Hatfields & McCoys Feud With Revisionist Democrats Asking The Wrong Questions

Steve Chapman has an article posted on Real Clear Politics wherein he tries to legitimize the Democrat's plans for retreat from Iraq by comparing those plans to what he claims were similar Repulican moves to retreat from hostilities in the past. He even manages to work in a "Mission accomplished" cheap shot. For her part, Hillbilly Politics has an excellent point by point refutation, clarifying the history as posited by Mr. Chapman.

I am only writing to add that, if you look at Chapman's article, you'll note he stays away from any assessment of the consequences of retreat from Iraq. Even if Mr. Chapman were correct in his every assertion that today's Democrats are no more craven then Republicans of days past, it is meaningless. The consequences of disengagement, in every instance cited by Mr. Chapman, do not even begin to compare with the consequences of disengagement from Iraq.

The bottom line, you can argue about whether we should have gotten into this war, but that question is wholly academic now. You can beleive Bush lied if you like, but that is a question for partisans. To quit Iraq for that reason would be wholly infantile. It would be making a decision on personal feelings today rather then on any sort of inquiry into the possible and likely consequences of the decision. And for those who give short shrift to the question of consequences, it is worth noting that such a tremendous "failure of imagination" is precisely what the 9-11 Commission identified as being at the heart of our failure to assess the threat of al Qaeda to begin with. The greatest single issue facing us today is the one no Democrat will touch. What are the costs and consequences for leaving Iraq?

Why our MSM does not ask about the consequences of retreating from Iraq with every far left Democrat they interview - and I include, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Boxer, Obey, Clinton, Obama and Edwards in that group - is beyond me. They are doing a disservice to the nation. And I find the failure of the conservatives and moderates in Congress to demand that this be the center of debate incomprehensible. They should be asking that question before every microphone they can find on a daily basis.

I guess that I need to add just a bit more, given that Harry Reid declard our military defeated. Our military cannot be defeated on any battlefield in Iraq. I defy anyone to identify an engagement we have lost in Iraq when a platoon or larger element of our soldiers was involved. It hasn't happened.

When Harry Reid claimed our forces defeated, he was making a purely political statement devoid of any military reality. The truth is that defeat will not happen at the hands of radical Islamists on the battlefield. Given support from Congress and the Executive, we will succeed in securing Iraq.

In 2005 and 2006, we pulled our military back into large cantonements so as to minimize our footprints. At the same time, we turned over security to Iraqi forces. The Iraqi forces ultimately proved to be not up to the task. That strategy was a mistake, and the effect of that mistake was magnified exponentially when al Qaeda was able to bomb the Mosque of the Golden Dome.

Such mistakes are common in war. Study WWI, WWII, the Civil War and the Korean War and you will find the early history of those wars riddled with such errors. For example, the failure of Generals in WWI to adapt their strategy to new weapons led to carnage on an unheard of scale. On July 1, 1916, Sir Douglas Haig ordered his men forward in a frontal assult on German lines at the Battle of the Somme. By days end, his strategy had resulted in 57,000 British solders dead, wounded and missing. Over a four month period, his offensive saw British casualties rise to 420,000. Fortunately, most mistakes of strategy are not that costly.

We are following a different strategy in Iraq now. One that is aggressive and maximizes our efforts. The question is not will it work, but how long will it take, and whether Congress will provide the funds and manpower for sufficient time to allow the mission to be completed. Which brings us back full circle to the penultimate question. What will be the consequences of retreat from Iraq?

Read More...

Summary only...

If You Voted Democrat, For Whom & What Did You Vote?

Did the person you voted for tell you what they were going to actually do on the issue of Iraq? I know for a lot of the newly elected Democrats, there was no substantive discussion of Iraq beyond the buzz words of "failed policy" and "a new direction." Did you know that the ultimate definition of those terms would not be made on principle by the person for whom you voted? Did you know that those terms would largely be defined by the George Soros funded political machine, MoveOn.Org?

MoveOn.Org is many things. It is incredibly well organized. Thanks to George Soros, it is very well funded. It is a master at use of the internet. It espouses far left politics and makes attacks on politicians that do not share its views. There is precious little thought given to either the views espoused or the attacks made - all are in sound bite form.

MoveOn.org is not a think tank of any sort. For all of its sophistication, its messages are mindless. If you do not believe me, go to the MoveOn.org site. You will find a short paragraph on any particular issue. And even that paragraph contains precious few facts, but often voices a vociferous and emotional opinion, telling its readers how they should think.

