| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Krauthammer: The Surge Is Working |
| 2007-04-13 |
| By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy. And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad. The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines' leading intelligence officer there concluded that the United States had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet just this week, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we "have turned the corner." Why? Because, as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before. For the first time, former insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi have a Sunni police force fighting essentially on our side. Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing "a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition." And that "this is a crucial struggle, and it is going our way -- for now." The situation in Baghdad is more mixed. Yesterday's bridge and Green Zone attacks show the insurgents' ability to bomb sensitive sites. On the other hand, pacification is proceeding. "Nowhere is safe for Westerners to linger," ABC's Terry McCarthy reported on April 3. "But over the past week we visited five different neighborhoods where the locals told us life is slowly coming back to normal." He reported from Jadriyah, Karrada, Zayouna, Zawra Park and the notorious Haifa Street, previously known as "sniper alley." He found that "children have come out to play again. Shoppers are back in markets," and he concluded that "nobody knows if this small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. For the time being though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal." Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with an indiscriminate terror campaign they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing in February 2006 kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city. Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing. How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the United States to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide. Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country? And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November. Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Defense Department, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #31 FOX > BARNES [paraphrased]- the Democrats are seriously looking for "Watergate" but thus far have only a dubious "Watergate without a break-in" agz Dubya. "At least wid the real Watergate, somebody got arrested - right now all they have as to physical evidence are on-going, unsubstantiated, mostly pro-DemoLeft Media criticisms of KARL ROVE". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-13 23:59 |
| #30 nite DD. Me too |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-13 23:34 |
| #29 Well I know what I think: I think I'm going to bed. G'nite... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-13 23:31 |
| #28 you're right..what was I thinking? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-13 23:17 |
| #27 "but I'm thinking of having one or the other on my tombstone...whadya think?" Ya gotta get the Hawaian shirt in there somehow... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-13 23:12 |
| #26 I find endurance (long posts?) is overrated. My longevity and consistency is my best suit. I'm comfortable with who I am. I amuse some, educate fewer, disappoint more. Call it my ex-marriage writ large |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-13 23:04 |
| #25 Frank, when you come up with something on par with Dave D.'s options list, let me know. You're more than good at snark, but endurance isn't necessarily your strong suit. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-13 22:59 |
| #24 I can't choose a preference between compliments I've received: "you're not as smart as you look" or "you're dumber than you look" but I'm thinking of having one or the other on my tombstone...whadya think? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-13 22:51 |
| #23 "Dave D, would it help if I said your intelligence isn't at all obvious?" Immensely. Words simply cannot express what enormous relief that gives me... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-13 22:29 |
| #22 Restraint? What's that? the "accessories" you normally wear at night in the O-Club? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-13 22:25 |
| #21 Restraint? What's that? |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-13 22:14 |
| #20 Dave D, would it help if I said your intelligence isn't at all obvious? ;-) Although your hyperbole was practically poetic... no. DD is a smart dude. It's his restraint that's admirable *sucking noises* |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-13 22:09 |
| #19 We all wish the president were better at handling the vicious, ill-wishing press and politicians. But he isn't, and now others like the Vice President and Senator McCain are stepping into the gap -- even we who just talk quietly and knowledgeably to those in our circle who have started to question the conventional wisdom. Dave D, would it help if I said your intelligence isn't at all obvious? ;-) Although your hyperbole was practically poetic... |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-04-13 22:04 |
