When Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote in yesterday’s New York Times that Congress should give General David Petraeus more time in Iraq to expand on the progress he has already made since the beginning of the surge, critics reacted by painting them as stooges of the Bush administration. What will they do when Democratic Representatives Keith Ellison and Jerry McInerney talk about the progress Petraeus is making? McInerney even spoke of adjusting his demand for a withdrawal deadline:
Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, “we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market.”
There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials.
“The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership,” he said. “So they’re not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they’re doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives.” …
McNerney, the California congressman, also said he saw signs of progress in Ramadi and was impressed by Petraeus, who argued in favor of giving President Bush’s troop surge strategy time to work.
McNerney said he still favors a timeline to get troops out of Iraq — something House leaders may bring to the floor again this week as part of a defense spending bill — but is open to crafting it in a way more favorable to generals’ wishes.
This demonstrates the dilemma for Democrats as the surge presses forward over the next few months. Even war critics now acknowledge that progress has been made by Petraeus and that the new war strategy has created hope for Iraqis — and that the alternative will be a catastrophe. Ellison spoke about how he “cared” for the Iraqis as well as the troops, and having said that, he will find it hard to care for them by watching them disappear in the rear-view mirror.
The return of normality for the Iraqis that he met in Ramadi came through the offices of the American military, and a precipitate withdrawal would end it, probably immediately. The reduction of anti-American rhetoric from the mosques comes not because we left those parts of Iraq, but because we stayed and drove out the terrorists. The nation-building of our alliances with tribal leaders, and our adherence to their customs, comes from having made mistakes and learned tough lessons in the first years of the war — and applying those lessons properly and to good effect now.
Democrats seemed in a big hurry to pass retreat demands ahead of the September reporting deadline, and now we can see why. As Petraeus makes more progress and pacifies more of the nation, the Democrats will see themselves marginalized by all the shrieking that took place before. By the end of September, Petraeus will have extensive improvements to report, and the national attention on his successes will paint the Democrats as a party of surrender in a region we cannot afford to lose.
“Democrats as a party of surrender in a region we cannot afford to lose.”
HST, Ike, even JFK and Carter kept the US in Berlin until RR brought the wall down. Now Dems want to retreat. Why?
Ed —
Ellison isn’t the only Democrat in the House saying that a positive report by Gen. Petraeus will leave the Dems in “big trouble.” The Blue Dog Dems are ready to jump the fence when all this comes biting the Dems in the ass.
Power Line picked up the real point of the WaPo article on Rep. Clyburn of Georgia, however.
A “real big problem” is of course putting it mildly. The backlash from this may break the Dems completely. The anti-war moonbat Left has been saying we’ve already lost this war for years now.
The resulting firestorm is going to be a lot more than “a credibility problem”.
THE PARTY OF DEFEAT AND SURRENDER…
Yes, the Democrats have filled the library with sound bites; evidence that will paint them with the proper brush for years to come. 100% invested in the defeat of one’s own country; all in the name of hatred for one’s own President… It has been a very disgusting and very revealing few years watching the Democrats side with the enemies of America in an all out effort to destroy G.W. Bush, as well as all political opponents for the sake of regaining power. The entire world has watched this soap opera unfold; many have documented the many effortsf made by the likes of Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha… Life has a way of holding all humans accountable; I’d hate to be a Jack Murtha or a Harry Reid right about now. No way can the old media spin their behavior while providing cover for these creatures, as in the old days when the old media owned the brain wash.
God Bless General Petraeus and the men/woman warriors that make up the American military…
I will be curious to see if the first muslim Democrat actually has anything positive to say about General Petraeus and the success of the surge.
At the risk of becoming montonous, I would really like one of you happy warriors, just once, to answer this one simple question.
Of what value is all this “progress” in Iraq when there is no Iraqi government?
What you all want, apparently, is to “stay” and “fight” and “win” a great “victory.”
So if you win… what’s the prize? The right to remain in Iraq for decades to come, providing security, infrastructure and social services at a cost of 12 billion a month while their “lawmakers” use American-provided facilities as a stage and backdrop for indulgence of their ancient grievances?
I think I would prefer to vote for somebody who is willing to forego that “prize”.
The behavior of the aging lefties from the “Age of Aquarias” infamy and their spawn condemns them in their twilight years to a pathetic existence. The democratic leadership that attempted to piggyback on the pipe dreams of the perpetually adolescent hippies will fade to black.
Like the ethereal smoke from an overheated bong/hooka pipe, there was no substance upon which to gain traction. It will be incumbent on the rest of us, with victory in sight, to fan the smoke screen away and accomplish the mission.
We will prevail! We need to “surge” the truth on the information front as diligently as our troops are surging on the various fronts against radical Islam.
The behavior of the aging lefties from the “Age of Aquarias” infamy and their spawn condemns them in their twilight years to a pathetic existence. The democratic leadership that attempted to piggyback on the pipe dreams of the perpetually adolescent hippies will fade to black.