It cannot be argued that MoveOn.Org places a much higher value on the effectiveness of its attacks then its does on intellectual honesty and integrity. The problem with this, of course, is that the positions MoveOn.org espouses, if acted upon, bring real world consequences. Their approach wholly short circuits any reasoned discussion of those consequences. Sound bites and wholly partisan attacks are substituted for debate.

And these days, MoveOn.org has carte blanche access to the corridors of Democrats in Congress:

Every morning, representatives from a cluster of antiwar groups gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate.

Shortly after, in a cramped meeting room here, they convene for a call with organizers across the country. They hash out plans for rallies. They sketch out talking points for “rapid response” news conferences. They discuss polls they have conducted in several dozen crucial Congressional districts and states across the country.

Over the last four months, the Iraq deliberations in Congress have lurched from a purely symbolic resolution rebuking the president’s strategy to timetables for the withdrawal of American troops. Behind the scenes, an elaborate political operation, organized by a coalition of antiwar groups and fine-tuned to wrestle members of Congress into place one by one, has helped nudge the debate forward.

But there are tensions in the relationship between the groups, which banded together earlier this year under the umbrella of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and the Democratic leadership. The fissures could be magnified in coming weeks as the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, struggle to cobble together a strategy after President Bush’s veto of the $124 billion Iraq spending bill that tied the money to a timetable for withdrawal.

On Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org, including Tom Matzzie, the group’s Washington director who also serves as the campaign manager for the coalition, sent a harshly worded warning to the Democratic leadership.

“In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush — passing a bill without measures to end the war — the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.”

The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”

The antiwar coalition combines the online mobilization capabilities of MoveOn with the old-school political muscle of organized labor. They have been working in tandem with Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate on a systematic strategy to unify Democrats, divide Republicans and isolate the president.

The alliance, including MoveOn, chose to stick with Ms. Pelosi as she ushered through a war financing bill that included a timeline for withdrawal, but many peace advocates called the measure too timid. Some critics accused the alliance of becoming too cozy with the Democratic leadership and selling out the cause.

“There’s a dividing line between those groups who feel the most important thing is to be clear on bringing the troops home as soon as possible, and the groups that feel that unity within the Democratic Party is most important and the most important thing is for the Democrats to win the White House,” said Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of Code Pink, an antiwar group that is not part of the alliance. “So the groups who feel the most important thing is to win the White House would naturally be more inclined to listening to Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she says the only way we can get a vote through is if we water it down.”

Many of the major players in Americans Against Escalation in Iraq earned their stripes not from sit-ins, marches and other acts of civil disobedience but as Democratic operatives on Capitol Hill and in political campaigns. The sophisticated political operation they have built is a testament to how far the antiwar movement has come since the Vietnam era.

But Tom Andrews, a former Democratic congressman from Maine and the national director of Win Without War, a member of the coalition, said there existed a “healthy tension” between working closely with Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill, many of whom were former colleagues and friends, and continuing to prod them to end the war.

“Our constituency is the people across this country who want to shut this war down,” Mr. Andrews said. “It’s not the Democratic Party.”

Mr. Matzzie underscored the coalition’s approach to a roomful of members on Thursday at the outset of a planning retreat at the headquarters of the Service Employees International Union here.

“The principle under which we’ve been operating is more like a political campaign,” Mr. Matzzie said. “The central strategy is creating that toxic environment for people who want to continue this debacle.”

The discussion at the retreat mirrored that of planning meetings for traditional political campaigns, with presentations on polling, strategy and field operations.

“It’s no different than if you went over to the offices of Clinton for President, Obama for President, Giuliani for President,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, which has roots in organized labor and came out of the legislative battle over social security in 2005.

The coalition, which has raised $7.1 million since January, has concentrated its activities on 57 House districts and senators in nine states, places where they believe Republican lawmakers face tough races in 2008 or have shown signs of wavering in their support for the president.

The service employees’ union has mobilized its phone bank in New York City and asked local leaders to call members of Congress. Leaders of the union, long closely allied with liberal lawmakers, helped assuage many progressives who were uneasy about voting for the war-financing bill, fearing criticism from the left.

The National Security Network, a collection of liberal-leaning military and foreign policy experts headed by Rand Beers, former national security adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry, has deployed former generals and officials to persuade individual lawmakers.

