All You Have to Do Is Believe(can't believe we are losing to Bush!)

Saturday, Sep. 11, 2004 All You Have to Do Is Believe Though so much in Iraq has gone wrong, Bush still thinks he 's right By JOE KLEIN A long time ago last week, the vice president of the United States said that if John Kerry is elected President "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists. It was an outrageous statement, which exposed the rampaging hubris of the Republican Party these days—and it should have been a big story. But the Cheney flap disappeared within 24 hours, in a week that exploded a month's worth of political bombshells. A new book by the professional sensationalist Kitty Kelley accused George Bush of using cocaine at Camp David when his father was President. CBS News revealed documents that indicated Bush had disobeyed orders, avoided service and received "sugar-coated" treatment when his performance was evaluated in the National Guard. And then, within hours, both stories were knocked down—a source for the cocaine story recanted, and some conservative bloggers charged the documents were forgeries. By week's end, the mudslinging had been successfully muddled: the controversy was now about the stories, not the President.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Russia was recovering from a horrific terrorist attack that left at least 338 dead—mostly children—which put an exclamation point on the President's claim that we are fighting a global war against terrorism. At the same time, though, the U.S. military acknowledged the sobering fact that there were now "no-go" zones in Iraq, areas the U.S. had ceded to the terrorists—much of the so-called Sunni triangle, for example—which put a question mark on the President's claim that he was aggressively fighting that war. At the end of all that, the President's post-convention bounce had settled into a solid lead.

Democrats were perplexed, depressed and awestruck. How could Cheney get away with saying, in effect, that a vote for Kerry was a vote for terrorism? More to the point, how could Bush get away with, well, everything: a misspent youth, a lifetime of insider trading on the family name, a misfought war, a misleading inference that the invasion of Iraq had some vague relevance to 9/11, a presidency marked by rampant corporate cronyism at home and abroad? "If we can't beat this guy, with this record ..." a prominent Democrat said to me. He was unable to finish the sentence.

There are all sorts of theories for Bush's recent success. The Republicans are brilliant and brazen demolition experts. The Democrats play hardball at the peewee-league level. Kerry is Dukakis, after all—deadly dull, slow to respond, trapped in Democratic banality: he actually said he was for "good jobs at good wages" last week. All of which are more or less true, but peripheral. The real story is quite simple. Bush seems to believe what he says and Kerry doesn't quite.

That is not to say that the things Bush believes are true. The war in Iraq was not a necessity. It is more likely to result in regional chaos than in the "benign domino effect" of regional democracy promised by neoconservatives. But Bush truly believes—and these are admirable beliefs—in the power of "freedom" and the evil of Islamist radicalism. He is secure enough to acknowledge the possibility that he might be proved wrong. Two weeks ago, he told TIME that history would be the judge of his policies—it would take decades to sort it all out—but he was confident about the choices he had made.

Kerry seems unable, or unwilling, to confront Bush directly on this ground. Every word he utters about Iraq smacks of politics. Last week he finally said the war was "wrong," but then—in a crass, consultant-driven moment—turned the disaster into a financial transaction. Bush had spent $200 billion in Iraq that could have been spent at home. Leave aside the fact that $200 billion is a meaningless number to a nation inured to billion-dollar tags for just about everything. Leave aside the fact that most Americans would willingly have spent the money—and, more to the point, the lives—if the policy had actually made us safer. A much stronger argument was available, given the recent events in Iraq: Bush has chosen not to fight in the Sunni triangle, and the war cannot be won until he does. "You can't allow the enemy to have sanctuaries and expect to win," John McCain told me. "You have to go in and dig them out."

Kerry could have challenged Bush: "Fight the war, Mr. President, or bring the troops home." It would have been blunt, strong, simple—indeed, simplistic, just as Bush often is—but it might also have put the President on the defensive for a change. Kerry wouldn't even have to say what he would do: he could legitimately argue that would depend on the situation on the ground in January. It would also, I suspect, reflect Kerry's true feelings: that Bush has waged an incompetent war in Iraq, which he is in serious danger of losing.

1000 dead for starters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While that is a stark number, I recall reading this week that there were estimates that we have killed as many as 25,000 terrorists in Iraq. Tactically, the more they expose themsselves in a Tet-like offensive, the better for our attrition plans. By the way, you are aware that the Tet offensive was a crippling defeat of the Viet Cong after which they were never again a fighting force?

And in the end, as Tommy Franks said, its better to be fighting them there than here.

Fallujah: We lost several Marines while taking 1/3-1/2 the city, then stopped and pull back. This was Sanchez' plan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fallujah is an unfinished story. In World War II we bypassed Japanese strong points and strangled them. I have read counter-terrorism posts at Belmont Club indicating that letting terrorists gather and grow sloppy before killing them in mass in a place like Fallujah can be very effective.

