The Violence in Anbar has gone down Despite the Surge, NOT Because of the Surge

Senator Chuck Shill Schumer remarked on the Senate floor yesterday regarding the “Surge” in Iraq and its success to date:

“I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.”

Most would attribute the Senators “rise” to the use of Viagra, however common sense tells us this is not so. To suggest “just the opposite,” of what is actually going on in Iraq as Schumer does is to “cling to straws” when news with even the slightest hint of “good” cannot be allowed. Schumer’s remarks are nothing more than the Iraq debate reframing debate strategy the Democrats have begun prior to Petraeus and Crockers report. We’ve entered September and Harry Reid noticed yesterday that this was the case following the Dems earlier confusion on the calendar a couple months back:

“Many of my Republican friends have long held September as the month for the policy change in Iraq. It’s September. The calendar hasn’t changed. It’s time to make a decision. We can’t continue the way we are.”

According to the Shill occasionally good news is allowed to slip out prior to Democrat pre-emptive measures to downplay it:

“We've heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They're cleared, they're safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.”

“It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.”

Many may wish after hearing these remarks that they possessed a pair of dark sunglasses like the senator as there would be no more squinting for us even while driving directly into the rising or setting sun on the horizon.

Almost as soon as Senator Reid revealed his parties recalibration of the calendar, Schumer reverted back to the Iranian Jalali which puts them in the year 1386; one that helps us understand the continuing confusion on the “surge” timeline for the party:

“Just seven or eight months ago when the President began the surge….”

“Now then, those on the other side and the president say, “Give us a chance. You're already declaring defeat.” If this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or maybe even 2006, those words would have some resonance with the American people. But there's been new plan after new plan, new hope after new hope, and they all are dashed within months. Why? Why? Again, because the fundamentals on the ground don't change. The Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis dislike one another more than they like any central government.”

Chuck, “if this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or maybe even 2006,” you would be saying, ‘2003 or 2004 or maybe even 2005.’ It is more than obvious through the senator’s words that deadlines, dates and the like do not matter as now is the time. Whatever happens in Iraq, we can rely on its not being seen or acknowledged if there is any hint of the positive. It is oh so easy to deconstruct for the sake of the negative because to actually do something one has to have what it takes; this is unfortunately something dearly lacking from the Liberal party in this country.

“So the surge—by the President's own stated goal—is failing. The central government is weaker. The fundamentals on the ground continue to deteriorate. There continues to be no loyalty to a central government in Iraq and no loyalty to Maliki, who seems to almost revel in his incompetence. The bottom line is very simple. We are worse off, not better off. We’re not even in the same place in Iraq today than we were six months ago.”

Now is the time for all weak men to come to the aid of their party; screw the nation and the future.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, Nuke's News & Views, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Sustainable Stability IS Victory in Iraq

How is the board feeling this morning, betrayed? Who do O’Hanlon and Pollack think they are returning to Iraq and actually viewing what it is like on the ground today and actually reporting back that Iraq has improved since their last visit?

Michael O’Hanlon recently wrote on June 10, 07 in the same pages of the NY Times that “Cities like Kirkuk and Mosul remain tinderboxes.” Today, writing of Tal Afar and Mosul:

“This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq.”

In the January 2005 issue of Policy Review, O’Hanlan wrote “Iraq Without a Plan,” (reproduced by permission of Policy Review at The Brookings Institution) which he opened with:

“The post-invasion phase of the Iraq mission has been the least well-planned American military mission since Somalia in 1993, if not Lebanon in 1983, and its consequences for the nation have been far worse than any set of military mistakes since Vietnam.”

Pollack in January wrote a Saban Center Analysis, also available at The Brookings Institute; “Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War.” In May it was The New Republic with “Civil Defense: The Surge That Would Really Save Iraq”

The bottom line is that O’Hanlon and Pollack left of Center foreign policy analysts, are anti-Iraq heroes to the likes of the NY Times Editors and the rest that are so far Left they almost fall off; so their writing of improvements will make many vested in defeat very unhappy.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

If Harry Reid insists on not believing General Petraeus, will he believe these two? We’ll have to wait until after his weekly conference call with MoveOrg, Kos and the rest.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5057231118536742876

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Jo's Cafe, Pursuing Holiness, Stageleft, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

"We're Not Staying; You Don't Have Much Time!"

One of the of-size issues of “discussion” these days is what a “redeploy” order would be like for the U.S. and Iraq. The two “schools” of thought are, in a nutshell; one would free us up to fight the real enemy, with a sprinkling of disdain for the plight of the Iraqis once we leave as it’s their country. The second sees Iraq as a new haven or sanctuary for al Qaeda and other nasties, as well as a rippling effect upon the region deleterious, although pretty obvious in many others to our efforts in the greater war on terror.