The coalition’s influence comes from its connections on Capitol Hill and political shrewdness, as well as its grass-roots reach. “The whole movement has updated themselves to be where campaign-style politics are generally,” said Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic strategist. “They’re just incredibly savvy, tactically and politically. They know how to use the news cycle.”

Most important for lawmakers, said Mr. Andrews, the former congressman from Maine, the coalition members are committed to using their resources to changing the political climate in their districts, which gives them credibility on Capitol Hill.

“We want members of Congress to do the right thing and do very well as a result,” he said. “We’re not just there asking them to do the right thing without fully recognizing the task we have on hand.”

Rodell Mollineau, a spokesman for Mr. Reid’s office, said the coalition amplifies what Democrats are trying to do in Washington to end the war.

“It helps us reverberate a unified message outside the Beltway,” he said. “These groups give voice to a message we’re trying to get outside.”

One of the coalition’s strengths is its diversity, bringing to together groups like MoveOn.org and organized labor on one end and former Iraq veterans in the group Votevets.org on the other, members said. But that diversity can also create some tense moments, as each of the groups have different constituencies and some of the groups are more invested in the Democratic Party than others.

But the organizations came together based on a sense of pragmatism, said Mr. Woodhouse, of Americans United for Change, “that we’re better fighting together than fighting apart.”

After the president’s veto this week, the coalition organized 358 rallies and more than 20 news conferences across the country. Organizers had met with leadership staff members the week before to coordinate.

On Friday, in a daily conference call, Tara McGuinness, the coalition’s deputy campaign manager, told members that leadership aides had expressed gratitude for the work, saying it had helped bolster members of their caucus.

Ms. McGuiness also told them that she had received assurances from leadership staff members that all options were still being considered for the new version of the war spending bill.

“The latest word from them is they are talking more and more about a short-leash option,” she said, referring to a plan in the House that would finance the war for only about three more months and require the administration to report back on progress being made by the Iraqi government. Congress would then vote again on the rest of the money requested by Mr. Bush.

Members of the Senate appear to be cool to the idea, but it has currency among some liberal advocates and members of the coalition.

Mr. Matzzie, of MoveOn, was clear about the stakes in the coming weeks, saying his group was only getting started. He emphasized that the next emergency spending bill must be one “to end the war.”

“This is act one of a three-act play,” he said. “Act two will be the summer. During the summer, our job is to create a firestorm of opposition.”

Coming from these people whose only goal is to get out of Iraq, have you ever heard a discussion of the consequences? If you go back to 2005, you will find most of the Democrats saying something akin to Joe Biden

A deadline for pulling out … will only encourage our enemies to wait us out" … it would be "a Lebanon in 1985. And God knows where it goes from there.

Or to Harry Reid

As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that.

Or if you are from Virginia, when you voted for Jim Webb, was it because he told you in September of last year:

Anyone who tells you we can set a timetable for withdrawal doesn’t understand war. And anyone who says that nothing can be done to speed a secure peace doesn’t understand America.

The consequences for losing the Iraq war have been the same since the day we began the invasion. Circumstances have changed, but the incalculable costs of failure have not. They are the cold, hard reality at the end of this blitz to leave Iraq and take political power in '08.

Now, if you voted Democrat, I ask you again, are you getting what you thought you were voting for? I am just curious.

Read the rest of the article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

An Eloquent Appeal From Iraq

One of the Washington Post's opinion pieces today is written by Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari. He makes a simple request - please don't abandon us. And he tells us clearly what is at stake:

Last weekend a traffic jam several miles long snaked out of the Mansour district in western Baghdad. The delay stemmed not from a car bomb closing the road but from a queue to enter the city's central amusement park. The line became so long some families left their cars and walked to enjoy picnics, fairground rides and soccer, the Iraqi national obsession.

Across the city, restaurants are slowly filling and shops are reopening. The streets are busy. Iraqis are not cowering indoors. The appalling death tolls from suicide attacks are often high because of crowding at markets. These days you are as likely to hear complaints about traffic congestion as about the security situation. Across Baghdad there is a cacophony of sirens from ambulances, firefighters and police providing public services. You cannot even escape the curse of traffic wardens ticketing illegally parked cars.

These small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in a downward spiral. The Iraqi people are indeed suffering tremendous hardships and making grave sacrifices -- but daily life goes on for 7 million Baghdadis struggling to take back their capital and country.

