Posted on 07/30/2007 1:24:37 PM PDT by r-q-tek86
On Sunday, NewsBusters reported a shocking discussion that ensued on "The Chris Matthews Show" wherein five liberal media members actually debated why America shouldn't withdraw its troops from Iraq.
Maybe more shocking, the following day, an op-ed was published in the New York Times claiming that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, "morale is high," and, as a result, this is "a war we just might win."
Adding to the shock is that this piece was written by two members of the Brookings Institution, which even Wikipedia acknowledges is "widely regarded as being politically liberal." The authors - Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack - described themselves as "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq."
Not anymore. Better prepare yourself for an alternate reality (emphasis added throughout):
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, at least in military terms. 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.
Shocking. But it got even better:
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops...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.
And, the numbers speak for themselves:
[C]ivilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began - though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
[...]
[T]hings look much better than before. 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).
Amazing, wouldn't you agree. Yet, the best was still to come:
In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Maybe most shocking, the authors, almost speaking directly to dovish Democrats in Congress as well as those running for president, concluded:
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
How extraordinary to read this in the New York Times.
That makes sense, and then when they realized it will be so obvious by middle of Setptember, they are circling the wagons to announce there is some success.
I have a funny feeling this may also be related to all the “Terror” related discussions a couple weeks back.Like I said, time will tell. But Democrats are not doing this for the good of the country. It is to protect the Democratic party.
Gator, what you said makes the most sense.
I’m glad Bush isn’t repeating the disastrous mistakes Truman made.
In 1945, the US freed South Korea from Japan.
In 1949, President Truman withdrew our troops from S. Korea.
In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea and occupied much of the country.
In 1950, Truman sent US troops BACK to fight in Korea. Truman told the American people, via a radio address, that the US roops were going to fight a police action against bandits.
From June 1950 to January 1953, (the remaining 30 months of Truman’s presidency) 30,000 Americans died in Korea and the severest censorship in memory was imposed on US correspondence out of Korea.
*****The Korean War would not have taken place if Truman had not withdrawn our troops from South Korea. *****
We should have maintained a strong presence in South Korea, just as we did in Germany and Japan.
We should maintain a strong presence in Iraq.
Clearly the New York Times gave them the green light, the withdrawal surge isn’t working. So how do the Democrats climb down from defeat?
The libs know that serious progress is being made and that Gen. Petraeus will be reporting results that cannot be dismissed.
Staying on the wrong side of this will turn the public against them and they’ll have no out from being branded as the losers they are.
They realized they couldn't swim against the tide of positive news out of Iraq and public support of Bush by Brown.
It’s a start. Now how about an apology to the Commander-in-Chief for the shameless pummeling they gave him in the press over the last four years. How about a hat-in-hand, “you-were-absolutely-right” apology. . . .
I’ll wait.
The NYT did a poll and found out more people than ever supported the original invasion. They couldn’t believe the results and took the same poll again. Same results.
When they start openly trashing Hillery, we’ll know something is up.
This has always been about politics. That's why I'm somewhat sanguine about Hillary. If she wins, then the libs will finally be on board for the WoT.
I was discussing 2008 with a lib the other day and I made two assertions: (1) No one is leaving Iraq, neither Hillary nor the GOP candidate; and (2) HillaryCare is going nowhere - Sicko bombed and, unlike 15 years ago, there's plenty of evidence coming in from Canada/UK that socialized healthcare is a nightmare.
I concluded that the only difference between the GOP & Hillary would perhaps be judges. If we're not in Iran before 1/2009, then Hillary will take us there as well.
Judges would be the one thing I would fear the most, we finally are returning to normalcy in the courst... Hitlery would condemn my children and my grandchildren to another 40 years of hippie nonsense.
As CIC, GWB gets the blame. But if you think this war was winnable 2 years ago, you have been watching too many TV shows where it’s all neatly wrapped up at the end.
We are fighting foes that think and adapt, not predictable TV characters. We are following textbook counterinsurgency strategy rather than just razing the place. The latter would just make things worse.
Have a little patience. It has been a remarkably successful war in terms of limited US casualities and limited structural damage to a society that was rotten to the core. If the weak sisters do not prevail, Iraq will be a US ally for generations to come.
Exactly. Which is why the obvious choice is the GOP.
But at least the nightmare scenario of retreating from Iraq/WoT + giving the country to Mexico seems to have been greatly diminished.
Not really, the Times is just hedging its bet.
GEN Shinseki told Rumsfeld that we needed between 400,000 to 600,000 troops to secure Iraq before the invasion. Rumsfeld told him that with modern technology we need only 250,000 troops. GEN Shinseki disagree, Rumsfeld fired him and any general that would not agree with his lower numbers. Guess Shinseki was right.
Smells to me like their internal polling tells the Dems to lay off the military bashing......
Clearly Hillary will benefit most from this for once truthful reporting. Obama and the others are falling all over themselves about how quickly they will pull out the troops with ridiculous time lines like March 2008 or even by the end of 2007. Hillary is the only one of the Dems who looks presidential and if the war is going better she can say well we can’t pull out just yet.
No disrespect intended, but I'm not buying that. We have been fighting a war in two tiny nations, sustaining minimal deaths relative to all other wars in this nation's history. All of this is happening in the context of a much larger strategic theater that includes the entire middle east, as well as defeating the public thinking and propaganda of Old Europe and liberals in the USA. On top of that, we have protected the homeland from further attacks.
My point is that the area of military fighting is in a small geographic area of the real war and has allowed us to identify our real enemies geopolitically.
Get off the administration's back. We have a great economy and we feel generally safe. Can the man get no credit at all?
I think you've summed it up well.
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.