Showing posts with label Give 'em Surrender Harry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Give 'em Surrender Harry. Show all posts

Monday, June 18, 2007

General Petraeus On Iraq - & A Response to Harry Reid

Credit Fox News with interviewing General Petraeus and giving him a chance to defend himself and all else about the surge against "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry Reid's claims that the surge is already a failure, that the war is lost, that Petraeus cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and that Petraeus is incompetent and out of touch with reality:

The following is a partial transcript of the June 17, 2007, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Joining us now, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

General, let's start with the latest news. It was announced yesterday that U.S. forces found those two military I.D. cards of the missing American soldiers. Do you have any new leads on where they are?

PETRAEUS: Chris, we are evaluating the materials that we found in the house with those cards. I would not characterize any of those, however, as particularly hot leads.

We continue the effort in that particular area and in some other areas in Iraq, and we will not give that up.

WALLACE: This week you finally got your full complement of forces in Iraq. How is the surge working so far? And to some degree, do you feel as if the operation is only now beginning?

PETRAEUS: We actually do. In fact, a lot of what we have done to this point has been so-called shaping operations for what we have just recently launched in the last 48 hours and some additional operations that we'll launch over the next 48 or so hours.

That's not to say that we have not used those forces as they have come in, but we just recently got the fifth and final Army surge brigade, the Marine Expeditionary Unit, and our combat aviation brigade, which add considerable combat power.

And they are enabling us now to launch operations into sanctuaries, areas in which we have had very little coalition force presence other than raids in recent years.

These are areas where Al Qaeda has established car bomb factories and other bases from which they have issued forth and then moved into Baghdad to attack targets, often indiscriminately.

WALLACE: But how is the surge working so far? General Odierno, your number two, said this weekend that he believes that you have control over only 40 percent of Baghdad. Is that accurate?

And how do you feel it's going in terms of clearing out and securing Baghdad and Anbar province?

PETRAEUS: Well, I think, Chris, as I mentioned to the press yesterday, we're ahead of where we thought, I thought, we would be at this point in time, and then we are behind where we might have been in some other areas.

Anbar province is an area that, as you'll recall, was assessed to be lost less than a year or so ago by the military intelligence folks that were in Anbar province.

There's been a stunning reversal out there as tribes have said that whoever opposes Al Qaeda is with us, "We want to fight Al Qaeda. Will you help us, coalition forces?" And we have, indeed, done that.

And then they have been tied into the ministries of interior and defense so there's a linkage to the Iraqi government.

In Baghdad, there are certainly some neighborhoods — as General Odierno said it yesterday, there's about 30 percent of the neighborhoods about which we have real concern. These are the areas of the fault lines between Sunni and Shia.

We are focusing on them quite intently, and the additional forces will enable us to conduct additional operations in those areas.

Outside of Baghdad, the Baghdad belts, as they're called, south and north of the city, are areas into which we are now going in much greater force, again, areas in which Al Qaeda has had some sanctuary in the past.

And then in Diyala province, an area to which some of the Al Qaeda fighters have moved as they have been pushed out of Anbar and out of some of the Baghdad neighborhoods, is an area that requires considerable additional attention over the coming weeks, and it will get that as well.

WALLACE: General, the Pentagon issued its quarterly report this week, and it indicated that there has been no measurable progress so far. Let's take a look.

The Pentagon said the total number of weekly attacks on Iraqi civilians, Iraqi forces and U.S. forces actually went up from the last month before the surge to the first three months of the surge.

And the Pentagon report concluded the aggregate level of violence in Iraq remained relatively unchanged during this reporting period.

General, why shouldn't we back home view that as disappointing?

PETRAEUS: Well, the aggregate level is about the same. We actually have borne the brunt of much more of that, as have Iraqi security forces, and civilians a good bit less.

In fact, one of the metrics that we track, which is sectarian murders and executions in Baghdad, went down — by months, it was down to about a third — by the end of April, it was down to about a third of where it was back in January.

It did come back up as we announced in the month of May a little less than half. That is trending back down again.

The fact is that as we go on the offensive, the enemy is going to respond. That is what has happened. Car bombs have been coming steadily down. And as I mentioned, sectarian executions in Baghdad in particular have come down.

So again, certainly it is a mix, and that is what I've tried to convey with my assessment, that we're ahead in some areas and we need to do some serious work in others.

WALLACE: Senate Majority Leader Reid this week questioned your credibility after you gave an interview in which you said you saw, quote, "astonishing signs of normalcy in Baghdad such as soccer games and open markets." And here's how Senator Reid responded. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID, D-NEV.: We're now back up to 1,000 attacks a day in Iraq. And for someone, whether it's General Petraeus or anyone else, to say things are great in Baghdad isn't in touch with what's going on in Baghdad, even though he's there and I'm not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: General, the argument seems to be that we're getting spin out of Baghdad and not the straight talk as to what the situation is there. Your response.

PETRAEUS: Chris, I've tried hard to be forthright all along in this endeavor. My testimony before the Senate in January, again in April, when I did a VTC in the middle of that as well, with every congressional delegation and with the press, I have tried not to pull punches.

I base my assessments, what I offer, on personal observation, walking around Baghdad, driving around it, flying around it. The fact is that there are signs of normalcy throughout a good bit of Baghdad. There are tens of thousands of kids that will be out there tonight playing soccer.

In fact, we flew around the city on the way over here today, since they'd lifted the curfew, just to see how things were going. There's traffic all over the streets. The markets are reopened and so forth.

That is not to say — and in fact, in that interview I followed and also warned, for example, that the mosque bombing could spark new violence. I have tried hard to present both the good and the bad.

But I will not shrink from announcing that there is some good out there, if you will, that there is some normalcy, nor will I shrink from acknowledging that there is plenty of bad out there, as I did with the fact that we have to really focus on 30 percent of those Baghdad neighborhoods.

And there's certainly not much normalcy in some of those neighborhoods which are under the threat of both Al Qaeda and then extremist militias.

WALLACE: So how do you feel when you hear a senator here in Washington say that you're out of touch with what's going on in Baghdad?

PETRAEUS: Chris, as I said, I am just going to present what I see. I am going to provide a forthright assessment. That's the same thing that we'll do in September.

And frankly, we've got more than enough work out here to keep us occupied and to keep us focused and busy.