. . . So why should the world remain engaged in Iraq?

There is no denying the difficulties Iraq faces, and no amount of good news can obscure the demons of terrorism and sectarianism that have risen in my country. But there is too much at stake to risk failure, and everything to gain by helping us protect our hard-won democratic achievements and emerge as a stable, self-sustaining country.

We remain determined in spite of our losses. Spectacular attacks may dominate foreign headlines, but they cannot change the reality that Iraq has made steady political, economic and social progress over the past four years. We continue to strengthen our nascent democratic institutions, pursue national reconciliation and expand Iraqi security forces. The Baghdad security plan was conceived to give us breathing space to expedite political and economic development by "securing and holding" neighborhoods across the capital. There is no quick fix, but there have been real results: Winning public confidence has led to a spike in intelligence, a disruption of terrorist networks and the capture of key leaders, as well as the discovery of weapons caches. In Anbar province, Sunni sheikhs and insurgents have turned against al-Qaeda and to the side of Iraqi security forces. This would have been unthinkable even six months ago.

. . . Iraqis are standing up every day, and we persevere because there is no other option. We will not surrender our country to terrorists. They have failed to cripple the elected government, and they have failed to intimidate us into submission. Iraqis reject their vision of a future whose hallmarks are bloodshed and hatred.

Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain.

Iraqis, for all our determination and courage, cannot succeed alone. We need a healthy and supportive regional environment. We will not allow our country to be a battleground for settling scores in regional and international conflicts that adversely affect stability inside our borders. Only with continued international commitment and deeper engagement from our neighbors can we establish a stable democratic, federal and united Iraq. The world should not abandon us.

Read the enitre article here. Perhaps it would be beneficial for him to address Congress. Do you think Pelosi and Murtha would schedule him?

Read More...

Summary only...

Shooting Dionnes In A Barrel

The left's motivation to retreat from Iraq is now so nakedly partisan and political that it can't be covered up. But that will not sway partisan hacks from trying to claim otherwise as they fight to keep middle America from waking up to the changing reality in Iraq and the potential costs to the nation if Reid and company succeed in forcing defeat and retreat. For example, see this today from EJ Dionne which, if it did not appear in the Opinion section of a major newspaper, I would consider an attempt at satire:

President Bush and Vice President Cheney cannot make the case that their Iraq policies have succeeded, so they are doing one thing they do very well: taking a serious argument over the future of American foreign policy and turning it into a petty partisan squabble.

This is not really an argument over the "surge" of troops into Iraq. It is a fight over whether we want to make an open-ended commitment to keeping combat forces in Iraq for many years or whether we anticipate pulling most of them out within a year or two.

Way to stay on message, E.J. The surge is meaningless. We don’t want any reports of improving conditions in Iraq to confuse the decision. I like how you seperate the surge from the issue of declaring defeat in advance and getting out of Iraq. And Bush is the partisan acting for wholly political reasons. I love the way you turn a Dem weakness around by accusing the other side of the failing. Great tactics, EJ.

Even if the surge succeeds in a narrow sense -- by reducing the number of Iraqis killed in sectarian violence in Baghdad -- there is no guarantee that the overall situation in Iraq will be any better, no guarantee that Iraqi leaders will take the political steps necessary to end the internecine killing and create a stable government, no guarantee that we will make progress against al-Qaeda.

Good, EJ. We need to stay away from the original reason to get out of Iraq – that there was a “civil war” going on. Can’t have a civil war without sectarian violence now, can we. Thank God the surge is so narrow in its scope and that it can’t guarantee outcomes. Why the hell did we get into all this anyway if al Qaeda and Iran had not agreed to surrender and make it easy for us in the first place.

Although he conveniently appeared in Washington as Congress was voting on war appropriations, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, did not play politics.

I like the way you frame this one. Bringing the top general in Iraq, the one leading the effort to stabilize the country, to Washington, for an unwanted briefing on the facts directly in advance of voting on retreat was clearly a partisan political move by the Bushies. And just to attend that briefing, Nancy had to cancel a visit with the art dealer where whe was getting the photos of her talking to Syria's president framed. Ooops - sorry - I forgot, she didn't attend the Petraeus briefing.

Wednesday in assessing the situation there. He spoke, rightly, of progress in Anbar province, a Sunni stronghold, but added: "The ability of al-Qaeda to conduct horrific, sensational attacks obviously has represented a setback and is an area in which we are focusing considerable attention."

See. The Surge is not working. Just because the Sunnis in Anbar (hey, aren’t they the one’s supposed to be fighting the other half of the civil war?) are joining government security forces in droves and are moving al Qaeda out of their Anbar bases is meaningless so long as 1 or 2 suicide bombers from Saudi Arabia can blow themselves up. A good I told you so moment, EJ.

The president's comments this week were less measured. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal," Bush said, "and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job."

Let's parse that statement. The notion that Congress has an "artificial timetable" suggests there must be such a thing as a "natural timetable." But what would that be? Presumably, the president would reply: when we achieve victory. But what is the definition of "victory" in the murky mess we're in? The administration offers only generalities that lead us nowhere.

EJ, you might want to stay away from this one. Its too easy to point out that the natural timetable would be when Iraq and its government are stabilized and can stand on their own. That is, after all, kind of how we left Germany and Japan. Work on that one.

And it's beyond chutzpah for a politician who has lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for more than 2,280 days to attack "Washington politicians." Didn't Petraeus get his orders to pursue the surge from a certain Washington politician otherwise known as the commander in chief?

EJ, this one is pretty weak too. Can you tighten this one up. Bush is criticizing Reed, Pelosi et al for making military decisions that aren’t theirs to make under the Constitution. We don’t want to raise that or the Dems will have to take responsibility for those decisions. Let’s stick to the simple arguments, okay, before we start confusing the issues with facts.

Or take Vice President Cheney's statement on Tuesday: "Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics." Cheney assumes that opposition to the administration's policies must be "blind" rather than a considered, rational response to four years of failure. And the opposition must be rooted in "politics" and not in principle, presumably because reasonable people cannot possibly have good cause for disagreeing with the administration.

I love how you do this, EJ. Cheney is acting only for partisan political gain while Reid is the politician acting only on principal. I like how you focus on the pre-surge days and how you sidestep the fact that Reid said he would not believe any change in facts on the ground. No need to dwell on that when we can dwell on the pre-surge days.

What Bush and Cheney are doing is not just wrong. It's dangerous. If they were interested in success in Iraq, they would have turned down the partisan rhetoric long ago.

This is absolutely fantastic. You have made Bush and Cheney out to be the dangers to our national security, and taken the focus off the ramifications for our national security if we retreat. Be careful with the non-sequiturs though. We need to appeal to middle America, not just George Soros.

A substantial majority now opposes their policies. The last thing the administration needs is more polarization, which clearly has not worked in its favor.

That’s better. These republicans should treat war and our national security like good dems – a lot less principle, a lot more polling.

The president needs to convince Americans that a decent result in Iraq is still possible. . . .

EJ and I agree on that one. Wholeheartedly.

With the president set to veto the supplemental spending bill that includes calls for withdrawal, the whole burden of proof in this debate should change.

Good, EJ. We do not want some idiot reporters asking our boys questions about what will happen as a result of a retreat and surrender – at least not before the 08 election is over. Way to keep this debate focused on what matters. Only ask questions and expect reasonable answers from the Republicans. Great stuff.

The burden should no longer be on those who say we are reaching the limits of what military force can achieve in Iraq -- partly because we never sent enough troops in the first place and also because our military is stretched to the breaking point, limiting how many forces the Washington politician in the White House can offer Petraeus.

Watch this kind of argument, EJ. Somebody might figure out that the Congress holds the purse strings and can increase the size and funding for our military at the stroke of a pen. We have spinach farmers, peanut farmers and labor unions who can put that money to much better use supporting Democrat candidates as long as we don’t let the cat out of the bag.

Instead, the burden of proof should be on those who have offered years of bravado and false optimism. Why are Americans supposed to believe Bush's current claims? Why shouldn't Congress continue to pressure the president to bring our combat troops home on a reasonable schedule? And why doesn't the president start talking seriously to Congress instead of just shouting at Democrats?

I like how you do that EJ. Nothing that Bush says about the facts can be believed. We get to take Dems at their word now. Hmmm, what about Petraeus though. He may be a problem. You may want to attack his veracity a little more in advance of his September report. But there’s time for that I guess. And I love the way your euphanism for retreat by the way – “bring the troops home on a reasonable schedule.” That has a great ring to it.


