The Folly Of Democrats On Iraq Becoming Obvious

By Charles Krauthammer

"It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the past several months is of equal moment -- a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.

And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: "This is not working. . . . We must reverse it." A euphemism for "abandon the field," which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.

How do they avoid acknowledging the realities on the ground? By asserting that we have not achieved political benchmarks -- mostly legislative actions by the Baghdad government -- that were set months ago. And that these benchmarks are paramount. And that all the current progress is ultimately vitiated by the absence of centrally legislated national reconciliation.

I can understand Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, saying that the central government needs to seize the window provided by the surge to achieve political reconciliation. We would all love to have the leaders of the various factions -- Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni -- sign nice pieces of paper tying up all the knotty questions of federalism, de-Baathification and oil revenues.

What commander would not want such a silver bullet that would obviate the need for any further ground action? But it is not going to happen for the same reason it has not already happened: The Maliki government is too sectarian and paralyzed to be able to end the war in a stroke of reconciliation.

But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?

Sure, there is no oil law. But the central government is nonetheless distributing oil revenues to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction.

Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law.

As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.

Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam's totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of the political infrastructure of the country, causing the Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment -- tribe and locality.
Gen. David Petraeus' genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders -- without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.

Al-Qaida in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?

Do the critics forget their own arguments about the irrelevance of formal political benchmarks? The transfer of power in 2004. The two elections in 2005. The ratification of the constitution. Those were all supposed to be turning points to pacify the country and bring stability -- all blown to smithereens by the Samarra bombing in February 2006, which precipitated an orgy of sectarian violence and a descent into civil war.

So, just as we have learned this hard lesson of the disconnect between political benchmarks and real stability, the critics now claim the reverse -- that benchmarks are what really count.

This is to fundamentally mistake ends and means. The benchmarks would be a wonderful shortcut to success in Iraq.
But it is folly to abandon the pursuit of that success when a different route, more arduous but still doable, is at hand and demonstrably working."

How can democrats manage to hold on to defeat until November of 08?
I dunno' either, but it should be fun to watch!
-red
Update- There are two exceptions to the above... besides Joe Lieberman who isn't really a democrat any more... One is Engram at Back Talk blog who has been documenting the war and comparing the facts to the democrat talking points for years now (Engram is a democrat Research professor) The OTHER is Dave at Oklahoma Lefty Blog here in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Lefty took me up on my challenge to support the war from the left just about a year ago now and has stuck it out through thick and thin to now witness success... proving that there are sane democrats and liberals out there... but finding them is a bit tricky in the ocean of insanity that is the leftwing antiwar blob-o-sphere.

God Bless both you guys... you are true leaders, the democrat party would be well served to take your examples of debate, civility and professionalism... not to mention patriotism.
-red s tater

Iraqis Taking Charge Of Their Security

Friday, 23 November 2007
BAGHDAD — Iraqi citizens are taking back their streets from extremists by taking security into their own hands.

The Iraqi Security Volunteer program, an Iraqi project funded by the government of Iraq, allows volunteers from local communities to protect their own neighborhoods.

The ISVs receive a three-day training program at Coalition Outpost War Eagle where they learn some basic vehicle checks and how to conduct themselves on the streets, as well as weapons training with an AK-47.

“When you have local citizens patrolling their own streets, they have a sincere interest in keeping it safe,” said 1st Lt. John Suh, 2nd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment.

According to Suh, a native of Harrington Park, N.J., these volunteers are residents of the neighborhoods they have been tasked to provide security to, and that’s precisely the advantage when hiring local residents.

“People are staying out longer at night and the stores are remaining open longer,” he said. “Thanks to this program, people are feeling a sense of security.”

Market in Baghdad Nov 5 2007 Reuters photo.

According to Suh, the program overall has proven to be a success in Adhamiyah District.

“This is a short-term fix,” said Suh. “The ultimate goal is to transition these ISVs into Iraqi Policemen. So, a few months down the road, we’re trying to place them in the Iraqi Police Academy. In the end, this short-time initiative will create sustainable security solutions by transitioning them into IP.”

For Asef Abd Hadi Mosa Al Jabori, an ISV in Shabatkar neighborhood, being in this program gives him the opportunity to serve his community and he enjoys it.

“Become a police officer in the future is something I’ve always wanted to do,” he said.

According to Al Jabori, though ISVs have been successful providing security, they still need the help of Coalition Forces.

“We need them to stay here a little longer until our skills and knowledge match our present need for security,” he said.

