S. Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment's Kilo Company run across a war-battered road to avoid snipers on their way back to a base in Ramadi, Iraq, last month.

Updated: 6:44 p.m. CT May 22, 2006

RAMADI, Iraq - Whole neighborhoods are lawless, too dangerous for police. Some roads are so bomb-laden that U.S. troops won’t use them. Guerrillas attack U.S. troops nearly every time they venture out — and hit their bases with gunfire, rockets or mortars when they don’t.

Though not powerful enough to overrun U.S. positions, insurgents here in the heart of the Sunni Muslim triangle have fought undermanned U.S. and Iraqi forces to a virtual stalemate.

“It’s out of control,” says Army Sgt. 1st Class Britt Ruble, behind the sandbags of an observation post in the capital of Anbar province. “We don’t have control of this ... we just don’t have enough boots on the ground.”

Labels: Iraq, Media Bias, The Surge, War Successes

Labels: Chuck Schumer, Defeatocrats, Iraq, Military, Surrender Caucus, War Successes

Stroll through downtown Fallujah or Ramadi? Could happen, not likely. Would be a major, almost unprecedented move for a President of the United States. Madison exposed himself to British fire in the sacking of Washington, 1814, when he left the White House to check on American soldiers.* Slightly different circumstances. Do it, George.

Notably, Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki had to board a flight from Baghdad to Al Anbar to meet with the President. So much for defiant, “we don’t need you” talk from Maliki. It’s clear who was deferring to who, and why. The flight was also notable in that provided a pointed symbol for Mr. Maliki to consider - a Shiite leader who has failed to keep his own Shiite house in order, and who has been cozying up far too closely with US and Iraq enemy Iran, was flying into almost entirely pacified Sunni territory undergoing a construction and redevelopment boom.

Bush and his team met with General David Petraeus and US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. The president will speak to about 750 troops for about 10 or 15 minutes said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, before he continues on to Australia.

Self-appointed Iraq experts Brian DePalma and Mark Cuban were nowhere to be seen.

Related: Bush Circumvents Maliki With Money For Al Anbar Reconstruction

Meanwhile over at Ace of Spades HQ, Drew M. adds:

The countdown to the Democrats crying about playing politics ahead of Petraeus’ report next week is officially underway. As if constantly shilling for America’s defeat for electoral gains isn’t playing politics.

As someone who has soured on Bush in the last year (mainly over immigration amnesty), I have to hand it to the guy. This is quite a gesture, going to the heart of the region that was probably the most dangerous place on Earth not so long ago and is now a true success story for us.

I don't think in American military history there have been too many occasions when so much has rested on the shoulders of just one commander, quite unfairly to be sure. But like it or not, in the political sense of maintaining the war, we are in a Sherman-like make or break decision at Atlanta (taken 143 years ago today), or a Ridgeway moment in Korea, where only a gifted commander like Petraeus can instill the leadership necessary to restore support at home through his success abroad.

In a strange sense, more than ever the ante has been raised, and there is the eerie feeling far more than just Iraq is at stake right now in the next few weeks, but rather the nature of the entire Middle East and the American global role even beyond the region.

So I think it is finally time to give us a pass on the Aruba and Paris Hilton news alerts. We owe that much to the troops in harm's way.

How will this affect the debate on Iraq here in the US? It will show that more of Iraq has been secured in a rather dramatic fashion. A year ago, a presidential visit to Anbar would have been a ludicrous suggestion. His meetings with tribal leaders may have been even more ludicrous regardless of whether they occurred in Anbar or Baghdad. It cuts through the filters of conventional wisdom and media narratives to make a rather bold point about the progress since the start of the surge.

More importantly, how does this affect politics inside Iraq? By meeting with Maliki, Bush can assuage some hurt feelings over calls for Maliki's ouster by Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. However, his meetings with tribal leaders will demonstrate that the US will be willing to work with a broad range of political leadership, a move that should send a message to Maliki. It will be a recognition of tribal leaders who have chosen political engagement rather than terrorist support, which will strengthen the momentum towards political reform.

It's a smart move in all directions. Bush has once again shown the relevance and the power of the presidency, and he chose the best possible time for this demonstration.

Labels: Defeatocrats, Iraq, President Bush, War strategy, War Successes

Labels: Counterinsurgency, Iraq, War strategy, War Successes

Labels: al-Sadr, America War Support, Iran, Iraq, War strategy, War Successes

U.S.-led and Afghan troops battled suspected Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday in ground clashes and airstrikes that left over 100 militants dead, the coalition said.

In eastern Afghanistan, a suicide bomber attacked NATO troops helping to build a bridge, killing three American soldiers, a U.S. official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because not all families had been notified.

The battle in southern Kandahar province's Shah Wali Kot district started after the joint force was ambushed by a large group of insurgents who tried to overrun their position several times, before being strafed by airstrikes, the statement from the coalition said.

"Coalition aircraft destroyed the reinforced enemy emplacements and sniper positions as well as two trucks used to reinforce and re-supply the insurgent force," the statement.

More than 100 suspected insurgents and an Afghan soldier were killed, coalition said. The casualty figures could not be independently verified due to remoteness of the area.

Labels: Afghanistan, Media Bias, Media War, War Successes

Hundreds of Iraqi Kurds have fled remote mountain villages near the country's eastern frontier as Iranian gunners target separatist guerrilla bases, local officials said Monday.

IMRA reported:

MOUNT QANDIL, Iraq, 21 August 2007: Hundreds of Iraqi Kurds have
fled remotemountain villages near the country's eastern frontier as Iranian
gunnerstarget separatist guerrilla bases, local officials said yesterday.
"About150 families have left eight villages. We are very concerned about
thesituation in the area. If the shelling continues, we may have to declare
anemergency situation," said Hussein Ahmed, governor of Qalaa Diza
district...

Kurdish Media has this account on the clashes:

Iraqi Kurdish officials expressed deepening concern yesterday at an upsurge in fierce clashes between Kurdish guerrillas and Iranian forces in the remote border area of north-east Iraq, where Tehran has recently deployed thousands of Revolutionary Guards.

Jabar Yawar, a deputy minister in the Kurdistan regional government, said four days of intermittent shelling by Iranian forces had hit mountain villages high up on the Iraqi side of the border, wounding two women, destroying livestock and property, and displacing about 1,000 people from their homes. Mr Yawer said there had also been intense fighting on the Iraqi border between Iranian forces and guerrillas of the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), an armed Iranian Kurdish group that is stepping up its campaign for Kurdish rights against the theocratic regime in Tehran.

The killing of Iraqis by Iran's Revolutionary Guard should not be a surprise to any who have followed the course of the Iraq war (and postwar). While Tehran is raising the outcry that the Kurdish freedom fighters (known as the PJAK) are "a terrorist outfit being sponsored and armed by the US to increase pressure on Iran" -- the IRGC is itself conducting a terrorist campaign within Iraq itself.

From establishing training and base camps for both Shi'a and Sunni fighters, to funding and equipping insurgents within Iraq, Iran's involvement in the fight against Iraq and against the coalition has been very real and very pronounced for quite some time now. That involvement includes the supplying of terrorists in Iraq with the materials necessary to assemble EFPs, (explosively-formed penetrators -- an improvised explosive device which, in the past two years , has become the number one killer of American troops in Iraq).

Major General Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division (whose 3rd Brigade is one of the 'Surge' Brigades), which is responsible for the area from Baghdad down to the area south of the Tigris and of Salman Pak, publicly stated that his soldiers are currently "tracking about 50 members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps in [their] area," saying that, while none have been captured at this point, they "are being targeted" like any other insurgent fighters.

Only weeks ago, a Public Affairs officer within Multinational Force-Iraq privately expressed his concern to me that the media were spiking or deliberately misrepresenting reports made by the military about Iranian involvement and the capture of Persian fighters within Iraq. "We would arrest three members of the al Quds force (part of the Revolutionary Guard), and the story that would come out in the papers the next day would be, 'Three Iranian diplomats arrested from embassy.' I'd call the folks at the papers and say, 'Look, these folks weren't diplomats, and they weren't at an embassy. They're Iranian soldiers and they were taken while fighting against the coalition in Iraq.' I'd say to them, 'We have evidence -- from weapons to ID cards to uniforms - that proves beyond a doubt who and what they are,' and I'd offer to bring them in and walk through each piece of evidence with them.

"They'd never take me up on it, and would never correct their stories."

Tehran has chosen this course for itself, independent of American action. No foreign policy of America's has forced them to work round the clock -- illegally -- to develop offensive nuclear weapons. No foreign policy of ours has caused Tehran to kidnap soldiers, diplomats, and tourists for use as a bargaining chip in a most dangerous game. No policy of the civilized world has caused the Iranian government -- a United Nations member state -- to make the total destruction of Israel -- another UN member -- not only a policy position, but a priority. No coalition action in Iraq has forced Iran to send its money and materiel across its western border in hopes of killing as many American soldiers as possible.