WALLACE: Let's talk about who's responsible for the situation in Iraq. In recent weeks, the president has been emphasizing the role of Al Qaeda. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The primary reason for the high level of violence is this. Al Qaeda has ratcheted up its campaign of high profile attacks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But again, the Pentagon quarterly report tells a very different story, and let's put that up. It says, "Much of the violence is attributable to sectarian friction."

And as you pointed out, there was a substantial jump in sectarian violence in May. Isn't the Sunni-Shiite conflict much more responsible for the violence in Iraq these days than Al Qaeda, sir?

PETRAEUS: I'm not so sure about that, Chris. In fact, Al Qaeda is the Sunni violence. Al Qaeda is the face of what is happening on the extremist Sunni side.

They are carrying out the bulk of the sensational attacks, the suicide car bomb attacks, suicide vest attacks and so forth.

This is, I think, all of the individuals in the intelligence community — General McCrystal, the head of our Joint Special Operations Command — all of us feel that the central front of Al Qaeda's terror war is focused on Iraq.

So I think it is appropriate to emphasize the role that Al Qaeda Iraq is playing and the role that they play in provoking and giving excuses to the extremist militias of the other side, of the Shia side, as a justification for what they are doing, ostensibly, to protect the Shia people, but then in their own turn carrying out violence of their own.

There is no question but that there is sectarian violence between, again, Al Qaeda, certainly between some other Sunni insurgent groups and these extremist militias.

And that is, in fact, what we are trying to try to break the cycle of, the cycle of violence that can really damage a neighborhood, the cycle of violence that, in fact, tore the fabric of society in Iraq and particularly in Baghdad, and especially in the mixed neighborhoods, during the latter part of 2006 and into the early part of this year, with really enormous damage as a result.

WALLACE: General, you talked briefly before about the fact that you're trying to split off some of the Sunni insurgents from Al Qaeda, especially out in Anbar province, and in fact, you've even gone to the lengths of arming some of the Sunni insurgents to fight Al Qaeda.

How do you know — or do you worry that they are going to end up using those weapons to either attack U.S. forces or to fight their civil war against the Shiites?

And how do you respond — we understand that aides to Prime Minister Maliki objected strongly about arming Sunni insurgents to Defense Secretary Gates yesterday, so how do you respond to that concern?

PETRAEUS: Well, those are legitimate concerns, and we have the same concerns. We have a good discussion going with the government of Iraq.

As I mentioned, the process really is to identify these individuals, try to vet them as best we can. By the way, we do biometric data on all of them. We link that to serial numbers of weapons and so forth.

And then what you want to do is you want to get them linked into legitimate government of Iraq institutions, starting out perhaps as what are called police support units; then, as they prove themselves, getting a ticket to the police academy so they can become full-fledged police, or volunteering for the Iraqi army.

The fact is that over time in any of these conflicts, individuals at some point have had to end up sitting across the table from those who at best tacitly were aware of what was going on against their adversary, and that we perhaps aided and abetted it.

Interestingly, we have a British three-star general — my deputy is the head of our particular effort here, the engagement and reconciliation cell that we have established in part because they've had some pretty tough experience in this regard themselves, having sat down at tables in northern Ireland and other places with individuals who, say, 10 years earlier were swinging pipes against their lads.

That's been instructive for us. We think that it has been carried out with sufficient safeguards in Anbar province. It has certainly completely changed the dynamics of Anbar province.

And now, by the way, you see a bottom-up political activity that is also ongoing, where city councils, neighborhood councils and so forth are getting elected and are gradually tying into the provincial council which, of course, ties into the government of Iraq.

We're even seeing that in some of the neighborhoods in Baghdad where neighborhood councils had ceased to exist because of the security threat, and they are now coming back to life as well.

Again, those are legitimate concerns. They are legitimate discussions with Prime Minister Maliki. He supported strongly what was going on in Anbar province.

It gets much tougher when you get into the mixed neighborhoods near Baghdad in the Baghdad belts, and we're all working together to try to ensure that there are safeguards so that we're not arming individuals who eventually take up arms against the government.

WALLACE: General, we have to take a quick break here.

But when we come back, the September deadline for a progress report on the surge. What can we expect? And can we rely on the Iraqi government to hold up its end of the bargain? Back with General Petraeus in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: And we're back now with more of our exclusive interview with General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

General, let's turn to the political situation in Baghdad. Back when you were being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, you said the point of the surge was not to win a military victory, but to give the Iraqi politicians time to reach out in national reconciliation. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETRAEUS: The objective will be to achieve sufficient security to provide the space and time for the Iraqi government to come to grips with the tough decisions its members must make to enable Iraq to move forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Now, that was five months ago, and since then the Iraqi politicians have failed repeatedly to meet benchmarks for political reform.

Hasn't that part of your surge strategy, trying to give the Iraqi politicians some breathing space — hasn't that failed, sir?

PETRAEUS: Well, there certainly have not been real substantial achievements in that regard so far.

However, the oil framework law and also now the oil revenue law are pieces of legislation in which the Iraqi leaders are very much coming to grips right now.

In fact, we helped bring down from the Iraqi Kurdish region last night the top negotiator, and we're at the stage where supposedly there are two sentences that must be resolved.

So I think it's time to see now if these important laws can go forward, in addition to some of the other smaller achievements that they've had in terms of the higher electoral council, the budget and so forth.

WALLACE: We understand that Secretary of Defense Gates basically gave the Iraqis a September deadline. He said we really have to see some measurable political reform by September. True?

PETRAEUS: Actually, not quite so blunt. In fact, Secretary Gates had a very good session with Prime Minister Maliki.

In fact, he started off by complimenting the prime minister and the other leaders with whom he met on their response to the Samarra mosque bombing. They were united in that effort. They were decisive.

And we think their response in ordering rapid steps to be taken has, in fact, helped hold down the level of violence to well below what took place in the wake of the February '06 bombing.

And in fact, I should know that yesterday there was an agreement with UNESCO and the government of Iraq to rebuild that Samarra mosque.

WALLACE: I mean, I understand that, sir, but you know, we here back in the states look and we see the oil law has not been passed, the constitution has not been amended, they have not held provincial elections, they have not brought Sunnis back into the government.

I mean, really, the glass is not half full.

PETRAEUS: Chris, I don't think anybody's satisfied with where they are, and the Iraqi officials are foremost among them. They're grappling with really basic issues here. We're talking about issues that will set the course for this country for years and decades to come.

Our own experience as a country, in fact, shows how difficult it is to resolve some of these very difficult issues.