| #18 I'm just tired of being accused of BDS. Like I said, I just wish that Bush was more successful at making this country aware of the menace that Islam represents. I'm not the only one who feels this way either. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-13 21:18 |
| #17 "Hyperbole ill suits a man of your obvious intelligence, Dave D." Was that an attempt at wry humor? You have looked in a mirror lately, haven't you? LOL!!!!! |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-13 21:03 |
| #16 I too wish we could disappear for a couple of months to give them a taste of what itÂ’d be like without our stabilizing influence. Until we get a more unified front at home, thatÂ’s got to be very nearly impossible. The left would unhinge itself about a.) not leaving completely, and b.) allowing the slaughter to go on while we hid out on the bases. And thatÂ’d be out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. It might be fun to see Pelosi and her ilk melt down in confusion. After all, itÂ’s what they wanted, right? Protect the troops, you said, no? Let the Iraqis stand up for themselves, right? It is delicious to contemplate! My own point, precisely, Bobby. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-13 20:22 |
| #15 Congress has done far less than he has in that regard; and the entire Democratic Party, along with its MSM propagandists and its Leftist indoctrination cadres in our universities, have devoted their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors to not only denigrating those values abroad, but destroying them at home as well. Agreed, in spades. It's just that, as president, Bush has the ultimate Bully Pulpit and his use of it has been nothing short of dismal. Part of strong leadership is the ability to elucidate the "whys and wherefors" of a political platform or agenda. Whatever the man's shortcomings, and they were many, JFK's speeches resonated to a far more sifnificant degree, both in their delivery and content. On his watch, Bush has seen this country confronted with far greater perils than Kennedy ever did. If he cannot craft the language needed to guide more Americans towards a fuller comprehension of those dangers, it represents a serious deficiency. So before you grab the red-hot tongs and testicle crushers and go charging off after George W. Bush, remember there are a few hundred thousand Leftist scumbags who need to be "processed" first for their far larger crimes. Hyperbole ill suits a man of your obvious intelligence, Dave D.. If you consider what I'm saying, you'd understand that I would rather see Bush be more successful at the vital missions of his administration. Again, all the petty criminals you mention DO NOT have such tremendous leverage at their behest. Bush does and somehow cannot find the proper fulcrum to shift this nation's opinion on topics crucial to its very survival. It is this groping that has beset his administration with a less than inspiring aura. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-13 20:18 |
| #14 by "syndicates" I assume you mean Unions, JFM. If so, your cynicism is well placed. Collectivism rewards membership, not exceptional performance... If some workers are "lost", while the dues-paying base increases, the Union leadership is fine with that. It's only the bottom line that counts...and yes, I |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-13 19:21 |
| #13 With regard to the Vietnam war, one of the truly sad things is that the captains of American industry did not come forward and openly address why it was so important to fight communism. Another of the truly sad things is that the leaders of the syndicates did not come forward to openly address why it was so importnat to fight communism. Nowhere was the working calls so brutally opressed, nopwhere was worker's safety so cynically disregarded (cf Tchernobyl, cf Russians's method of clearing minefields) thaan in the so called "workers paradise". And that even without counting for Gulag whose main purpose was not as an instrument of political represssion but as a disguised form of restablishing slavery: Gulag had production goals set by the Plan and local sections of NKVD has goals for number of arrests in order to feed Gulag's needs for workforce. Slavery that was communists had in reserve for the workers. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-04-13 19:12 |
| #12 For what it's worth, Vice President Cheney spoke up twice today against Democratic ideas on the War on Terror and the Iraq troop withdrawal deadline. In a speech to the Heritage Foundation in Chicago he said, "The prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in the House and Senate over the last several months, causes me to wonder whether today`s Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of the danger this country faces in the war on terror -- a war that was declared against us by jihadists, a war in which the United States went on offense after 9/11, a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the enemy, is Iraq." The UPI article continues Earlier, in an interview on a Chicago radio station, Cheney attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for her visit to Syria and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., for allegedly reversing himself on a pledge not to vote to cut off funding for U.S. forces in Iraq. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-04-13 18:07 |