Iran has made every one of these choices on its own. How long will it be before America decides to wake up, and chooses to realize what Tehran has done -- and chooses to accept the indisputable fact that, whether we like it or not, Iran really is at war not only with the sovereign state of Iraq, but with America as well?

Labels: Iran, Iraq, Islamic Fascism, Kurdistan, War Successes

Labels: Democrat, Hearts and Minds, Iraq, Media Bias, War Successes

Labels: Afghanistan, Taliban, War Successes

Another Congressional Democrat has shifted his views on Iraq to support from opposition -- and this change has significance. Rep. Brian Baird, one of the Democrats who voted against the authorization to use military force in 2002, has now returned from Iraq convinced that we need to give General David Petraeus more time:

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."

Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.

Baird made it plain that his change of heart is based on two very clear criteria. One, a pullback would devastate Iraq and be catastrophic to the region and our national interests. Primarily, though, Baird believes that Petraeus has made real progress. He does not want to pull out while success can still be achieved

Read the rest--it really will be interesting to see how the Dem Presidential candidates react to this (look for Hillary to move first--she will shift with any wind if she thinks it will help her get elected...).

It was also reported yesterday that Petraeus' upcoming report is supposed to be mostly positive... and that Democrats reportedly want the briefing to be away from the cameras and the public. When you are a Stalinist in a Democracy, it often becomes very difficult to hide that fact...

Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, America War Support, Defeatocrats, Hearts and Minds, Iraq, War Successes

The victims were ethnic Kurd Yazidis, members of a minor sect with pre-Islamic roots. Muslim extremists condemn them (wrongly) as devil worshippers. The Yazidis live on the fringes of society.

That's one of the two reasons al Qaeda targeted those settlements: The terrorist leaders realize now that the carnage they wrought on fellow Muslims backfired, turning once-sympathetic Sunni Arabs against them. The fanatics calculated that Iraqis wouldn't care much about the Yazidis.

As far as the Thieves of Baghdad (also known as Iraq's government) go, the terrorists were right. Iraqi minorities, including Christians, have been classified as fair game by Muslim butchers. Mainstream Iraqis simply look away.

But the second reason for those dramatic bombings was that al Qaeda needs to portray Iraq as a continuing failure of U.S. policy. Those dead and maimed Yazidis were just props: The intended audience was Congress.

Al Qaeda has been badly battered. It's lost top leaders and thousands of cadres. Even more painful for the Islamists, they've lost ground among the people of Iraq, including former allies. Iraqis got a good taste of al Qaeda. Now they're spitting it out.

The foreign terrorists slaughtering the innocent recognize that their only remaining hope of pulling off a come-from-way-behind win is to convince your senator and your congressman or -woman that it's politically expedient to hand a default victory to a defeated al Qaeda.

THE media missed a big one yesterday.

They ran with the story that the Bush administration will soon designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps - a major troublemaker in Iraq - as a terrorist organization. But they didn't look past the public-consumption explanation that the move lets our government go after the Revolutionary Guards' finances and the international companies that cut deals with Tehran's thugs.

The real reason for the move is to set up a legal basis for airstrikes or special operations raids on the Guard's bases in Iran.

Our policy is that we reserve the right to whack terrorists anywhere in the world. Now we have newly designated terrorists. And we know exactly where they are.

This doesn't mean we won't go after their money, too. The Revolutionary Guards have built up a financial empire - they're religious fanatics, but, in their version of Islam, "greed is good." Hurting Iran's assassins in the pocketbook reduces their ability to export terror.

Labels: Congress, Defeatocrats, Iraq, Media Bias, Media War, Surrender Caucus, The Left, War Successes

Labels: Congress, Defeatocrats, Iraq, Petreaus, Surrender Caucus, The Long War, War Successes

The importance of the strategy shift cannot be overstated. While the British approach of attempting to mediate between militias from afar has left Basra in shambles, the American strategy of engaging militias and terrorists has paid dividends on several layers.

First, the terrorists have no time to expand and strategize. They have to defend themselves from encirclement by American troops, which means they have to go on the run. Any time they move, they have to get out into the open, which exposes them to more danger. If they don't run, they have to fight military troops, battles in which they do not have the skillsets to succeed.

Second, terrorist tactics have enraged Iraqis and driven them away from the insurgencies. Even other insurgencies have found it necessary to ally with the US military to stop the inhumanity of al-Qaeda control. The terrorists have had to use these brutal techniques to frighten people into compliance with their leadership -- a sure sign of desperation. They're losing the hearts-and-minds battle.