They recognize fully that our ability to help them in the future depends on the progress that they show over the course of the next few months. They're keenly aware of that.

And I think they are going to do everything they can to try to inject hope into places like Washington and elsewhere to show that the Baghdad clock can indeed move a bit faster so that you can put a bit of time back on the Washington clock.

WALLACE: Well, let's start talking about the Washington clock. Less than a month ago, President Bush was talking up the importance of this progress report that you're going to be delivering to him and to Congress in September.

Let's put it up on the screen. Mr. Bush said, "I see it as an important moment because David Petraeus says that's when he'll have a pretty good assessment as to what the effects of the surge has been."

But now, sir, a number of top administration officials are downplaying the September report. Are you backing away from how much you're going to be able to say in September?

PETRAEUS: I am not. In fact, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, my diplomatic wing man here, and I will go back in September and we'll provide a snapshot of where we are at that time, and it will be a forthright assessment of what we've achieved and what we haven't achieved.

I'll talk, obviously, about the security aspects of the situation and he will address the political and economic ones.

We also owe it, we think, to the decision-makers at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue and those who provide advice and consent and resources for the policies at the other end some sense of the implications of the various courses of action that might be under discussion at that point in time.

There are some very serious centrifugal forces here in Iraq, and I think we all need to have very clear eyes about what can happen, what the implications of various options are and, again, just to assess those correctly.

WALLACE: Well, let's explore that. General Odierno, your number two, said this weekend that the Washington politicians need to give the surge more time.

Do you think by September you're going to have a reasonable and a realistic sense of how the surge has gone, whether, in fact, it is working or not working?

PETRAEUS: I think we will have a sense of that, Chris. I've said that all along. I started saying that back in January. I think we'll have had by then our forces in the mix for a good several months.

We'll have some sense of how we have done in these various sanctuaries that Al Qaida has had in the past that we are now entering for the first time in which we will endeavor to stay.

We'll have a sense of how we've done in some of these tough neighborhoods in Baghdad and how we are doing, also, all of this in partnership with our Iraqi security force counterparts in Diyala province and in some of the other areas of the country.

WALLACE: So you think by then that the policymakers in Washington — the president, his administration, members of Congress — can make a reasoned decision as to whether or not to continue with this strategy?

PETRAEUS: Well, what I've said, Chris, is that at that point in time, the ambassador and I think we can provide a reasonable snapshot of the situation at that time and how things have gone in the surge, both in the security and then in the political and economic arenas.

And it is, obviously, up to the policymakers and to the legislators to determine the course ahead.

WALLACE: Do you feel a sense of pressure? Do you feel that September deadline pressing in on you? And does it affect the decisions you make?

PETRAEUS: Chris, we've got a fairly heavy rucksack we're carrying out here, but thank goodness for all the tremendous troopers out here who, in truth, are really carrying the heavy burden of this.

We've got a lot of great help in taking this forward and we also have some wonderful partners on the Iraqi side.

But we do see that time staring us squarely in our eyes, and we're focused on it, and we're going to try to do all that we can with what we have between now and then.

WALLACE: There are reports that you and General Odierno would like the surge to continue until at least early 2008, that if it's going to work, it needs to continue into early next year. Is that true?

PETRAEUS: We've got a number of different options that we have looked at, Chris, and it really is premature at this point in time to try to prejudge that.

Again, I would suspect that late in the summer, early September, that we will provide some recommendations on the way ahead up our chain of command as well.

WALLACE: But you surely don't think the job would be done by the surge by September, do you, sir?

PETRAEUS: I do not, no. I think that we have a lot of heavy lifting to do. The damage done by the sectarian violence in the fall and winter of 2006 and early 2007, as I mentioned, was substantial. And this is a tough effort.

WALLACE: So then it would be fair to assume that the enhanced troop levels would continue for some months after that and into 2008.

PETRAEUS: Chris, again, premature right now. A number of options out there. And not about to announce what we might do here today, I'm afraid.

WALLACE: Well, you can't blame me for trying, sir. There are also some...

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: There are also some reports that you believe that we're going to need at least 130,000 troops in Iraq through the end of 2008. Is that true?

PETRAEUS: Chris, there's some wonderful mind-readers out there. I'd love to know who they are. But they seem to know what's in my mind better than I do.

Again, our first focus is on doing all that we can as we've truly now launched the surge and we have some reasonable expectations for what we can achieve.

Beyond that, we will obviously provide that assessment in September along with, I would suspect, at that time some recommendations on the way ahead. But you're looking out well beyond that, and we're not prepared to address that yet.

WALLACE: Well, let me look out even further than that, General. Some administration officials have talked about needing to make — and basically squaring with the American public, saying, "Look, this is going to be a long-term commitment," and even comparing it to the situation in South Korea, where we have had thousands of troops for decades.

Do you see this to stabilize and achieve what we want in Iraq as that kind of a long-term commitment?

PETRAEUS: Well, I think the real question, Chris, is at what level. I think just about everybody out there recognizes that a situation like this, with the many, many challenges that Iraq is contending with, is not one that's going to be resolved in a year or even two years.

In fact, typically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or 10 years.

The question is, of course, at what level, how much will we have to continue to contribute during that time, how much more can the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi government pick up as this goes along. And I think that's the real question. And I'm not sure what the right analogy is, whether it's Korea or what have you.

I think all that the folks in Washington were trying to indicate by that was that there is some possibility of some form of long-term security arrangement over time.

And I think in general that that's probably a fairly realistic assessment, assuming that the Iraqi government, in fact, does want that to continue. And of course, it is very much up to them, and their sovereignty is paramount in all of this.

WALLACE: General, we have less than a minute left. Let's get to the bottom line here. Do you feel that we can still win in Iraq, that we can leave behind a stable, democratic government?

PETRAEUS: Chris, if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be leading the finest of young American men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day.

In the last two weeks, I've gone to memorial ceremonies, one of which was for four soldiers lost in one unit, another for six soldiers lost in one unit. And I can tell you that as you sit there at that, you obviously reflect on that particular question.

And again, I think that there is good prospect for progress in the months ahead that hopefully can be matched by progress in the political and economic arenas here in Iraq and, again, can give us hope for the way ahead.

WALLACE: General, I can't think of a better way to end this conversation. We want to thank you so much for giving us a progress report today. And please stay safe, sir.

PETRAEUS: Thanks, Chris. Good to be with you.
Read the entire story here.

Read More...