You can read EJ Dionne's dribble here. If this is what we can expect from the Dem's in light of what will most likely be increasingly good news from Iraq, there is a hole there the size of the Grand Canyon to be exploited. Only gross imcompetence in communicating it too the public could possibly fail this one. So why am I still worried?

Read More...

Summary only...

The Incalculable Cost of Surrender

Retired Marine Corps LTC Oliver North has authored the first article I have seen addressing in detail the likely ramifications of a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq.

. . . What would losing the war in Iraq mean? It's a picture so dark and depressing that it makes the collapse in Vietnam, 32 years ago next week, look like a Sunday school picnic. The fall of Saigon was horrific for the people of Vietnam and their neighbors in Cambodia and Laos. More than 5 million became refugees and by the most conservative estimates at least a million others perished.

For most Americans, the consequences were minimal. The vast majority of the 2.8 million of us who had fought and bled there mourned the loss of 58,253 of our comrades, swallowed the bitterness of defeat and got on with our lives. Our nation spent a few hundred million tax dollars on refugee relief and resettlement, and tried to forget what people in Reid's party called "the long nightmare of Vietnam."

But classified U.S. intelligence assessments, military contingency plans and staff studies evaluating the consequences of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, coupled with the lack of funding for political reform measures, as contained in the legislation just passed by Reid's party, paint a far more dismal picture than anything that happened after Vietnam.

-- Within months, an immediate upsurge in vicious sectarian violence fomented by Iranian intervention on behalf of Shiite militias and Wahabbi-supported, Al Qaeda-affiliated terror groups. As U.S. forces retreat to a half-dozen staging areas for retrograde through Kuwait and Jordan, American casualties will dramatically increase as suicide bombers seek "martyrdom" in their victory.

-- Inside of 18 months, the fragile democratically elected government in Baghdad will collapse, precipitating a real sectarian civil war and the creation of Taliban-like "regional governments" that will impose brutal, misogynistic rule throughout the country. The ensuing flood of refuges into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran will overwhelm relief organizations, creating a humanitarian disaster making what's happening in Darfur pale by comparison.

-- The Kurds in northern Iraq are likely to declare an autonomous region that could well result in Turkish, Iranian and even Syrian military intervention.

-- In the course of withdrawing U.S. combat brigades and support units, billions of dollars in American military equipment and ordnance will have to be destroyed or left behind. More than $40 billion in reconstruction projects for schools, health-care facilities, sanitation, clean water, electrical distribution and agricultural development will be abandoned. Plans to exploit the new West Qurna oil field in southeastern Iraq will be forsaken.

-- The governments of Kuwait, Jordan, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, intimidated by Iranian boldness in acquiring nuclear weapons, will likely insist on the withdrawal of American military bases from their territories. Such a move will jeopardize U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf and logistics, intelligence collection and command and control facilities supporting operations in Afghanistan.

-- As Iraq becomes a battleground for the centuries-long Sunni-Shia conflict, radical Islamic terror organizations will use the territories they control to prepare and launch increasingly deadly terror attacks around the globe against U.S. citizens, businesses and interests.

Reid and his cohorts in Congress who believe "this war is lost" have acted to ensure that it will be. No one asked them: "If we lost, who won?" The answer should be obvious.

The last question should have included "and at what cost to us in the future?" Read the entire article here.

I think that LTC North misses only a few of the ramifications. Al Qaeda grew strong in the 1990's on the basis of their claim to defeating one of the world's super-powers, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. If al Qaeda is able to claim such a victory in Iraq - and they will do so and be believed if America retreats before Iraq is stabilized - the radicalization of Islam and new adherents to al Qaeda's philosophy will jump off the charts. It will also be taken as an affirmation of al Qaeda tactics - the extreme violence against the softest targets.

Iran's theocrats will likewise have their vision of Allah's will and the weakness of the West reaffirmed. Will there be any chance of stopping them from attaining nuclear weapons if we withdraw from Iraq? And as they attain a nuclear arsenal, the threat of atomic attacks in the west go up exponentially.

The threat radical Islam will pose to the West post-Iraq retreat dwarfs the threat we faced on 9-10.

The ramifications of leaving Iraq under the plan now passed by the Democrats has gotten no play. But it is of course the central question for our national security over the next half century, if not longer.

The Democrats plan for retreat, if enacted, will effect the ability of any future American President to commit the military overseas in the defense of American interests. He or she will have in the back of their mind that even if force is approved by Congress, that is meaningless for the war effort and any bold act involving ground troops may well be political suicide.

Further, I suspect our foreign policy will be greatly diminished. Who will ally with us in the future against extremists of whatever stripe if we cannot be counted on to finish what we have started? Two, our threats of force will be of no effect. And because of that, it will mean vastly greater bloodshed in the future when our honest threats go unheeded and we are required to act. Please do not forget that it was Sadaam's view of the U.S. as a "paper tiger" based on Vietnam that tipped his calculus in deciding to invade Kuwait.

All of this should be the sole focus of the debate on the Iraq war? Yet to date there has been nary a peep.

Read More...

Summary only...

More Thoughts On The Democrats' Embrace of Defeat

Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters hits the nail on the head with his commentary this day:

. . . [T]he Bush administration understands the catastrophe in store for the region if the US yanks the troops from Iraq, while the Democrats have played this new strategy strictly for political gain. The same party leaders that scolded Bush during the election last year for listening to Donald Rumsfeld rather than his field commanders now won't even bother to attend a briefing with Petraeus before setting out on this course. They set the vote up in order to coordinate campaign commercials while declaring defeat from Capitol Hill. They have made themselves into a disgrace in less than four months in power, reminding the nation why they locked them out of power for the previous six years.

Read the entire post here.

Read More...

Summary only...

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...

Summary only...

Washington Post Editorial Rips Pelosi Plan For Retreat From Iraq

A scathing Washington Post editorial today excoriates Nancy Pelosi for the pork laden plan she is putting together to force U.S. troops out of Iraq without addressing the consequences of such an act, nor the Constitutional separation of powers issues inherent in her plan.

THE RESTRICTIONS on Iraq war funding drawn up by the House Democratic leadership are exquisitely tailored to bring together the party's leftist and centrist wings. . . . And there are plenty of enticements on the side: more money for wounded veterans, for children's health, for post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi< ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

The editorial goes on to chastise Speaker Pelosi for crafting a plan that impedes the Constitutional powers of the President to serve as Commander and Chief of our Armed Forces:

Ms. Pelosi's strategy leads not toward a responsible withdrawal from Iraq but to a constitutional power struggle with Mr. Bush, who has already said he will veto the legislation. Such a struggle would serve the interests of neither the Democrats nor the country.

Read the whole editorial here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Maliki Stumbles As The Washington Post Charts the Path to Retreat

Two items of note in this morning's news. The first involves Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki who, along with his government, has been working magic the past three weeks -- including a draft of an oil law, full political support for the aggressive pursuit of shia insurents and militias, and the announcement that he will dismiss all cabinet ministers from Sadr's party. Maliki has worked a three week sea change in the direction of Iraqi politics. Today, however, is a first real misstep. It comes in response to a raid in Basra conducted by British soldiers and Iraqi special forces on the headquarters of an Iraqi intelligence unit.

"Major Gell said the intelligence agency office was raided after an investigation earlier Sunday led to the capture of five suspected bomb makers and evidence that pointed to possible violations at the agency’s offices. In those offices, he said, “Evidence of significant criminal activity such as torture was found.”

Maliki was apparently "caught by surprise" when told of the raid. Instead of supporting the raid or waiting for a full report as to what was found, he immediately "condemned" the raid while ignoring the evidence of misdeeds.

“The prime minister has ordered an immediate investigation into the incident of breaking into the security compound in Basra and stressed the need to punish those who have carried out this illegal and irresponsible act,” said the full text of a statement issued late Sunday by his office.

Read the whole story here. I hope this was a simple stumble that is quickly corrected by Maliki. I sincerely hope this does not signal in any way a return to business as usual with Maliki caving to pressure to protect Shia government members at the expense of fairness and the rule of law. We will see as this plays out in the coming days.

The second item of note today comes from the Washington Post, who, following on the heels of yesterday's horrid anti-American hit piece, continue their drumbeat of defeatism. Today's piece is an article by Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks, "Bush Iraq Strategy Has No Option For Failure." Implicit in the article is a criticism of Bush for being unrealistic about the prospects for success in Iraq, and the article examines what seem to me to be wholly unrealistic "Murtha" options of redeployment to safe areas in Iraq, leaving the remainder of the country to flow into anarchy. Though ridiculous, it receives, of course, top billing in the WP today.

Read More...

Summary only...