Third, our tenacity allows the Iraqis to rely on us -- and that brings another level of unity. They have responded to our efforts by vastly increasing the intelligence that comes to the military, which allows us more success in tamping down the violence. They have begun to unify amongst themselves for their own protection as well, which helps build political strength for Iraq from the ground up. They feel liberated to participate in self-government.

What happens when General Petraeus comes to Congress with these numbers? It will show that the new strategy has, in the words of Keane, shifted the initiative and the momentum to the US. We have found a way to beat the terrorists -- and we had better continue to do so. Congress will find it very difficult to retreat from Iraq while we're succeeding.

Labels: Defeatocrats, Democrat, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, War Successes

When it comes to Iraq, being there matters because of the massive disconnect between what most Americans think they know about Iraq, and what is actually going on there.

The current controversy about the extent to which Al Qaeda is a threat to peace in Iraq is a case in point. Questions about which group calling itself an offshoot of Al Qaeda is really an offshoot of Al Qaeda is a distraction masquerading as a debate.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq, intentionally inflaming sectarian hostilities, deliberately pushing for full scale civil war. They do this by launching attacks against Shia, Sunni, Kurds and coalition forces. To ensure the attacks provoke counterattacks, they make them particularly gruesome.

Five weeks ago, I came into a village near Baqubah with American and Iraqi soldiers. Al Qaeda had openly stated Baqubah was their worldwide headquarters — indeed, Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed just a short drive away.

Behind the village was a palm grove. I stood there, amid the crushing stench of death, and photographed the remains of decapitated children and murdered adults. I can still smell the rotting corpses of those children.

Clearly, not every terrorist in Iraq is Al Qaeda, but it is Al Qaeda that has been intentionally, openly, brazenly trying to stoke a civil war. As Al Qaeda is now being chased out of regions it once held without serious challenge, their tactics are tinged with desperation.

This may be the greatest miscalculation they've made in their otherwise sophisticated battle for the hearts and minds of locals, and it is one we must exploit.

In fact, some Sunni insurgents who formerly were allies of Al Qaeda have turned on them simply because Al Qaeda has proven it will murder anyone — and in the most horrible ways. One of these groups is called the 1920 Revolution Brigade, which turned on Al Qaeda and joined forces with the U.S.

On July 16, I was with American Army forces, Iraqi Army forces and 1920 fighters when together they went off to hunt Al Qaeda. The 1920s guys were in front of us. They got hit by a bomb that was almost certainly planted by terrorists. A major gunfight ensued.

Anyone who says Al Qaeda is not one of the primary problems in Iraq is simply ignorant of the facts.

I, like everyone else, will have to wait for September's report from Gen. Petraeus before making more definitive judgments. But I know for certain that three things are different in Iraq now from any other time I've seen it.

1. Iraqis are uniting across sectarian lines to drive Al Qaeda in all its disguises out of Iraq, and they are empowered by the success they are having, each one creating a ripple effect of active citizenship.

2. The Iraqi Army is much more capable now than it was in 2005. It is not ready to go it alone, but if we keep working, that day will come.
3. Gen. Petraeus is running the show. Petraeus may well prove to be to counterinsurgency warfare what Patton was to tank battles with Rommel, or what Churchill was to the Nazis.

And yes, in case there is any room for question, Al Qaeda still is a serious problem in Iraq, one that can be defeated. Until we do, real and lasting security will elude both the Iraqis and us.

Labels: Embedded Reporting, Iraq, Media Bias, War Successes

Iraqi security forces said today that a joint attack with U.S. forces earlier this week killed the mastermind of a bombing at Samarra's Golden Mosque in February 2006 that sparked sectarian violence across the country.

Haytham Badri, who also used the last name Sabi, was killed Thursday when his car caught fire as he fled a U.S. air assault on his home. Police said he had been hiding there with a group of armed men in the Banat Hassan area of eastern Samarra, about 65 miles north of the capital.

Badri's cousin, who spoke on condition he not be further identified, said in an interview that the dead man's father and brother later identified his body.

Badri, field commander in Samarra for the militant group Al Qaeda in Iraq, was wanted in connection with the mosque bombing and the killing of Al Arabiya television correspondent Atwar Bahjat and two co-workers, who were kidnapped while covering the bombing and later shot.