Friday, April 27, 2007

Harry Reid an "Exhibition of Ineptitude"

Seems that at least one left of center commentator is not willing to defend the Surrender in Chief. This today from David Broder.

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered " Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

. . . [C]onsider the mental gyrations performed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as he rationalized the recent comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq "is lost."

On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."

Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.

. . . But Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential -- not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.

. . . Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined by the Iraq Study Group-- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.

The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.
Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Taheri asks Reid, To Whom Will You Surrender?

Amir Taheri has a cutting essay today on Harry Reid and his impact on the war debate.

Without meaning to do so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed the debate on Iraq in a new direction. Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated. By advancing the claim, Reid has moved the debate away from the initial antiwar obsession with the legal and diplomatic controversies that preceded it.

At the same time, Reid has parted ways with Democratic leaders such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who supported the war but who now claims that its conduct has been disastrous. What they mean, by implication, is that a Democratic president would do better than George W. Bush and win the war. Reid's new position, however, means that even a Democratic president wouldn't be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq. For him, Iraq is irretrievably lost.

Some antiwar analysts have praised Reid for what they term "his clarity of perception." A closer examination, however, would show that Reid might have added to the confusion that has plagued his party over the issue from the start.

Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner. This Reid cannot do.

The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, America and its Iraqi allies remain the only objective victors in this war.

Reid cannot name al Qaeda as the winner, because the terror organization has failed to achieve any of its objectives. It hasn't been able to halt the process of democratization, marked by a string of elections, and it has failed to destroy the still fragile institutions created in the post-Saddam era. Al Qaeda is also suffering from increasing failure to attract new recruits, while coming under pressure from Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes, especially west of the Euphrates.

. . . What about the remnants of the Saddamite regime? Can Reid name them as victors? Hardly. . . .

Reid may believe that Iran, either alone or with its Syrian Sancho Panza, is the victor. If that's the case, Reid shares the illusion peddled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Convinced that the Americans will run away, mostly thanks to political maneuvers by Reid and his friends, Ahmadinejad has gone on the offensive in Iraq and throughout the region. By heightening his profile, he wants to make sure that Iran reaps the fruits of what Reid is sowing in Washington.

But even then, it's unlikely that most Iraqis would acknowledge Ahmadinejad as winner and bow to his diktat. The Islamic Republic cannot act as victor solely because Reid says so.

It's possible that Reid imagined that his analytical problems are over simply because he has identified the war's loser. The truth is that his troubles are only beginning. He must tell Americans to whom they wish their army to surrender in Iraq.

That Reid is desperately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory isn't surprising. His party requires an American defeat in Iraq in order to win the congressional and presidential elections next year. . . .
Read the whole article here. Even as events are advancing for the better in Iraq, fully 55% of Americans polled by the WSJ now believe that victory is not possible in Iraq. It is incredibly disheartening. What happens between now and September is crucial. American's had every right to demand much more from our government. By any measure, the Bush administration followed a magnificent military campaign with fumbling to a degree usually only seen in a Three Stooges short. But the Iraq of today is a far different animal then it was on election day last year, and I question just how many Americans want to embrace defeat in Iraq, with all the ramifications thereof, just to punish Bush or to reward the far left.

Read More...

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Democrats Devolving . . .



Thanks to Steve Halter for providing this.

Read More...

Joe Lieberman Responds to Harry Reid

Senator Joe Lieberman, eloquent as always, responds to Harry Reid's craven and opportunistic claims claims that the Iraq war is "lost" and the surge is "failed" because of al Qaeda suicide bombings in Baghdad.

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there.

. . . In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

This progress is real, but it is still preliminary.

The suicide bombings we see now in Iraq are an attempt to reverse these gains: a deliberate, calculated counteroffensive led foremost by al-Qaeda, the same network of Islamist extremists that perpetrated catastrophic attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey and, yes, New York and Washington.

Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.

Al-Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.

That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

. . . When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Even as the American political center falters, the Iraqi political center is holding. In the aftermath of last week's attacks, there were no large-scale reprisals by Shiite militias -- as undoubtedly would have occurred last year. Despite the violence, Iraq's leadership continues to make slow but visible progress toward compromise and reconciliation.

But if tomorrow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve the "political solution" we all hope for, the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq would not vanish.

Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it.

Certainly al-Qaeda can be weakened by isolating it politically. But even after the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree on a shared political vision, there will remain a hardened core of extremists who are dedicated to destroying that vision through horrific violence. These forces cannot be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. They must be defeated.

The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight.

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.
Read the entire article here. It is a very reasoned response. But I wonder if it is keeping Senator Lieberman awake at night knowing that he can put an end to this Democratic opportunism by merely moving his chair across the aisle? You know it has to be eating at him.

Update: Here is an article from Hugh Hewitt asking when Lieberman will join the Republicans. And here is Lieberman's floor speech. It is actually bettern then the article he authored.

Read More...

Gifts From the Left

Rick Moran has a great article at the American Thinker discussing the many gifts Give 'Em Surrender Harry and Nancy Pelosi have recently bestowed upon the Republicans. Rick does an exceptional job of exposing many of the areas ripe for the mining of public opinion:

. . While his veto would have been upheld anyway, Harry Reid and his assessment that the war is already lost as well as Nancy Pelosi's refusal to meet with the Commanding General in Iraq for a briefing has changed the dynamic of the debate over the war, giving the Administration a juicy opening with which to skewer the opposition.

Pelosi's gaffe is mind boggling. Being able to find time to meet and drink tea with the Syrian thug President Assad but brushing off a briefing with America's own Iraq Commander General Petraeus is a juxtaposition of priorities that is too delicious not to use. The defeatists risk being seen as a variation of the Three Wise Monkeys with "see no progress, hear no progress, and speak no progress" when it comes to Iraq. Perhaps there is a little nervousness about some of the news that is breaking through all the stories about car bombings and suicide attacks, which are down in number but not much in casualties. In fact some of the indicators regarding the violence are improving less than 3 months into the surge.

In truth, the Democrats and the left have already left the surge for dead. No matter what news comes out of Iraq, the Democrats will spin it to prove that the strategy is not working.

Unfortunately, this will be relatively easy to do since the insurgents and terrorists are very obliging in working hand in hand with the defeatists in Congress to undermine the President's strategy by getting as big a bang for their buck with each brutal attack on innocent civilians as they can.