Is it just a bunch of “fear mongering” to suggest mayhem and unimagined violent ramifications to a U.S. “redeployment?” If so, how would one describe the other side of the argument, “peace mongering?” Certainly not, as there would be no “peace” for miles and miles; just because the U.S. had left; just a certain “peace” of mind for some because it isn’t our problem.

Yesterday, top military and Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker met via video hook-up with “lawmakers” at the Pentagon and Capitol Hill; which according to The NY Times met with “stern rebukes from lawmakers of both parties.”

Crocker told lawmakers “that it was increasingly likely that Iraq’s government would not achieve all of the political benchmarks by September.” A very telling remark from Crocker would be, “the longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discrete, precisely defined benchmarks because, in many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important — Iraqi attitudes toward each other and their willingness to work toward political reconciliation.”

If we have invested as much as we have in Iraq is it really wise to say ‘let’s pack up,’ now when, regardless of precision benchmark goals are not quite met according to a spreadsheet formula?

If Crocker’s previous comment is “telling” so are the “stern rebukes,” from lawmakers.

Senator Voinovich (R-OH) said: “There’s got to be some real evidence that action’s taking place there, and everything you can do to convey to Mr. Maliki and his executive committee, to the other players in the region, that the American people’s patience is running out.”

Senator Biden (D-DE) said: “We’re not staying. You don’t have much time.” (No reporting as to how long he took to spit this out as the good senator does like to drag things out.)

Senator Warner (R-VA) said: “The facts are pretty much in the public domain; our concerns are about their inability to come together and reconcile things.”

If “the facts are pretty much in the public domain,” I do not agree that the concern should be so much the “inability” of them to “come together and reconcile things;” rather it should be up to the Senate and OUR employees (lawmakers) to understand what those public domain facts are coupled with the realities or likelihoods and what those likelihoods mean to this country and the Middle East region.

Worthy Quotes from Required Reading for the Senate (all from today’s NRO):

For starters, an essay directly appropriate to what was offered at the video-conference yesterday from Charles Krauthammer at NRO regarding an “incapacity” of the Iraqi government to get it together, so to speak:

“The Democrats cite this incapacity as a reason to give up and get out. A tempting thought, but ultimately self-destructive to our interests. Accordingly, Petraeus and Crocker have found a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al Qaeda.”

Victor Davis Hanson today at NRO:

“In fact, “redeployment” is a euphemism for flight from the battlefield. And we should no more expect an al Qaeda that won in Iraq to stop from pressing on to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia than we should imagine that a defeated U.S. military could rally and hold the line in the Gulf. Would the IEDs, the suicide bombers, the Internet videos of beheadings, the explosions in schools and mosques cease because they now would have to relocate across the border into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?”

Mona Charen and the good enough for now terminology, “Democratomyopia:”

“The Democrats have convinced themselves, once again, that the enemy is us — or at least our fault. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded the country, they argue. If it exists now, it’s entirely our own doing. It is our presence that causes the violence in Iraq. In fact, our presence in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool the terrorists have!”

Lastly but not least(ly), is Jonah Golberg’s “Order Is in Order:”

“In Iraq, security isn’t merely the most important thing, it’s the only thing. Without security, nothing else is possible. “The good society is marked by a high degree of order, justice and freedom,” Russell Kirk wrote in The Roots of American Order. “Among these, order has primacy: For justice cannot be enforced until a tolerable civil social order is attained, nor can freedom be anything better than violence until order gives us laws.”’

Regardless of political affiliations and partisan irreverence, the thoughts and writings of these and other commentators deserve serious consideration to those that have made up their minds about what is best in Iraq. As usual, in my case they are “preaching to the choir,” and this “church” for me does not live in the negative, rather it more closely relates to a reality I can appreciate especially when the other does not offer any vision.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5069149439249527037

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Maggie's Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Update to Lugar's New Highway of Death

Senator Dick Lure Lugar's announcement yesterday that:

'“In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved"'

Makes one wonder how a senior senator, a ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee could be so off or unaware of various data. Presumably he receives his intel in a form the we, the public do not as we are forced to rely upon the news media; which consistently reports bad news because it's quick and easy and offers very little good news because it is slow and laborious and not as readily apparent.