"We know a lot about him. He was one of the main leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq," Mowaffak Rubaie, Iraq's national security advisor, said of Badri. Rubaie said Badri was "the main culprit" in the mosque bombing but that he could not confirm the report of Badri's death.

The U.S.-Iraqi joint attack also killed a dozen other insurgents, police said. Eighty-eight more were arrested, including foreign fighters from Afghanistan, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Elsewhere in Samarra, a man described as the local administrative commander of the militant group also was detained, police said.

In a statement, the U.S. military confirmed that Badri had been killed by U.S. forces Thursday. The U.S. military said Badri was responsible for an attack on the Golden Mosque in June, which destroyed its minarets, but did not mention the February 2006 bombing.

Labels: Iraq, War Successes

Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no "Plan B," which would be success.

Like the character Billy Bigelow in the musical "Carousel," who is dumbstruck when he realizes he has not thought about the possibility that his pregnant wife might actually deliver a girl, instead of the son he wants, Democrats appear unable to conceive of victory, or at least stability in Iraq.

So cynical have our politics become that a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders are "not willing to concede there are positive things to point to" in Iraq. And House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn said a favorable report from Gen. David Petraeus could lead 47 moderate-to-conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass such legislation. "[It would be] a real problem for us," said Mr. Clyburn.

Is that what the Iraq war has become? Instead of viewing it as a generational war that will determine the future of civilization (because, if we lose, Iraq will become a launching pad for terrorist acts around the world and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would surely die), is it now just another tool in the Democrat's quest for the White House? Where are the statesmen who put their country and its interests before personal and political interests? Was Harry Truman right when he observed, "A statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years"? Aren't we Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats? And don't we all lose if one political "side" wins and it costs others their freedom and puts America in greater peril.

Much of Washington is buzzing over a recent New York Times column by two scholars from the Brookings Institution, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. In addition to their association with a left-of-center think tank, the two have credibility because they have been harsh critics of how President Bush has directed the war.

Their column, titled "A war we just might win," expresses something we haven't heard in several years: optimism. "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms," they write. This surprised them and they saw "the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory,' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Testifying last week before the House Armed Services Committee, U.S. Army Gen. John M. Keane said Gen. Petraeus' new offensive has turned the tide against al Qaeda and insurgents alike. "We are on the offensive and have the momentum," said Gen. Keane, citing improved security throughout Baghdad, reduced sectarian violence, and al Qaeda's loss of ground in Sunni areas.

This is bad news for Democrats; so invested are they in defeat. What would they do; what could they do should pacification, if not unification, set in? It would not be beyond them to ignore the positives and focus only on the negatives. Will the mainstream media support them in such a strategy? Some might, but the "alternative" media, including talk radio, cable TV and the Internet, won't let them get away with it. Democrats may be reduced to asking if the public is going to believe them or their "lying eyes."

Labels: Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Surrender Caucus, War Successes

Labels: Defeatocrats, Iraq, Surrender Caucus, War Successes

The fear of exactly this result might explain Democrat Rep. James Clyburn--the House Majority Whip, told the Washington Post yesterday. I linked it earlier, but the "money line" of the quote bears repetition (also check out the video here; and get a load of Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Boyda's equally telling actions...the very suggestion of recent American success in Iraq was enough to send her scurrying out of a briefing with an American General in great distress...). Meanwhile Mr. Clyburn couldn't help himself either, it just sort of 'came out' this way (emphasis mine):

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. [...]

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Can you imagine if, one month after D-Day--after the American invasion of France finally began to show real progress--a member of Congress going to the press and being asked something like: "well it looks like the American troops have finally broken free in France, despite enormous loss of life, and that for the first time, Germans are in retreat." And then the Congressman coming back with: ...yeah, and if that continues it would be a real big problem for us"??? I mean obviously he is talking about the Party, not the country, He probably would have been impeached on the spot.

The heavy irony of this little slip of the tongue by Rep. Clyburn is that it is completely indicative of where the defeat-mongers of the Democrat Party find themselves. Any good news about the war has been habitually buried by Democrats and their allies in the press for over 4 years now--to the point where they have conditioned themselves to believe none of it; meanwhile the majority of Americans have been spoon fed only negative news about the War--both by Democrats and their allies in the media--leading to a false sense of hopelessness at home which is a far cry from what our fighting men and women (and other embeds) have been saying for over a year now: namely that the military situation on the ground has been improving dramatically. And now even regular Bush critics from the liberal Brookings Institution think tank have issues a shocking (to the Left) positive report after a recent trip to Iraq.