Of course, other elements of the new strategy not totally dependent on the military are showing signs of success. The reconstruction teams, whose numbers have doubled and who have already begun working with tribal leaders to turn the tide in Anbar Province, have met with many small but significant successes. This is reflected in a growing realization by Sunnis that they are likely to get a better political deal if the Americans stay rather than if our troops are withdrawn, leaving them in the lurch:

Meanwhile, opponents of the Iraqi operations back in the United States are getting nervous about the success of the security operations in Baghdad and its suburbs. The fact that nearly all the Sunni Arab tribes have joined the government is seen as a political disaster by many U.S. politicians who have declared Iraq a failed venture for the United States. It's a bizarre situation, and long has been. You only have to visit web sites frequented by Iraqis or American troops, to see that what is reported in most of the media about Iraq is invented, or distorted beyond all reason into an alternate reality. . . .
Read the entire article here. My biggest fear is that the Republicans will not mine this to the degree it deserves. This is not politics, this is national security and our children's future. The political opportunism being displayed by the left to force defeat and ride that to political victory is treasonous. The time for good manners is long past. We should be hearing sound bites containing words such as "traitorous," and "lying." We should be hearing sound bites with phrases such as "speaking German now" and "30 pieces of silver." And we should be hearing those sound bite every night from different sources. In addition, there should be a never ending stream of op-eds from the pols. I do not know why we are not hearing it yet. Is our VP the only person willing to say out loud what is so transparently obvious?

Read More...

Some Not Quite Inspiring Democrat Moments In History . . .


From the Ryskind Sketch Book. As the WSJ so succinctly put it, the Democrats now own defeat in the Iraq War. And see here, discussing the few truly anti-war democrats, and the majority who are naught but unprincipled opportunists, such as Give 'Em Surrender Harry.

Read More...

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Give 'Em Surrender Harry and the Dancing Dems

Here is Give 'Em Surrender Harry's speech the other day, going all out for defeat and retreat.

He is claiming now that, when he said the war was "lost," he was actually only repeating General Petraus.

Huh?

Give 'Em Surrender Harry tried to justify his claim that the war is lost because Petraeus said that the solution to Iraq is not a military one. It is really painful to listen to, actually. And the CNN anchor questioning him let's him get away with it. Amazing. Do see the video here, - its the same one where Give 'Em Surrender Harry says he will refuse to believe General Petraeus in the briefing tommorow about any success the surge is having.

Carl Levin is taking the same position, that the good General cannot be expected to tell the truth:

Democrats were skeptical that [General Petraeus] would change many minds [during his briefing to the Senate]. “He’s the commander,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “We always know that commanders are optimistic about their policies.”

At least the Democrats are acknowledging that the surge is ongoing at this point. Up until about a few weeks ago, they ignored it as if it were not even occurring. Now they are of course doing their utmost to see that is not given any chance to succeed. They refused to get a March 18 briefing from Petraeus before the vote on war funding and to kill the surge. Nancy Pelosi wasn't even going to schedule a briefing this week for the House with General Petraeus. As it is, she is not going to attend it.

Lorie Bird asks when Lieberman is finally going to fire Harry Reid. That is something we would all like to know. (H/T Michelle Malkin)

Actually, it is no surprise whatsoever that Give 'Em Surrender Harry said what he did about Iraq being lost, as his mind was filled to overflowing with thoughts of a Democratic victory in '08, all made possible by milking defeatism. But as noted by Ryan Simburg:

I don't think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi objectively want Al Qaeda to win. I'm sure that they have succeeded in deluding themselves that we are the problem in Iraq. I'm also sure that they believe that this is in the near term a political winner for them, and sadly, they may be right. But they're playing a dangerous game. What if they're wrong, and the people actually reporting success in Iraq are right? They're so heavily invested in defeat now that it could actually be an electoral disaster for them next year. I certainly hope that will be the case. For me, it would be win-win--we'd have won in Iraq, and the Dems would have lost precisely because they did everything they could to prevent it from happening.


Protein Wisdom sees the situation likewise.

Then there is this utterly bizarre piece in the Politico where Give 'Em Surrender Harry's staff and fellow Dems try to back off, ever so slightly, from his outright embrace of defeat:


Several leading Democrats said this week that they did not agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's recent statement that "the war is lost" in Iraq, even while they support his broader message.

What in God's name does that mean? That we are not just defeated in Iraq but in some "broader" spectrum also?

But they did agree that Reid's wording was clumsy and potentially damaging. Even the Nevada Democrat himself appeared to be backing away from his remark.

Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman, said earlier that the "war is lost" comment was not in Reid's prepared text for the news conference last Thursday. But from now on, Manley said, the senator will "couch it more": The mission in Iraq is not working and must be changed.

Who let this idiot improv before the mikes? According to the playbook, he is only supposed to imply ultimate defeat, I guess.

Democrats have long tried to shed their image of being soft on national defense. Recent polls suggest they are making strides, showing that more voters trust congressional Democrats than they do the president to handle the situation in Iraq.

But statements such as Reid's -- while delighting those who have turned against the war -- provided Republicans an opportunity to shift focus from the merits of President Bush's Iraq war strategy to the level of support from Democrats for the troops.

"I understand what he was trying to say," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), although she acknowledged that Reid's comments had caused a political problem for Democrats. "I think it was more a problem of tone rather than of substance."

And they wonder why America thinks they are soft on national defense . . . tone rather then substance? In other words, all Democrats agree, they just have to couch it in ambiguous terms.

It has been almost a week since the majority leader uttered the unscripted remark, but it continues to serve as fodder for the debate over the war in Iraq, inciting sharp criticism from Republicans -- including a pointed jab Tuesday by Vice President Cheney -- and a tortuous defense by Democrats.

Cheney, who usually rushes by the media after his weekly lunch with Republican senators, walked to the microphone Tuesday and assailed Reid for his "unfortunate" and "uninformed" comments. After joking that it was his first post-luncheon statement in six years, the vice president accused the majority leader of putting politics above national security.

"It is cynical to declare the war is lost because it gives you political advantage," Cheney said before walking away without taking a single question.

The gauntlet is tossed down. And how does Give 'Em Surrender Harry respond to this charge that he is wholly driven by partisan political calculus?

Mr. Reid said he was not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with the vice president. “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating,” Mr. Reid said.
I hope the irony of that response is not lost on anyone. That is priceless. That quote of his response actually comes from an NYT article.

Reid's aides said Senate Democrats are supportive of the majority leader during this showdown with Bush over Iraq.

"The Caucus understands exactly where (Reid) is coming from," Manley said. "Politics is not exactly bean bags. And as he's said before, he'd rather dance than fight."

Wow. Mr. Manley appears desperately in need of a script before approaching reporters also. "Rather dance then fight?" That seems nonsensical, unless it is some incredibly obtuse reference to Give 'Em Surrender Harry's sudden embrace of the anti-war hard left. Who knows.

As his hometown newspaper said in this article on Give 'Em Surrender Harry a few days ago, "Enter Sen. Reid, flopping around in big red shoes like Bozo the Clown."

Read More...

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

From a Marine in Ramadi: I Got A Message For That Douche Harry Reid

This is an e-mail sent to Pat Dollard from a Marine Corporal stationed in Ramadi, with a very pointed message about the ground truth in Iraq for Give 'Em Surrender Harry:

yeah news worth reporting…. well ramadi was once dubbed by everyone as the worst city in the world. but we have done such a great job here that all the families in the area have worked with us on driving out the insurgency and that we work directly with the IA and the IP’s. the city has been cleaned up so well that the IP’s do most of the patrols now and we go out with them to hand out candy and toys to the children. you can tell that the people want us here to protect them from the thugs and gangs (insurgents). granted they would rather have peace and quit but they know that if we arent here they will be thrown around by the insurgents. a good example is this one mission we did. long story short we got blown up in multiple buildings and had to run into a families house. i spent my christmas holidays covered in ash from the mortar fire and the IED’s, sleeping under a dirty rug i found in the house. everyone was sleeping way to close for comfort just to stay warm. anyways. a family was there and they obviously didnt want us there. at least at first. the daughters were very sick so our corpsman treated them. they didnt have electricity so we got them a generator for power, they were cold so we got them gas heaters, we got them food and water and then we gave them $500. by the end of the week long visit with them we were drinking tea with them. when we left we cleaned their house better than it was when we got there. i even have pictures with the family. they told us that they liked marines and they would help us as much as they could and they gave us some information on the insurgents in the area. we ended up catching a HUGE target down the road from there house because of it.

yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or atleast the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP’s voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA’s. it sucks that iraqi’s have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. . .

Read the post here. My one sincere hope is that General Petraeus is not as restrained or tactful when briefing the Senate and the House.

Read More...

Michael Barone on The Kabuki Dance of War Funding

Stepping back from - or at least sidestepping - Harry Reid's incredibly damaging and outrageous rhetoric, Michael Barone looks at the problems Democrats now face in responding to President Bush's veto of the supplemental appropriations bill to fund - and end - our involvement in Iraq:

. . . The Democrats will face the same problem when George W. Bush vetoes their bill. They would like to end the war, but they dare not end funding to the troops. They can hope that the sympathetic mainstream media will put the blame on Bush. But they can't help remembering that the last time an opposition Congress refused to meet a president's demand to fund the government it was the speaker -- Newt Gingrich - not President Bill Clinton who plummeted in the polls.

Conceding this point earlier this month was Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, as well as one of the most visible Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama. Levin has called for a bill setting political goals for the Iraqi government.

Whether Bush and congressional Republicans would accept that is unclear. It could be argued that it would enable Bush to play the good cop with the Iraqis, with the Democratic Congress as the bad cop. Or it could be portrayed as micromanaging by 535 commanders in chief.

We witness here a division in the Democratic Party -- its politicians and its voters -- that we have seen ever since military action started to be considered in 2002. Then, most House Democrats voted against the Iraq war resolution, most Senate Democrats for it. The lineup today is not necessarily the same: Levin, who voted against the war resolution, insists the troops must be funded; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who voted for the war resolution and said last November that of course the troops will be funded, now says he's for Sen. Russ Feingold's March 2008 deadline.

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.
Read the article here. If the Republicans, starting with President Bush, respond with force and vigor to the fullcourt press and outragous assertions of Give 'Em Surrender Harry and has band of far left alcolytes. The Democrats rush to end the war before the surge is given any chance, and their snubbing of General Petraeus are outragous. Republicans should be screaming daily that this is a partisan political grab for power with Give 'Em Surrender Harry willing to sacrifice our national security in order to achieve it. But I would not hold my breath if I were you. Bush and the current crop of Republican leadership are near incompetent in their ability to respond and defend themselves. I fear for our nation.

Read More...

Monday, April 23, 2007

Give 'Em Surrender Harry's Treasonous Hypocrisy

Look in the Dictionary for HYPOCRISY and you will find:

Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Function: noun
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-se also hī-Inflected Form(s): plural -siesEtymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage . . .
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not ; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
3 : Harry Reid
Well, no, you won’t find 3, but you should. Give ‘Em Surrender Harry is certainly among the most hypocritical of politicians in Washington. His only motivation is achieving raw political power at any cost. And the cost to America will be heavy indeed if he succeeds.

One recent example of Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s hypocrisy is his comment on the Supreme Court decision in Carhart upholding the federal ban on one specific type of partial birth abortion. In the wake of that decision, Give ‘Em Surrender Harry said "I would only say that this isn't the only decision that a lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there." The hypocrisy – Give ‘Em Surrender Harry voted for the law that the Supreme Court upheld.

Another, albeit minor, example is Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s quickly changing stance on whether Fox should host Democratic Presidential debates. You can find much more substantive and crystal clear examples of Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s hypocrisy with but a little research, such as his changing stance on immigration and Social Security.

But all of these pale to meaninglessness in comparison to Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s drive to insure that the U.S. loses the war in Iraq and that the surge does not succeed. He has been fighting against the surge from the moment it was proposed, though for at least a year prior he strongly proposed exactly such a change in U.S. strategy. That must take center stage because Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s drive portends tremendous damage to this country by enabling radical Islamists, by enabling Iran, and by thoroughly undermining our ability to conduct foreign policy. Who will ally with the U.S. against any determined foe in the future if Give 'Em Surrender Harry has his way? And what nation opposed to the U.S. will be deterred by American military power or "resolve" if Give 'Em Surrender Harry gets his way?

It is no surprise that, only a few days before Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s announcement that the war was lost – during which he suggested that the true hypocrites on this issue were the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense – Give ‘Em Surrender Harry and Chuck Schumer had this to say:
Mr. Reid said Mr. Schumer showed him poll numbers that he finds "compelling and astounding" that prove Republican senators who back Mr. Bush on Iraq are hurting. Democrats echo this sentiment, saying they will prevail in 2008, when one-third of the Senate is up for re-election.

. . . "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," predicted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, adding that Republican senators faced with constant votes on whether they support President Bush's Iraq policy will have a tough time convincing voters that they deserve re-election.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, says a handful of Republicans are going to "look extinction ... in the eye."

"Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle," said Mr. Schumer, who leads the campaign arm for Senate Democrats.

"They know that, and we've just been at this a couple of months and we're going to keep at it," he said. "It's not an accident that the ones who are squirming the most are the ones who are up in '08."
In the run up to his announcement that the war in Iraq was lost, Give 'Em Surrender Harry appeared with two retired generals who appeared to support his position that the surge could not work in Iraq. The hpocrisy here is explained in this from The Mudville Gazette:

Senator Reid was a busy man this week:

Flanked by two former Army retired generals Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) blasted President Bush for "clinging to a failed escalation strategy" in Iraq and "failing our troops and our country."

One general went so far as to say that active duty military officers were being used as "props" by the Bush Administration.

Reid is scheduled to meet with the White House this week to negotiate the Iraq supplemental spending bill Congress passed before Easter recess that contains a timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that would cut funding for the troops or dictate a withdrawal date, but Reid said "the President is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it."

With a banner behind them that said "Support the Troops" and "Transition the Mission" Reid stood with Ret. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Ret. Brig. Gen. John Johns and said that the surge should be abandoned.

. . . Gen. Johns said active service military officers, like Gen. Petraeus, were being used as "props" by the administration. "The American people need to be told the truth. The only reason I speak out as a retired officer is the President, as all Presidents do, use the active duty military as props to make it appear that the military is united behind his policy."

The only things new about the Democrats using Generals are the specific names. Last year they had a different crew.

Batiste and two other retired officers spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, a rump group with little legislative clout but access to a proper Senate hearing room. And Batiste made up for lost time.

"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader," said Batiste, wearing a pinstripe suit, calling himself a "lifelong Republican" and bearing a slight resemblance to Oliver North. "He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq or the human dimension of warfare.

. . . Bottom line: His plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today."

. . . Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.

"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.

"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.

"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.
That call for a surge was why they had to be replaced on the podium, of course.

You probably heard that last year's generals had called for Rumsfeld to be fired - but did you know they had called for a surge?
The hypocrisy of Give Em Surrender Harry far transcends the bounds of responsible politics. His drive to insure that the surge does not succeed and that America retreats from Iraq are not principled positions, nor acceptable politics. His hypocrisy is treasonous.

Read More...

Saturday, April 21, 2007

More Surge News

Give Em Surrender Harry Reid's claim - that the four al Qaeda in Iraq suicide bombers who blew themselves up in Baghdad Wednesday were proof that the surge has failed - is disingenuous at best. The truth is that Al Qaeda in Iraq is under tremendous pressure on two fronts. Al Qaeda is under attack in Anbar, fighting not only U.S. soldiers, but also their former Sunni hosts. And many of the al Qaeda that were in Baghdad, at least those who have not already fallen to the surge, have now largely fled to Diyala province. Diyala is an area that the U.S. intends to target as a part of the surge once all forces are on the ground. This is not a failure, nor is it Biden's water balloon theory in action. It is a textbook counterinsurgency operation.

Max Boot at the Weekly Standard has an excellent article covering his most recent trip to Iraq. He addresses Baghdad and his conversations with General Petraeus, as well as the state of hostilities in Anbar and Diyala Province. His assessment, thre are a lot of problems, but there have been substantial gains. The surge is quite viable. Take note, Give 'Em Surrender Harry.

Read More...

Bush Responds to "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry . . . Sort Of

President Bush spoke yesterday to a group in Western Michigan in an important speech on the war. He addressed the surge, but did not refer directly to "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry Reid and his unconscionable claim that the nascent surge has failed and the war in Iraq lost.

Mr. Bush acknowledged the violence and said that since he began sending the first of about 30,000 reinforcements in January, "we have seen some of the highest casualty levels of the war."

"And as the number of troops in Baghdad grows and operations move into even more dangerous neighborhoods, we can expect the pattern to continue," he said.

But the president said coalition forces have reduced by 50 percent the sectarian murders by militias and death squads in Baghdad. He also said coalition troops are getting an increasing number of tips from the civilian population, which have helped them capture weapons, chemicals, and members of death squads and car-bomb rings.

"This is a difficult period in our nation's history," Mr. Bush said. "It's natural to wish there was an easy way out, that we could just pack up and bring our troops home and be safe. Yet in Iraq, the easy road would be a road to disaster.

"The price of giving up there would be paid in American lives for years to come," he said, arguing that terrorists in Iraq would attack U.S. targets if troops withdraw prematurely.

Read the article here. While all that President Bush said is true, particularly that the cost of failing to succeed in Iraq will be far higher then leaving Iraq now, he utterly flubbed it by refusing to directly challenge "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry. We are not losing in Iraq, but we are in Washington where President Bush and Republican lawmakers have proven ineffectual at responding to the constant stream of charges and attacks from "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry and his cohorts busy mounting their own surge for political power.

Read More...

Friday, April 20, 2007

"Give 'Em Surrender" Harry Reid

We as a nation now have two "Harry" bookends to our historical period. At one end is Harry Truman, who led us to victory in World War II, utterly defeating Japan and Germany. Truman then led us part way into the Korean Conflict, where we decimated the North Korean Army and then pushed back the Chinese hordes that crossed the Yalu. That Harry had a nickname. It was "Give 'Em Hell" Harry. And now, at the opposite end of the spectrum in time and substance, we have "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry, the Senate Majority leader.

"Give 'Em Surrender" Harry declared our nascent counterinsurgency stategy a failure and the Iraq war lost yesterday, making an analogy between Bush's surge and the futility of the Vietnam War.

As evidence that the surge had failed and our loss as a nation complete, “Give ‘Em Surrender” Harry cited to the violence in Baghdad of Wednesday - a series of 4 car bombs, 3 of them suicide bombs, for which Al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility. To amplify “Give ‘Em Surrender” Harry’s analogy to Vietnam, this act of violence is his Tet Offensive.

For those who might not know, Tet was the defining event of the Vietnam War. It was a mass offensive by 84,000 North Vietnamese Army (NVA) soldiers and Viet Cong. And it was a total military failure. Within thirty days of its start, the U.S. had killed 50,000, completely decimating the Viet Cong and taking a sizable chunk out of the NVA. U.S. losses were 1,100 soldiers. Nonetheless, the mass offensive shocked the press. Walter Cronkite led our nation's journalists in portraying the Vietnam Conflict as unwinnable and Tet as a victory for the North Vietnamese. It led directly to our withdrawal from the "quagmire" of Vietnam.

