Posted on 08/07/2007 1:24:04 PM PDT by Contentions
The evidence of gains being made on the ground in Iraq continues to pile up.
See, for instance, this article by Robert Burns, the Associated Press’s veteran military writer. Burns has just returned from his 18th trip to Iraq to report: “The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working.”
Or this new report by Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He traveled to Iraq with Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution recently, and while his findings are not quite as positive as theirs, he nevertheless writes: “While all the half-truths and spin of the past have built up a valid distrust of virtually anything the Administration says about Iraq, real military progress is taking place and the U.S. team in Baghdad is actively seeking matching political and economic progress.”
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Yep, we just needed a real leader like General Petraeus to go in there and do what he does best: WIN!
UPDATE: Stuart Koehl of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University-SAIS writes in with a good point: The error being made—on your part as well as by others—is assuming that progress can only be made at the level of the national government. In fact, under the Iraqi constitution, the national government is rather weak, while traditionally real political power has been wielded on the local and regional level. And it is precisely at the local and regional level that we see real progress being made with regard both to power sharing and national reconciliation. Because of the social and constitutional structure of Iraq, political progress cannot be imposed from the top-down, but must percolate from the bottom up. To some extent, the members of the national assembly and the unity government are merely play-acting, posturing for the cameras until such time as a consensus emerges on the local level that will prompt them to act. The success of our counter-insurgency effort on the political front is not measured in the assembly chamber, but in the tribal councils. And there, we are definitely winning.
Again, I’d like to remind everyone-—especially the drive-bys-—that the French, whom they love, had their little revolution in 1789 and it wasn’t until the 1890s they had a government free from “civil wars.” Moreover, it wasn’t until the late 1950s they had ANY kind of “stable” government whatsoever. But the Iraqis? By damn, they better get it right in five years.
Boot is one of those analysts---mostly on our side, to be sure---who views war as "controllable." In other words, we 'made mistakes,' and there were 'blunders.' I tend to think that war is war, and that the enemy gets a vote. Don't take this the wrong way---it's bloody, but there is something of a chess movement to war: you move, he counters, you counter, he counters. It's silly to call these counters "errors" or "blunders." Custer was a blunder. Isandlwana was a blunder. But not realizing that Saddam's army would dissipate rather than fight? Countermove.
Yeah, we went through Jay Garner and Jerry Bremer on the diplomatic front. Big deal. Lincoln went through SIX generals (counting McClellan once) to get to Grant. Truman had to relieve not only MacArthur, but other generals before he stabilized Korea. The British landed on Monty after some flops. It's war.
Domestic opponents of the surge must be sweating, and just can’t wait until the next big spectacular suicide bombing (what the insurgents and Al Qaeda do in response to being squeezed) to declare more failure.
That said, the US body politic has been so dumbed down and "fickleized" that it is incredible that this conflict has the support it does. Even more unbelievable is the support given the enemy by the Democrats and MSM. Were the latter honest and equally supportive of our goals and frank about the real stakes, we would be much farther along to victory on all fronts. Thankfully, I think, we will prevail despite them...
On top of that, most of the media then was patriotic. You should see the headlines I show my students from WW I and II. They use terms like "Great advance by Marines," "Army slaughters Hun!" When Blackjack Pershing left NY to go to Europe as General of the AEF, everyone in the press knew when he was leaving and on what ship, and without even being ASKED by the White House, they voluntarily withheld the info until he was safely there.
‘Morning. Oh, to have that ammo on our side these days. Let there be victory and karma for those that deserve 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.