Morale is high with the troops. The Iraqi people are coming around--especially in their unity against Al Qaeda. And the fact that the Democrats have been engaged for months in this "early" Presidential campaign--trumpeting all the while the assumption that an American defeat is a foregone conclusion--has put the Dems even further behind the "8-ball." All of its major candidates have gone on the record ad infinitum about their opposition to the War and desire to pull us out in shame of a War that cannot be won. Harry Reid their leader in the Senate has pronounced the War already lost.

Now these Defeatocrats have a real dilemma: if the Dems pull funding now, just as the effort seems destined for success (and the public knows it...opinion polls regarding the war have already moved appreciably in the last 7 days), the resulting American shame and the genocide that would ensue could result in a Democrat defeat of epic proportions next year; something that no one even dreamed of at the beginning of the year. The American people will clearly see pulling the rug out from a rapidly improving situation in Iraq and handing 1/3 of the world's oil supply to our enemies as a great betrayal instead of an inevitability. Meanwhile the Republicans, who have all along been suggesting "just give the surge time to work" appear to have been borne out, even after 5+ years of persistent, non-stop Democrat derision and personal attacks.

Stay tuned: the events of the last month--and the months to come--may portend as a dramatic reversal of fortune that American politics has seen in a long, long time. Dems are painted into a corner on Iraq now--and any defeatist moves to satisfy the base could result in a landslide against the Dems in a general election. Has the President (and Gen. Petraeus) been "Misunderestimated" again? Time will tell...

In the meantime, to our troops I say: Take heart! And 'Just win, baby'!

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Congress, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Surrender Caucus, US Senate, War Successes

What are we to make of the fact that two of the Democratic party’s most knowledgeable critics of President Bush’s campaign to stabilize and democratize post-Saddam Iraq, Michael O’Hanlon and Robert Pollack, have publicly rejected the defeatists and called for a sustained U.S. effort there into 2008? The short answer is that they have the wit to recognize mistaken claims that all is lost in Iraq when they hear them — and the courage to say so.

This assessment is remarkable, of course, not only for the fact that its authors are breaking ranks with nearly all of the rest of the Democrats’ foreign-policy establishment. It is also noteworthy for being the latest and, arguably, most objective indicator that the situation on the ground in Iraq is, indeed, changing for the better.

As such, the O’Hanlon-Pollack report makes plain one other truth: Those who persist in denying that General David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy is having the desired, salutary effect and who insist that our defeat is inevitable are promoting a self-fulfilling prophesy. They are so determined to score domestic political points by unilaterally ending the conflict in Iraq that they are prepared to surrender the country to al Qaeda and various Shiite militias and their respective Saudi, Iranian and Syrian enablers.

Public-opinion polling and anecdotal evidence suggests that Americans are beginning to appreciate the true nature — and potentially enormous costs — of the surrender in Iraq being advocated by many Democrats and a few Republicans. The O’Hanlon-Pollack op-ed may reflect that reality as much as shape it. Either way, its authors deserve our thanks.

There is no question that on the ground the war is being won. Baghdad is becoming more secure. Iraqi tribal leaders and even some insurgent groups are turning against al Qaeda in Iraq and other outsiders who are pursuing their own violent agenda and who care nothing for the people of Iraq. The activities of Iran, Syria, and other counties supporting the insurgency are coming under increasing scrutiny and public censure. Iraqi military and police forces are fielding thousands of new, trained recruits every month. The government of Iraq may not be addressing all of the legislative initiatives we would like them to, such as the energy law and sorting out power sharing in their federal structure; but it took our country 75 years to come to grips with the contradictions inherent in our Constitution, and with a great deal more violence. We can give them time.

The weak link in the war effort is in the U.S. Congress. Politically driven assessments that downplay the progress of the war, pandering to antiwar groups, and a public that has tuned out, add up to grave difficulties in sustaining the war effort. Given more time, the progress in Iraq will become so clear as to be undeniable, and the troop drawdown could commence on more favorable terms. There is a significant difference between withdrawal in the face of adversity and redeployment after meeting our stated objectives. It is the difference between defeat and victory.

Skipping past the blow-by-blow and getting to the bottom line: I sense there has been a fundamental shift in Iraq. One officer called it a “change in the seas,” and I believe his words were accurate. Something has changed. The change is fundamental, and for once seems positive. And so, back to the O’Hanlon-Pollack story in the New York Times, “A War We Just Might Win,” I agree.

Labels: Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Hearts and Minds, Iraq, Media War, Surrender Caucus, War Successes