Back to Give ‘Em Surrender Harry. His defining "Tet" event is not quite as large. Give ‘Em Surrender Harry just declared that the United States and its nascent counterinsurgency operation have failed and been defeated by four members of al Qaeda.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The foe we face in radical Islam is every bit as much an existential threat to us and Western Civilization as Nazi Germany. We are one dirty bomb on Wall Street away from a recession or maybe a depression. We are one nuclear explosion in a port city away from much, much worse. And we are a series of coordinated attacks on our malls and infrastructure away from going into martial law.

As "Give 'Em Hell" Harry's predecesor, FDR, told the nation on December 9, 1941, "the United States can accept no result save victory, final and complete," against such an existential foe, else there would never be "security for any nation-or any individual . . ." Give 'Em Surrender Harry obviously never read that speech discussing American values, American resolve, and the unthinkable consequences of failing to defeat such a foe. You can find FDR's speech here. If you have not read or heard it, it is very much worth taking the time and effort to do so. And someone might wish to pass it on to Give 'Em Surrender Harry.

Though the threat we face may be dire, "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry is declaring our defeat at a point when our losses are minimal by any measure. To date, our soldiers lost in Iraq number 3,315. Each is a tragedy, and as a former soldier and the father of soldiers, I deeply appreciate and grieve for each one. I am in no way belittling their loss when I point out, for the benefit of "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry, that 3,315 killed in Iraq is 3% of the losses we sustained in WWI to defeat German aggression; it is 1% of what we sustained defeating the Nazis in WWII; it is 6% of what we sustained in destroying the North Korean Army and then driving back the Chinese hordes in the Korean Conflict; and, it is 6% of what we sustained in Vietnam before we were pulled out.

And, just so you know, the U.S. has never lost an engagement in Iraq or Afghanistan involving a platoon size element or larger of U.S. soldiers. A platoon is about thirty men. Do you understand how significant that is?

With that track record, how can we possibly lose to Islamic extremists in Iraq or Afghanistan - or anywhere else in the world for that matter? Well, that is unless we are forced to embrace defeat predicated upon "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry's Tet Offensive of four al Qaeda suicide bombers.

Do you think Give 'Em Surrender Harry really means it when he says the surge has failed and our nation has lost in Iraq? Or is it just "Give Em Surrender" Harry who has decided that he wants us to lose? Is it just "Give Em Surrender" Harry who wants to insure that the surge does not succeed? And is it just "Give Em Surrender" Harry who is putting his quest for raw power above the horrid ramifications of a defeat for our national security and our foreign policy policy?

"Give 'Em Surrender" Harry offers no assessment of the costs that may arise out of his embrace of defeat. The mantra of "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry and his fellow Democrats has been that we cannot give President Bush a "blank check" to continue the war. I think any reasonable assessment of the costs of fighting a greatly emboldened radical Islam, flush with the victory of defeating the United States in Iraq, would utterly dwarf the costs of seeing Iraq to a stable democracy with all the major players - Sunni, Shia and Kurd - invested in its success.

To put it bluntly, Give 'Em Surrender Harry's claim of defeat in Iraq is cowardice, cynicism and hypocrisy writ on a grand scale. And in my view - traitorous. Perhaps we should nickname him "Benedict" Harry.



Update: Lest you think that last suggestion too over the top, consider this. Give 'Em Surrender Harry's statement that the Iraq war is "lost" is already having reverberations around the Islamic world. Read this from The Volokh Conspiracy:

Iranian Press TV reports, in response to Reid's statement:
Leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, has said the US has lost the Iraq war, and Bush's troop surge has failed.... Reid's comments came a day after 200 fatalities were reported in bombings in Iraq, despite a much touted US Security Plan which the White House said sought to root out insurgency."

A Republican party e-mail also reported the following as translations of items from Al-Jazeera Online, and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, "The Leading Arabic International Daily"; please let me know if the translations are inaccurate:
"Yesterday the leader of the Democratic majority in Congress, Harry Reid, announced that he conveyed to Bush that the United States lost the war in Iraq and that the additional America forces that were sent there will not succeed in the achievement of any positive progress."

"Leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, has said the US has lost the Iraq war, and Bush's troop surge has failed.... Reid's comments came a day after 200 fatalities were reported in bombings in Iraq, despite a much touted US Security Plan which the White House said sought to root out insurgency."

As I have said before, it may well be quite proper -- and certainly constitutionally protected -- for people to criticize the war; and sometimes the benefits of such criticism, even of the "war is lost" variety and even when said by leading U.S. politicians, outweigh the costs. Yet it seems to me hard to doubt that this statement will have grave cost.

. . . Yet my suspicion is that the harm will be quite substantial indeed.

It is one thing for a dissembling Joe Biden to pronounce the surge a failure, or a New York Times cheerleading for the far left to call the war lost, but quite another when a leader of the Democratic Party and the Senate Majority Leader does so. I am quite willing to bet that Give 'Em Surrender Harry is now the new poster boy for a much energized radical Muslim recruitment from Terhan to Ridyah to Morroco to London, Rome and Washington D.C. Does anyone doubt for a moment that Wahhabi / Salafi clerics the world over, even as you read this, are not praising Give 'Em Surrender Harry's pronouncement as "Allah's will" and pointing to it as proof that more bloodshed will ultimately see radical Islam ascendent throughtout the world.

And if you want to forecast how Give 'Em Surrender Harry's statement will impact upon the average Iraqi who has a choice between supporting us and the Maliki government or the insurgents, be it al Qaeda in Iraq or the Iranian backed Mahdi Army, if you turn to the book authored by General Petraeus, the Army's field manual 3-24: Counterinsurgency, you will find this:

1-134: . . . The populace may prefer the HN [i.e., Iraqi] government to the insurgents; however, people do not actively support a government unless they are convinced that the counterinsurgents - [i.e., U.S. and Iraqi forces] have the means, ability, stamina, and will to win."

Give 'Em Surrender Harry may succeed in his clear objective of gaining political power in the '08 election, but at what cost to America in blood and gold?

Update: Now we know that, in the violent events of last Wednesday that "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry cited as proof the surge has failed, 3 of the 4 al Qaeda bombs were greatly limited by defenses put in place by the surge.

Read More...

 

View My Stats