(By Spc. Elvyn Nieves, Multi-National Division – Baghdad)

"We Are Fighting Al Qaeda ...and They Lost" !

Two (correction, Three) back-to-back-to back posts by Engram over at BACK TALK who is a research professor, registered Democrat and self professed liberal are absolutely brilliant (as usual) and I challenge anti-war Bush haters to refute his data.
"Bring it on".
Engram goes to great detail and research using the actual numbers provided by anti-Bush leftwingers themselves to demonstrate irrefutably and convince even the most skeptical of you that the Petraeus Report is dead-on accurate with his...
"Leftwing Conformation of the Petraeus Report".

"There continues to be a raging debate about the validity of the report given by General Petraeus, which supposedly documented declining civilian casualties in Iraq. Skepticism about the numbers reported by Petraeus is seriously misplaced... and today I think I will be able to convince you of that. In fact, I'm going to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt."

Using their own numbers, Engram does just that.

With data supplied from anti-war leftwing body count groups, Engram confirms the Petraeus Report and disproves claims that the "books were cooked" in favor of the surge and just as importantly in todays post goes on to show exactly how moveon.org and the others may have "cooked the books" themselves with manipulated graphs and misrepresented data.

Why is the surge working and who are we fighting?
Back-Talk also gives us the cold hard facts on AQI directly from the war with "We are fighting Al Qaeda and They Lost" in the words of Lt. Col Mike Silverman in the Anbar province, again proving who we are fighting and how it is really going right now.

Lt. Col. Silverman (when asked):

“What’s the most important thing Americans need to know about Iraq that they don’t currently know?”

(Silverman)
“That we’re fighting Al Qaeda,” he said without hesitation. “[Abu Musab al] Zarqawi invented Al Qaeda in Iraq. The top leadership outside Iraq squawked and thought it was a bad idea. Then he blew up the Samarra mosque, triggered a civil war, and got the whole world’s attention. Then the Al Qaeda leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province. They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”

Engram adds..."That's about as succinct a summary of my last 300 blog posts as you'll ever find! All facts support this analysis, and I have cited the relevant evidence many, many times. Those who don't know this are uninformed, yet many have strong opinions about Iraq anyway. That doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to have a strong opinion about Iraq, you should at least know the basics.".

The data confirms ...

"Al Qaeda was directly responsible for the dramatic rise in civilian casualties in Iraq over the last 18 months or so (i.e., they served as the accelerant), and the suppression of al Qaeda -- if it continues -- will be the reason why casualties come down".

If you read the first part of this post and visited the links then you already know that according to even the most anti-Bush leftwing body counters and funeral chasers... the casualties are trending downward... and now you also know why.

Congratulations and gratitude should also go out to those tribal leaders and Iraqi citizens that have helped make this a big victory for them and a huge loss for Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists.

Whether you hate Bush and don't understand who we are fighting in Iraq and want the straight scoop OR if you love Bush and want the straight scoop on the current situation in Iraq, BACKTALK is a MUST READ for anyone desiring to have a more informed opinion on the war.

I challenge UCO's Okie Funk's Dr. Kurt Hochenauer or any of these other illustrious anti-war college professors or even one of the Daily Kosers or AirheadAmericans, or moveon.orgers, who believe the moveon.org ad, to review, debate, acknowledge (or even read) Engram's well documented analysis on the subject of Iraq.

If you are able to post on their hate-sites (I am not of course, excepting Rodger A Payne's site where to his credit I have not been banned) then please, by all means deliver my challenge with this note..."put-up or shut-up". (I will deliver the message to Dr. Payne myself, again to his credit)

My guess is these holier than thou college professors and other "experts" consider themselves "above" learning, or challenges to their view, much less risking the "impossibility" that they are just flat WRONG... and so will more than likely respond with either indifference or insults/attacks (on me) (and/or BackTalk)...and few (if any) facts disputing the Petraeus Report or Engram's analysis.

They throw out numbers that are fed to them like "1.2million innocent Iraqi's dead" without ever checking those numbers or even considering whether the numbers are feasible (which it isn't) as was pointed out in an earlier piece. All they have to do is simple math, I'm sure SOMEBODY at these universities has a calculator in their pocket protector.

Wake UP America.
-red stater

BTW- Attention Moonbats: Do NOT even respond with "...if Al Qaeda lost, then the war is over, so bring the troops home". That is not what is said here, the discussion is of the surge, the Petraeus Report and in particular the Anbar region of Iraq. There is still a lot of work to be done, but make no mistake, it is getting done.