Sadr-city: We fought for more than 2 weeks, then let Sadr go!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you read that thousands of Iraqi's demonstrated against Sadr this weekend? He is a discredited loser, who lost many many young men. Clauzwitz would have very much approved the combination of political and military strategy that brought this conclusion.

We're not serious about winning, otherwise we would be exterminating the 5000-10,000 unfriendlies in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See my first post. Are you reading Chrenkoff's blogg?

Here is what was publshed from his site in today's Wall Street Journal:

On the security front, while sporadic fighting and terrorist activity continue, there are also some positive developments. In Baghdad, there are indications that the public support for insurgency might be waning: "Overwhelmingly residents of the war-torn area voiced their frustration and anger at the militia, noting that they were tired of the civilian casualties, tired of being without basic services and wanting nothing more than to get back to their normal life," says Cpl. Benjamin Cossel with the First Cavalry Division.

From Najaf, more evidence emerges of the behavior of Muqtada al Sadr's militia during the recent fighting--see this post by Iraqi blogger Zeyad. And another Iraqi blogger, Omar, reports on the recent statement by Iraqi clerics condemning the atrocities committed by al Sadr and his followers while in control of Najaf.

The Iraqi security apparatus is playing an increasingly important role. The Iraqi police force is at the forefront of struggle for better order, most of the time under difficult conditions and at great personal risk:

Iraqi police cadet Meqdad al-Izzawi once served Saddam Hussein as a navy officer. Now, he says he is taking one of the most dangerous jobs in the new Iraq because he wants to serve his people.
"My hope is to execute the law in Iraq and restore stability to the Iraqi people, because we never enjoyed security, even under Saddam Hussein," said the 28-year-old al-Izzawi, one of 1,559 Iraqi recruits attending basic police training at a U.S.-run camp in the Jordanian desert.

Like al-Izzawi, fellow Iraqi recruit Abdul-Razzaq al-Qaissi signed up for the new police force because he was incensed by growing terrorism at home by insurgents and foreign fighters, including Jordanian militant Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi.

"Al-Zarqawi and other terrorists are a source of concern to my countrymen and we have to put an end to their actions," said al-Qaissi, 28, who served as a soldier in the domestic security division of Saddam's dismantled army, guarding vital institutions, like government offices and diplomatic missions in Iraq.

With Western assistance, more and more Iraqi police officers find their way onto their beats. Says a British brigadier who is helping to rebuild the force:

Why would anyone want to be a police officer in Iraq? It's dangerous, no question. But there has never been a problem recruiting. We're training 5,000 new officers every eight weeks.
Obviously, one reason is the pay: $220 a month is a lot here. But most officers say they want to serve their country. They want to build a better Iraq. Their nation has such potential; fulfilling it requires security, and they want to be part of that. . . .

We were late to recognize that without an effective police force, we're going to be here a lot longer. But now we have 500 international police advisers and 200 police trainers. The FBI and DEA have arrived to teach intelligence. We've put 23,000 officers through leadership courses at three different levels.

Meanwhile, the police force is chalking up some successes, like breaking up the biggest kidnapping ring in Baghdad, responsible for taking several government officials and scientists for ransom. The gang was composed of criminals amnestied by Saddam Hussein in 2002. In a related, albeit this time moral, victory, the most senior Sunni religious body in Iraq, the ulema, has issues a fatwa, declaring hostage-taking to be un-Islamic and ordering that all hostages be released.
It's not just the police, but also the army, which is proving their worth. "The Iraqi security forces, every day, are proving themselves more capable and more fit," says Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, the multinational forces' deputy operations director. The report notes that "besides being called in to restore law and order in Najaf and elsewhere across the country, Iraq's security forces also have been responsible for discovering a number of explosive devices and weapons caches in recent weeks. For example, Iraqi National Guard members found a huge cache of weapons and ordnance Aug. 26 during a joint raid conducted with U.S. Marines on a home near Haswah, according to a Multinational Force Iraq news release. About 132 107 mm rockets were seized during the raid, the release stated, as well as seven 57 mm rockets, 10 AK-47 assault rifles, seven 125 mm tank rounds, five rocket-propelled grenade launchers, 124 RPG rounds, 200 mortar rounds, bomb-making materials and improvised explosive devices."

Another report notes: "Joint U.S. and Iraqi forces have arrested 500 suspected insurgents in a major raid in the majority Sunni town of Al-Latifiyah, south of Baghdad. The raid--the first undertaken in the Sunni triangle by the new Iraqi interim government--highlights the increasingly frontline role of Iraqi forces in security operations." Meanwhile, a new Iraqi army base reopens:

The pace is way too slow. We are trying to do this operation without breaking any dishes, and to please public opinion.

Public Opinion wouldn't matter if we were serious. The parameters for use of force would be loosened up to complete the job-world opinion be damned.

More Americans will likely have to be rubbed out at home before we get serious, I'm sorry to say. I only hope it isn't too bad, or too late.

That's how I see it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.