Posted on 08/09/2007 9:22:00 AM PDT by Mediahawk
It's certainly premature to make any hard and fast predictions at this point, but could it be that the tide of war in Iraq is turning in favor of the U.S. and the Iraqi military and that the nightmare that the left and the Democrats have been dreading --- defeat of the insurgents and terrorists --- is about to be visited on them? As observed by William Kristol in the Weekly Standard and Michael Barone in the political website Realclearpolitics.com, some recent developments seem to point to a positive turn in the war for the U.S. and the Bush administration. One of the most significant, as noted by Kristol is the fact that two leftist scholars who are no fans of Bush, Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution, recently penned an opinion piece in the New York Times in which they expressed guarded optimism that the war might after all be winnable . Kristol's piece is particularly noteworthy. He was one of the neo-conservatives who strongly pushed Bush to topple Saddam Hussein. However unlike many other neo-cons and initial supporters of the war he did not break away from Bush when his administration seemed to be botching the prosecution of the war. Neo-cons like Richard Perle were some of the most aggressive advocates of the Iraq invasion. But no sooner did the war seem to be a lost cause or another Vietnam than they turned against Bush and practically joined cause with the anti-war left to undermine him at his most weakened moments. Talk of fair-weather friends and allies. But Kristol faithfully stayed the course. He continued to back the war to the hilt and very importantly and beyond that, served as one of the most positive critics of the administration's prosecution of the war, rightly warning Bush against any attempt to retreat before the job was done. The consequences of retreating in defeat would haunt the U.S. for decades, he kept stressing. The only course was to stay the course, as difficult as it might be, until an honorable conclusion was arrived at. So given his consistent defence of the war and the possibility that history might ultimately vindicate his judgment, it's necessary to hear what Kristol has to say in regard to the recent events.
Hot July brings cooling showers, / Apricots and gillyflowers, as Sara Coleridge's doggerel has it. But for the American antiwar movement, this July brought only a cold drizzle, wilted blossoms, and bitter fruit.
For the Iraq war's opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military analysts--Democrats, no less!--reporting that the situation on the ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable. It began with a plan for a series of votes in Congress that were supposed to stampede nervous Republicans against the continued prosecution of the war. It ended with the GOP spine stiffened, no antiwar legislation passed, and the Democratic Congress adjourning in disarray, with approval ratings lower than President Bush's. It began with Democratic presidential candidates competing in their antiwar pandering. It ended with them having second thoughts--with Barack Obama, losing ground to Hillary Clinton because he seemed naive about real world threats, frantically suggesting that he would invade Pakistan.
July also began with the liberal media disparaging the troops. It ended with the liberal media in retreat. The New Republic had to acknowledge that its pseudonymous soldier's account of an incident purportedly showing the dehumanizing effects of the Iraq conflict was a lie: It had taken place in Kuwait (if it happened at all), before this imaginative private ever saw the horrors of war. The New York Times was so shocked to discover in late July that public opinion hadn't continued to move against the war that it redid a poll. The answer didn't change.
This last incident, though minor, is revealing. On July 24 the Times reported that a new survey had found an increase in the number of Americans retrospectively backing the liberation of Iraq:Americans' support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. . . . Support for the invasion had been at an all-time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out. In the Times's view, as explained on its website, this result was "counterintuitive"--so much so that the editors had the poll repeated to see whether they had "gotten it right." Turns out they had.
Kristol pointed out correctly that there is indeed very deep opposition against the war across the country. However, as he noted, recent opinion polls seem to indicate that the opposition may be softening.
In the real world, the public is skeptical of the administration's stance on Iraq--but not overwhelmingly or irretrievably so. Here's what a new Rasmussen poll says: "Twenty-five percent of voters now say the troop surge is working and another 26 percent say it's too soon to tell. A month ago, just 19 percent considered the surge a success and 24 percent said it was too early to tell." This means that 51 percent are now at least open to giving the policy more time. That's up from 43 percent a month ago.Given the mistakes the Bush administration has made over the past four years, given the real challenges still ahead, given mainstream media bias in general and the lag in public understanding of what has happened in the last three months on the ground in Iraq in particular, these numbers aren't bad. And they're moving in the right direction. The public remains more sensible than much of elite opinion--and more open to new facts. That's good, since progress on the ground in Iraq is likely to continue. It can't be taken for granted, given the nature of a war against a ruthless and adaptable enemy. Still, one British general--no cheerleader for our conduct of the war in the past--told me in Baghdad last week, "It's getting better--and I don't see why it shouldn't continue to do so." And, despite the mainstream media, reports of that progress should continue to seep into the American public's consciousness. "This war is lost," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated without qualification a few months ago, adding that it required "blind hope, blind trust" to believe in progress of any sort. But Reid is now in the position of holding blindly to his embrace of defeat. He has to deny facts in order to sustain his bleak judgment.
Columnist Michael Barone made similar points in an article in the political website realclearpolitics.com. He noted O'Hanlon's and Pollack's break from the gloom and doom forecasts of their fellow leftists and expressed the belief that after so many months in a seemingly endless long night of defeats, victory might just be possible . Barone went down the lanes of history to remind Democrats and the left that war is in a way like the wind. It's unpredictable. Now it it blows for you. Now it blows against you.
Wars don't stand still. In June 1942, the House of Commons debated a resolution of no confidence in Winston Churchill's government. Four months later came the war-changing victory at El Alamein.
