Dems See Progress In Iraq
Dave Price
Keith Ellison and Jerry McNerney return from the Land of the Two Rivers with positive impressions:
Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.Presumably the sinestrosphere is once again gnashing its collective teeth in impotent rage at inconvenient reality, and will soon begin searching for more ideologically pure Dem primary candidates to challenge them next November.
"And they would respond back with smiles and waves," Ellison said. "I don't want to overplay it. There were no flowers. There was no clapping. There was no parade. But there was a general level of respect and calm that I thought was good."
...
McNerney, the California congressman, also said he saw signs of progress in Ramadi and was impressed by Petraeus, who argued in favor of giving President Bush's troop surge strategy time to work.
al Qaeda's tactics are already headed for the dustbin of history.
al Qaeda may yet double-down one more time, as they have in times past. Unfortunately, I think they're stupid enough to try, without regard to what success would cost them. The next higher wager is their ideology.
When was the last time you heard someone praise German nationalism?
Obviously there are knuckleheads, but most NCOs and officers recognize the importance of getting the Iraqis on our side and treating them with respect. Only someone with no knowledge of the military and a preconcieved narrative about what our soldiers are really like would be as shocked as Ellison.
I think I stole that from Ace.
Last I saw, having an increasingly gray and subtle discussion with me about what is and is not inadvertantly absurd and offensive.
We're mostly not calling each other stupid.
Yours,
Wince
btw, wasn't anbar fine even b4 the surge?
Nope.
"Seeing real progress" does not equate to "we're finished, now." Dave's point is that some leading left/Democratic Party commenters & leaders have begun to see honest progress in Iraq. This is a good thing, since now we can get real discussion, as opposed to "stay the course" vs. "cut'n'run."
I think that war hawks should be less snippy about former (and a few current) war opponents, and show some appreciation for those who have been forthcoming about changing their minds from an accepted common wisdom.
A little less triumphalism might be a good idea as well. We aren't done, yet. We may be (in some way) at Churchill's "end of the beginning" point.
And -BTW- Ali: no, Anbar wasn't fine before the surge. From a recent Michael Totten post: "Recruiting for the Iraqi Security Forces in Anbar increased from virtually zero through 2006 to more than 14,000 by mid-2007."
The trick, of course, is clear and hold. I've always thought that the best method, and in fact when I heard news of the "new" tactic last year I was quite surprised, as I had assumed that had been the method all along. Instead they used the "Lone Ranger" method of clearing a town. Feh.
As I said, if war opponents can fess up to seeing real change occuring, great. War supporters need to keep their 'tude tuned down right now. Please recall that this is a war fought in the media as much as in the streets of Iraq. One of the things bugging some military analysts right now is an Iraq "Tet offensive." AQ and insurgent forces don't have anything remotely resembling an ability to challenge American forces directly, but if war supporters exaggerate current success, even a bloody loss could generate a severely negative reaction in the US, just as in 1968.
And, no, that wasn't all the fault of the media, although Cronkite should have kept his bloody mouth shut, being no expert. {/snark} If you do some research, you'll discover that the military leaders in Vietnam were talking up the idea that we had the VC on the run, and touted the "light at the end of the tunnel." Progress had been made, but then-current leaders made the same mistake some folks seem to be making today: confusing the first genuine progress in several years with final success. When Tet '68 hit, those leaders were caught mentally flat-footed, causing a classic "deer in the headlights" reaction.
Basically, they thought it was all over but the shouting. Ali restated the same idea in his comment: put a fork in it, it's done.
We aren't done yet. Our enemies are seeing overall losses across Iraq in terms of area controlled, sheiks giving aid or support, and the ability to move about freely. The are losing, but they aren't beaten. They can still come up with nasty surprises; in fact, when a groups back is against the wall is when they're most likely to come up with the really nasty stuff, like kamikazees or the Ardennes offensive. Or Tet, for that matter.
I repeat: they're losing, but they're not beat. Not yet.
Ask Petraeus.
If you want bad to win you can do it,
If you want bad to lose then you can
But you can't win at all
Til you've gotten the ball
And played to the end of the game.
Now a win at the start is no blemish
And a win at the half is good too,
But unless you can win at the finish
Then victory is what you elude.
No man ever won at beginning
No one ever won at the half,
History records and the score is the score
When the game is completed at last.
If you think that your team is now in it
Then you'd better be in it to win,
And if you now want to quit 'fore it's over
Then winning was never your end.
I agree that there has been good military progress in some areas. I never doubted that American soldiers in large enough numbers could defeat al Qaeda and other resistance groups.
The main problem in Iraq is political. Before you get too excited about progress in Iraq, I suggest you read this Washington Post story on what the joint chief’s nominee told congress yesterday and this LAT article on the Iraqi Interior Ministry.
We are probably going to lose in Iraq, not because the US military cannot defeat the enemy, but because of the failings of the Iraqi government. We are in danger of losing in Afghanistan, but al Qaeda and the Islamtic extremists are loosing support in the Islamic world too.
Remember in the 45 year cold war with Communism we fought too real wars. Korea was a draw, and we lost the Vietnam War. We won the cold war anyway. All is not lost if we focus on the American values that won the cold war.
Not likely, the ISF get stronger and less sectarian every week. The insurgents' position gets relatively weaker, which is why so many Sunni Arabs are giving up. It might not be pretty but the ISF are going to come out on top.
we lost the Vietnam War.
More specifically, we won every major battle, negotiated a truce, then betrayed our SV allies by not helping them when the NVA broke the truce.
We won the cold war anyway.
The Soviets eventually collapsed under the weight of their own incompetence, but how many millions died needlessly because of the left's stupidity and cowardice re Vietnam?
Also, the Islamists aren't going to collapse like Communists because they view incompetence as a religious virtue, not a practical failing. The Communists didn't mean to impoverish their people and crush innovation, they just subscribed to a governing philosophy that made it inevitable. The Taliban did it on purpose.
The al Qaeda affiliated insurgent position is getting weaker. Some of the ex-Baathist insurgent groups have switched sides and are now being armed and trained by the US. This is making the Shiite government very nervous, because they do not trust the Sunni ex-Baathists.
If we can somehow get the Sunni ex-Baathists and the Shiites to work together to create a functioning government, that will be a great victory. Right now I am not too optimistic that will happen any time soon.
In the Washington Post story I linked above, Adm. Michael Mullen, Bush’s nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is asked about the prospects for “winning” in Iraq:
Also, the Islamists aren't going to collapse like Communists because they view incompetence as a religious virtue, not a practical failing. The Communists didn't mean to impoverish their people and crush innovation, they just subscribed to a governing philosophy that made it inevitable. The Taliban did it on purpose.
It will take time, but the people of the Islamic world will figure out that the Islamists have absolutely nothing to offer, except violence. The people of Iran had largely figured that out, until the US decided to start shaking its fist at Iran and labeling Iran as “evil”. That allowed the Islamists in the Iranian government to do a little flag waving and rally support based on the external threat to the country. Even with the external threat, the Iranian government is loosing steam because it really cannot deliver for its people.
Many are joining the Iraqi Army, which is becoming less and less sectarian. Others are joining the MOI. Some are just local militias, but they have a path to becoming legitimate police forces.
It will take time, but the people of the Islamic world will figure out that the Islamists have absolutely nothing to offer, except violence.
You say that like it matters. Muslims by and large already grasp that, they just don't have many good choices.
The people of Iran had largely figured that out, until the US decided to start shaking its fist at Iran and labeling Iran as “evil”.
Perfect example, both of leftist stupidity and why Muslims don't have good choices. Iranians aren't allowed to vote for reformists, thanks to Jimmy Carter. The fact we point out how evil their leaders are is immaterial to their situation, except that Iranians increasingly agree.
If we can somehow get the Sunni ex-Baathists and the Shiites to work together to create a functioning government, that will be a great victory.
Only till it happens. Then leftists will claim it was useless.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.