| #11 "The current administration, despite its willingness to address global terrorism, nonetheless is essentially mute regarding why American values are superior to Europe's socialism or the numerous MME (Muslim Middle East) cesspits that pass for governments. The harm this has done to our moral capital and persuasive ability is incalcuable and Bush has much to answer for in his ungainly silence." Bush has a lot of shortcomings in my opinion, but assigning him any kind of unique responsibility for a failure to promote American values over Euro socialism or Islamic totalitarianism is grossly unfair. Congress has done far less than he has in that regard; and the entire Democratic Party, along with its MSM propagandists and its Leftist indoctrination cadres in our universities, have devoted their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors to not only denigrating those values abroad, but destroying them at home as well. So before you grab the red-hot tongs and testicle crushers and go charging off after George W. Bush, remember there are a few hundred thousand Leftist scumbags who need to be "processed" first for their far larger crimes. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-13 17:23 |
| #10 *sigh* Would that I were truly ever-intelligent -- I wouldn't have to apologize for saying stupid things nearly so often... but it's awfully sweet of you to say so, Bobby. And I do have to admit I wouldn't give nearly so strong an impression of intelligence had I not had the benefit of a Rantburg education! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-04-13 17:14 |
| #9 See, Bobby, anyone can post at length once they get started. I'll just say that it looks like we are in violent agreement. With regard to the Vietnam war, one of the truly sad things is that the captains of American industry did not come forward and openly address why it was so important to fight communism. There was never a strong defense of capitalism advanced by conservatives or free-market economists. Somehow, communism was given a free ride instead of "The Emporer's New Clothes" treatment. Even now, both sides of the aisle continue to act as if communism is somehow a valid form of government instead of the thugocracy it always has been. Similarly, people still equate capitalism with unbridled greed and predatory market control when those are manifestations of unethical or immoral conduct. It's long past tea that corporate leaders began rising to the defense of good old American capitalism. This is why, all of the beneficial technological spinoffs aside, the Apollo missions to the moon were so critical. They provided America with an irrefutable demonstration of technical might, effected entirely by our population of wage slaves, that Marxism's scientifically planned society could NEVER approach and has never approached to this day. Why these ideas were allowed to wither and die on the vine is something that politicians from both sides of the aisle have much to answer for. The current administration, despite its willingness to address global terrorism, nonetheless is essentially mute regarding why American values are superior to Europe's socialism or the numerous MME (Muslim Middle East) cesspits that pass for governments. The harm this has done to our moral capital and persuasive ability is incalcuable and Bush has much to answer for in his ungainly silence. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-13 15:39 |
| #8 Boy, that is Zenster-length, isn't it? [grin] |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-04-13 15:20 |
| #7 Zenster – with respect to your posts of yesterday afternoon: I too wish we could disappear for a couple of months to give them a taste of what it’d be like without our stabilizing influence. Until we get a more unified front at home, that’s got to be very nearly impossible. The left would unhinge itself about a.) not leaving completely, and b.) allowing the slaughter to go on while we hid out on the bases. And that’d be out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. It might be fun to see Pelosi and her ilk melt down in confusion. After all, it’s what they wanted, right? Protect the troops, you said, no? Let the Iraqis stand up for themselves, right? It is delicious to contemplate! How long would we hide out? Until the Iranians invaded? Until Maliki was assassinated? After the Saudis came in to protect the Sunnis? When the Turks came over to teach the Kurds a lesson? What Tater declared himself “President for Life”? Too many possibilities, and not too many upsides to any of ‘em. I hope Krauthammer is correct, and we are seeing the first fruits of the surge. We have had a couple of instances over the last few years, where comparisons were made to the last burst of killing – like the battle of the bulge. I remember reading here how previous wars get more and more savage and intense until – suddenly – they end. Think Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Hiroshima – then it ends. You posted, after I’d long since gone to dreamland, Thank you, sinse. Even if somewhat garbled at times, I appreciate your support. I have backed our campaign in Iraq from the get-go and still do now. I just want our country to proceed with some sort of coherent game plan and not the dog's breakfast that has previously been passed off for strategy. You