Like the ethereal smoke from an overheated bong/hooka pipe, there was no substance upon which to gain traction. It will be incumbent on the rest of us, with victory in sight, to fan the smoke screen away and accomplish the mission.
We will prevail! We need to “surge” the truth on the information front as diligently as our troops are surging on the various fronts against radical Islam.
Using filistro’s criteria I don’t know why we don’t surrender now, does anyone see any evidence of a functioning government ever since the Dhimmierats took the majority of Congress? Has anyone seen any progress?
Same old song and dance from the pre emptive surrender crowd.
Just answer one question filistro, do explain how US security is enhanced by your policy of pre emptive surrender?
Keemo, I seriously doubt that the Dems are your problem here, they are the party on record of stopping this war (you KNOW where they stand) the GOP is the party of continuing the war (and who knows there they will end up). Your problem is going to be with your GOP comrades in congress and in the senate, especially those in the senate who are up for re-election. If they sway from the party line of staying in the war at any costs and support Bush to the bitter end, then they will have my admiration for at least being truthful and honest to their beliefs. If not they will end up just being another politician who is worried about getting re-elected. The will of the people in the end will be honored in the end … hopefully. That is what this country is supposed to be about anyway.
Gladly, Thomas
US security is enhanced in countless ways by orderly withdrawal from Iraq.
Off the top of my head…
1.) the opportuntiy to rebuild a worn out weary force of men and equipment, and (in an increasingly dangerous world) return them to a state of crisp, lethal readiness
2.) the removal, better late than never, of an American stamp from what is and will always be seen worldwide as an enormously foolish, buffoonish military blunder
3.) the removal of a burr under the saddle of every Mid East nation and citizen, thus lowering the temperature considerably in that area
3.) the chance to refocus on the Israeli- Palestinian problem, where real progress can and must be made in order for any ME solution to see the light of day
4.) the chance to refocus on terrorists in their cells around the world, which have grown infinitely more numerous and better-organized while the US has been distracted in Iraq.
5.) the opportunity to begin pouring $12 bn a month into American strength, not Iraqi cesspools of corruption and greed.
I’m sure others on here can come up with at least a couple dozen more, but that’s a start.
3.) the chance to refocus on the Israeli- Palestinian problem, where real progress can and must be made in order for any ME solution to see the light of day
The Palestinians don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist as a homeland of the Jewish people. They never have, and probably never will. Israel shouldn’t have to do ANYTHING as a pre-condition for the Palestinians, or anyone else, to accept this very basic principle.
Yeah, we need to get out of Iraq, so we can give Charlie Brown another chance to kick the football, and this time, Lucy’s not gonna pull the ball away.
I got news for you buddy, the Iraqi people are in the same boat as the Israelis. They’re being randomly murdered by terrorists. And just like the Israelis, nobody gives a damn about them, becasue so many people are invested in seeing America lose. The list includes all the Muslim dictatorships in the region, every terrorist group, the international leftist media, and sadly, our own Democratic party.
Remember when Israel accidently killed some innocent Lebanese during their brief battle with Hezbollah? Remember how the media portrayed it? We were all supposed to be so heartbroken. We were supposed to mourn the loss of these people like they were our own brothers and sisters.
But when Iraqi civilians are INTENTIONALLY killed by terrorists, the media portrays it much differently. We’re not supposed to actually feel sympathy for the Iraqis, who after suffering under the boot of a psycho like Saddam Hussein for 30 years, are now having to deal with being targeted by terrorists. Oh no sir, we’re just supposed to wring our hands and say “what a mess, it’s chaos, bring our boys home”.
The media pulls the same crap when Israelis are killed by terrorists. We’re not supposed to feel sympathy for the Israeli victims. We’re just supposed to wring our hands and say “what a mess, end the occupation now”.
Hopefully, the Iraqis will realize the the only friend in the world that they have is the US military, and those who support this brave and gallant attempt to bring positive change to the Arab world.
Different day, same argument. Of course security gets better when more troops are thrown in (a troops level, by the way, we cannot sustain indefinitely). But again, the whole point of the surge
was to improve security so that the political progress could be made. The Iraqis have failed to hit ANY of the benchmarks for political progress, which was the whole point of the surge. Why were the benchmarks there? Because people are getting tired of supporting an occupation that looks more like a meandering whack-a-mole civil war referee and Humvee roulette than the victory the President promised. So in a few weeks, (after the Iraqi govt. returns from their vacation) what will the report be on those political benchmarks? Probably something close to total failure. It’s pretty hard to ignore that. Arguments that Iraq is the front of the GWOT were seriously undermined with the release of the NIE, which squarely painted a newly reconstituted AQ as our biggest threat, not Iraq (and the President has looked foolish trying to paint AQI as some huge domestic threat). If Petraeus reports that security gets better when we add tens of thousands of troops, but the political progress is a failure, will that sway Americans? I don’t think so, though anything is possible.
filistro asked “At the risk of becoming montonous, I would really like one of you happy warriors, just once, to answer this one simple question.
Of what value is all this “progress” in Iraq when there is no Iraqi government?”
I wouldn’t waste my time answering this. Do some research. Search the archives here. It’s been answered probably a 1000 times. You have to be open minded and free of BDS to grasp what victory means and how it can be accomplished.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html
From the linked article “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.“‘
So, a Dem finally says it. Victory is a big problem for them. They’ve invested so heavily in defeat that they’re now scared their position may be the catalyst to their demise as a viable political party.
Jeeeze, and they wonder why people call them traitors, AQ sympathizers and cheerleaders for terrorists. Hey, a US Victory is a real big problem for AQ also. With determination and perseverance, we may be able to defeat our enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Thank you, Soldier’s Mom!
I took your kind advice, did some research and found this in today’s news:
“No amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference,” in Iraq, according to the nominee to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, without progress on the political front from the Iraqi government.
Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing, Admiral Mike Mullen said today that the U.S. must plan for the eventual drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq and the turnover of security responsibility there to the Iraqis….
Of couse, the future COJC is probably just another of those “traitors, AQ sympathizers and cheerleaders for terrorists,” right?
The scum… they’re everywhere!
filistro – Well, darn those Iraqis anyway. They should be looking at our Congress as an example of how this compromise business is done. They’ve been at this for 3+ years now. They should be experts at it by now. After all, look at us. We’ve been at it 200 years and see how well we’re doing today.
You’re right though. We should throw in the towel. Who gives a shit if they kill each other. Only problem with that is, they don’t just kill each other. They export their killing worldwide and cut off heads of those that disagree with them. I guess as long as you and your children won’t mind kissing their ass for the rest of your life, you’re ok with this. /s off
As hard as democracy is, it beats servitude.
filistro – you are good at research. How about finding out when the next National election is Iraq. Maybe when Iraqis begin to feel more secure and realize their policians are threatening their newly found peace, they’ll vote the bums out and find some that can work together.
But, Mom… the quote I posted above, about the need to prepare for drawdown and the impossibility of victory without political progress… those aren’t MY words. They’re from the future Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (a Bush appointee, of course.)
Also from the same hearing:
Mullen said that he believes that the surge is helping commanders on the ground, and that “security is better, not great, but better” because of the surge. He said that security is critical, but there has not been much political progress in Iraq. Mullen said that he understands Americans’ frustration about the war, adding, “I share it,” and that the U.S. “must consider our next moves very carefully.”
“their newly found peace”?????
Oh, dear.
Even MY research skills are no match for that concept, I’m afraid 🙂
filistro – I too am concerned about the lack of political progress in Iraq. I’m not discounting what you’re saying. In fact, here’s a sobering interview of John Burns (NYT correspondent in Iraq).
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=5bdb3520-d829-4fdb-a2bc-6611d80faba4
What I’m saying is these things take time. Time you’re not willing to invest. I’m willing to spend 10-15 even 20 years in Iraq if it ensures a peaceful ME or the next 100 years. That’s a legacy for our future generation (my son’s and grandson’s). We don’t know what the future holds, but we do know what the past held. Bombings of the Cole, 1st WTC bombings, US Embassies, etc. All of which culminated in 9/11. Playing defense did not defend us from terrorism. Leaving Iraq now would increase our danger threefold. It would create a safe haven for AQ to plan worldwide attacks against all nations.
I know some people argue that we shouldn’t abandon the people of Iraq to the massacre everyone agrees would occur once we did. As hard as it sounds, this, IMO, is not enough reason to stay. We should risk our Countrymen in battle only when our National Security is at stake. Maybe you don’t believe they’d follow us here. Maybe you don’t want to believe they’d follow us here. They’ve proven that they wouldn’t hesitate to follow us here.
Soldier’s Mom, you and I are a microcosm of this entire argument. Here we are, a couple of grandmothers, mothers of sons, both of us with strong opinions. Still I’m pretty sure that if we met in person we’d like each other, laugh together and and find lots to talk about.
But on the issue of Iraq we couldn’t be further apart. You believe staying there makes us more safe. I think our presence in Iraq does nothing but make our children’s world more dangerous. There is no middle ground between those two viewpoints. One of us ultimately will be right, one will be wrong.
But like grandmothers everywhere since the beginning of time, we’ll suffer most for those we love if our fears are realized.
Both of us will.
I may disagree with you passionately, but I do care so much about your grandson. I know you care about mine, too.
That’s just the way it is.
filistro, I hope you find the time to read the link to Hugh’s interview with John Burns. As I mentioned, it’s sobering; the most unbiased piece I’ve read to date on Iraq. This is no black or white analysis of Iraq, Iraqis, our soldiers and the ME. It’s long, but well worth the read.
One of my best friends is my husband’s ex-wife and she’s as liberal as they come, so I’m sure if we met, we too would become friends. It’s for sure, we’d have some lively discussions.
The Star-Tribune article on Ellison’s trip was quite a bit different than the AP article. The Strib article says “Keith Ellison is still the raving anti-war nutjob we love and voted for, he only saw a little tiny smidgen of progress, he still wants the troops home this instant, and besides, he didn’t really mean what he said about progress in Iraq.” I wrote about this at Dump Keith Ellison