We are forced to believe that the senator receives his intel in the same place that we do, which is extremely odd. At the same time Lugar announces is his concerns (was it timed to distract from the illegal immigration fiasco?), Mario Loyola at NRO this morning can see positive results coming to fruition in Iraq now that the surge of troops has been recently completed and the surge in tactics or "kinetic phase," is underway.

Just a few tidbits to whet your appetite, which should be followed with a trip to NRO for his essay....balance is only fair, no?

"After the recent destruction of two minarets at the main Shiite mosque in Sunni-dominated Samarra (the destruction of which in February 2006 triggered the slide towards civil war) Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki immediately traveled to the town to reassure the Sunnis of his government’s support and protection. Iraqi security forces were surged to protect Sunni mosques from reprisals, while security operations continued to target the Shiite death squads. Meanwhile, the government has made progress on all the benchmark legislative initiatives, and the parliament is expected to take up and finalize several of the most crucial ones before its current session ends at the end of July. U.S. efforts have focused on capacity-building. In the field, provincial reconstruction teams (a concept born in Afghanistan, and which came late to Iraq) are now embedded in every brigade headquarters, giving commanders in every sector of Iraq the flexibility to target assistance where it is most crucially needed. And advisers from all over the U.S. government are now embedded all over the Iraqi government, helping prepare for “transition” — a term that basically means “get ready, because soon you’re on your own.”'

There is much more positive news to be had at NRO from Mario Loyola. Nothing is guaranteed, but victory as well as defeat is a slow process.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/7830033156222993614

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Planck's Constant, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

NY Times, Washington Post - Seeing the Same Thing Differently

Is mass confusion a Democrat plan for retaining a majority?

According to the New York Times, Senator Mitch McConnell remarked on Democrat plans:

“Democrats in the Senate have, at latest count, had 16 versions of various proposals to interfere with the president’s ability and General Petraeus’s ability to conduct this mission successfully.”

The Dems do not appear to be united in any real sense of the word, at least as far as they were last June when:

"Democratic leaders voted against a plan supported by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts calling for a similar withdrawal."

Well one has to take this with a grain of salt as it was prior to the November elections. For added flavor the Times adds:

"Democratic strategists say that support for a timetable has steadily grown because of the conditions in Iraq, what they perceive as Mr. Bush’s resistance to change and the widespread support among the public for a clear-cut end to the war."

Might the "resistance to change" be more properly attributed to claims by Democrats regarding the president. It is after all the Democrats that have trumpeted the "surge" as the third one while excluding the fact that previous "surges" were for election purposes in Iraq with the numbers going back down afterward. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."

Beyond the reader just being confused in general by anything out of the Democratic Leaderships mouths; two major newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post display further layers to confusion with business as usual.

The Times entitled this "factual" news with, "Democrats Rally Behind a Pullout From Iraq in ’08" while the Post sees it as "Bush Threatens to Veto Democrats' Iraq Plan." Headlines alone have the power to sway, especially to those that do not take the time to actually read any with the exception of the time spent perusing them while waiting in line at the check out.

The Times didn't really see anything to indicate the lack of a "rally" behind a pullout (should be redeployment to the only possible place in the M.E., Betwixt), yet the Post said it was anything but and would require more coaxing and editing.

Where do you get your news? I think I know where these papers get theirs....

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Plan B to Iraq Surge?

Washington Post:

“During a White House meeting last week, a group of governors asked President Bush and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about their backup plan for Iraq. What would the administration do if its new strategy didn't work?”

“The conclusion they took away, the governors later said, was that there is no Plan B. "I'm a Marine," Pace told them, "and Marines don't talk about failure. They talk about victory."’

“Pace had a simple way of summarizing the administration's position, Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-Tenn.) recalled. "Plan B was to make Plan A work."’

People in general and those in opposition to anything Bush want to know the answers to these questions. People, for the sake of understanding and concluding; opposition for the sake of the next arrow in their “Anything Bush is Bad” quiver.

One can understand the reluctance to reveal what’s next if the “surge” fails to live up to expectations or if results are slower than the Democratic majority in Congress is willing to wait even if results are positive. The Democrats began losing patience with Iraq one week into Afghanistan, with the call “quagmire.” It is likely nothing that happens in Iraq will please the Dems.

The article in the Post discusses various “redeployment,” plans put forward by Dems; then oddly switches to the term “withdrawal,” which is exactly what redeployment means, but you will not hear a Dem refer to it as such.

You better have a plan, but I surely do not want it out there in the open as that just gives more heads up opportunities to al Qaeda and “insurgents,” revealing to them just how much more they need to do to erase whatever political will is left in Washington these days.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls