« A Dangerous Age | Main | Breaking News - Judge Roberts hospitalized »

July 30, 2007

Winning the War in Iraq

Guess where the following was printed yesterday

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq,

"Rightwinger" media? "Faux" News? Spewings from the usual NeoConBusHitlerZionistChickenhawks?

ummm.... no, the anti-war/anti-bush NYTimes

As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

The two, self-admitted "harsh Bush critics" go on to list all the positive changes they encountered -- from the recovery of local economies to former al Qaeda allies now turning to American and Iraqi forces to secure a peaceful, fulfilling future.
How much of this will influence the Democrats in their rush to surrender Iraq to the jihadists is difficult to predict. Harry Reid, Kerry and others have already made it clear they are not only not going to believe anything that Gen. Petraeus has to say, but they are willing to sacrifice the Iraqi population to a bloodbath (and then will, as Kerry has done vis a vis Vietnam, deny it ever happened) then allow even a hint good news accrue to those who have supported the American mission in Iraq.
American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

So, what say you ... you who want American troops home right now, regardless of consequence. Does this article make any difference to you? Would any good news from Iraq change your mind?
...there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Is your reaction to Iraq emotional or intellectual? These "harsh critics" appear to be coming from the latter, you?


Posted by Darleen at July 30, 2007 09:29 AM


Obviously, Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack have been compromised by the RIGHTWINGSLANDERDEATHMACHINE. They cannot be objective observers, because every objective observer knows that the war is lost, no matter what the military says, because they'd totally lie, dude.

Posted by: Chris at July 30, 2007 11:17 AM

think again Darleen:


Posted by: Brad at August 8, 2007 06:50 PM