had, and continue to have, my support, Zenster, for what it’s worth. Heck, I still support the Vietnam War, right up until we abandoned our SEATO allies. Like I said yesterday, I was quite depressed about yesterday’s events, and you seemed to share my frustrations – perhaps to the point of “throwing up your hands” and quitting. I briefly considered it yesterday. But I’ve been watching a WW II DVD – “The Complete History”, I think, maybe British in origin, with a History Channel label on it. It amazes me how much where we are at now parallels the late 1930’s in Europe. No one wants to face the threat; everyone hopes it’ll go away, and the US is safe behind the two huge oceans. It could’ve ended in truce after Poland was partitioned, but Churchill got swept in and would have nothing to do with it. Had Chamberlain negotiated another “peace for our time” after the partition of Poland, it would’ve only been for another five-year hudna, anyway. Italy was hoping to prepare up until 1943, along with many of Hitler’s generals. Maybe Joe’s right, and it’s going to take an “American Hiroshima” to get more of us on the same page. But as long as the enemy keeps it below a certain level – up to maybe say, Kenya, but well below the 9/11 level – the American public will get bored, and the left and the MSM drum-beating will eventually triumph – just as Chamberlain did. If I go on any more, this’ll start to approach the length of one of your posts! I agree with johnniebartlett who said - Press on and support the troops and their commander. Ignore the media. Except I've been writing my Congessman - and your - with regularity. I wrote McCain yesterday, applauding his courage for standing up for the war. For the voice of moderation, there is the ever-intelligent Trailing Wife - The Surge appears to be working, and more troops are getting ready to join those on the ground. Pulling out now would betray all who turned in bad guys, and the many Iraqis who've chosen to join the Iraqi Army and Police, even at the risk not only to themselves but to their families. The only way I would be comfortable leaving Iraq is if we had concluded that glassing over the Muslim Middle East is the only remaining option. We knew this was going to be a long fight. For goodness sake, we've only been doing this for a scant four years! It took about that long to settle Germany after VE Day, and they didn't have a 1400 year religious war and a culture of deviousness to work around. How long did it take for South Korea to become truly democratic? Peace, Bro. I gotta go get my haircut! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-04-13 15:19 |
| #6 No problem, Bobby. The article doesn't mention one really important shift in policy. New ROE (Rules of Engagement) apply now in Iraq. Previously, if our troops encountered hostiles, they could fire only if fired upon and were not allowed to return fire if the enemy ran out of ammunition or surrendered. This meant that hostiles could hose down our troops and, the instant they ran out of ammunition, simply drop their weapons and "surrender". Coalition troops were obilged to take them into custody and turn them over to Iraqi police who usualy let them back out on the street within hours. Our troops were encountering the same enemy fighters several times over the course of a month. From what I gather, the new ROE allows our troops to open fire on suspected militants without first having to undergo attack. They are also permitted to kill those who are firing on them regardless of circumstances. In this war of attrition we now have, for once, a real chance at attritting the enemy. I'd like to think that the Iraqi Army is coming up to speed, but if Iraq's politicians are any indication of performance, then I have little hope on that count. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-13 15:09 |
| #5 Stand by, Zenster. I am generally a very early morning guy - as early as 0530, harley ever after 2100. I am now reading your posts from yesterday. If not "ire", I seem to have provoked something! But thats OK. I don't have solutions; only opinions. I'll be back here later, after I've had a change to read - if not digest - your words. I think I can remember it's at the Hammer's post. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-04-13 14:45 |
| #4 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. Thanks for the up news TW. But sadly we know the Muslim terrorist aiding American media will NEVER air this story. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-04-13 13:39 |
| #3 The donks blindly hate W and the trunks so much that they have become as irrational as the conservatives calling for Clinton's head in the mid 90s. I believe that the rabid donks will step up efforts to get at W and the trunks through the AG, funding for the war, and eventually impeachment. They will be so unfocused that election results in 2008 may surprise even the most cynical trunk. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-04-13 12:23 |
| #2 Out of curiousity, Bobby, what's your read on the Iraq situation? I replied to your inquiry yesterday and hope that you will to mine now. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-13 12:13 |
| #1 Thanks, TW - I needed that. Very depressed yesterday, but leave it to Charles to cheer me up! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-04-13 08:41 |