For a long while now the winds of war have been blowing and blowing very strongly against the U.S. troops and the Bush administration. But may be, just may be it's just beginning to blow for the White House and General Petraeus and his men in Baghdad, Tikrit, and other theaters of war in Iraq. If that is the case, then may be the nightmare the Democrats have been dreaming and dreading have become a living reality that will pursue them right up to election day in November 2008.
Gen. David Petraeus, the author of the Army's new counterinsurgency manual and the commander in Iraq, is scheduled to report on the surge in mid-September. The prospect of an even partially positive report has sent chills up the spines of Democratic leaders in Congress. That, says House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, would be "a real big problem for us."The Democratic base has been furious that Democrats in Congress haven't pulled the plug on the war already, and Democratic strategists have been anticipating big electoral gains from military defeat. But if the course of the war can change, so can public opinion. A couple of recent polls showed increased support for the decision to go to war and belief that the surge is working. If opinion continues to shift that way, if others come to see things as O'Hanlon and Pollack have, Democrats could find themselves trapped between a base that wants retreat and defeat, and a majority that wants victory.
President Bush made a blunder by prematurely and triumphantly declaring victory aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 just after the U.S. troops swept Saddam's forces aside and captured Baghdad. But may be the Democrats have made an even bigger blunder by calling the war a lost cause and demanding retreat in defeat. In April, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D - Nev.) practically declared the war as lost . Here are his exact words:
"Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything."
Up to now because of the great cost in blood and money the public's opposition to the war has been growing. But if by a favorable confuence of factors the war shifts favorably for the U.S. around election time next year, then the Democrats might pay a heavy political price --- and be made to understand that it never pays to wish defeat on your own country for partisan political gains.
Just seeing how the leftwingnut websites are doing to O’Halon and Pallock is revealing.
The Surge is Working and Victory is Near
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
O’Hanlon has been especially vilified by the left. He’s getting the Linda Tripp treatment.
Then add 12 more active Army brigades and 8 more Marine brigades to TURN UP THE HEAT IN IRAQ.
There are common and many well known ratios in combat attacking force should be 3 to 4 times the combat strength of the opposing force. We have used technology and combined arms to increase the combat effectiveness of our ground units.
However, occupation and passification requires NUMBERS not efficiency. These two post battle actions are inhibited by a low number of troops on the ground. An this is the trap that our modern military has fallen into. Smaller, lighter and more lethal works in combat but not in post combat operations.
The rule of thumb is that you need 5 times the number of the enemy to patrol an area... 8 times to occupy and 10 to 12 times to passify that same area.
As we did in the Pacific after Midway, the rest is "mopping up." Sometimes it's incredibly bloody, as was the case at Iwo Jima, but the outcome was already sealed. At any point, of course, our "wise" leaders can pull out.
Yes, history will be the judge of what happens. History in the future will tell us that our actions in Iraq helped lead to a safer world in which Al Qaeda, Hammas, etc. were finally defeated. But it’s not apparent now, and certain people have a vested interest in not wanting us to succeed for political reasons.
O’Hanlon has been especially vilified by the left. He’s getting the Linda Tripp treatment.
so I’m hearing and seeing the past few days.
this is why Democrats can’t be trusted on national defense issues. They are so comfortable misrepresenting everything for political gain, they can’t be counted on to defend the country from the real threats.
It is still so frustrating how the liberals and the MSM distorted and repeated this so much that it has now apparently become the conventional understanding. I didn't hear him say the war was over and we had won. All I heard him do was congratulate our military for an outstanding job in the first phase of the conflict - defeating Saddam's regular forces. The fact that liberals can't understand the difference between facing regular uniformed soldiery armed with heavy military equipment and irregular terrorists taking pot shots at you as they hide among the population just goes to show how ignorant and unsuited they are to lead this country in a time of war.
The tide has always been in Americas favor since kick-ass day one.
Only the media kept this from the American people.
The rule of thumb is that you need 5 times the number of the enemy to patrol an area... 8 times to occupy and 10 to 12 times to passify that same area.
Victory in Iraq is the ‘Rats’ worst nightmare.
“The Nightmare of Democrats: The Tide of Iraq War Might be Turning in Favor of the U.S.”
An inconvenient truth that the MSM will make every effort to conceal. President Bush apparently gave some favorable news at a White House meeting with several talk radio hosts which included Laura Ingrahm and Glenn Beck. Does anyone have the skinny on what was said? (Laura and Glenn aren’t saying.)
If the Stupid Party doesn't trumpet that fact loud and long to the American people, it deserves (once again) to lose. Seriously, when you have "leaders" of the other party basically drooling at the prospect of us losing, of this country being humiliated as it was in Vietnam, of the consequences (a million or more Iraqis butchered, and Iran in control of the whole region) be damned, so long as it helps them get into power - how on Earth can you lose if the public gives a hoot about this country?
Sometimes I wonder if we're worse off with the Evil Party or the Stupid Party.
We now know that Reagan allowed "leaks" of technology to the Russkies of stuff that was deliberately "fixed" to pass all the tests, then fail in the first real operation. This resulted in the pipeline bursting.
We also know that Reagan allowed a single SDI test to be "rigged" in 1984 to convince the Soviets that we were on the brink of deploying. It worked. But, of course, you could argue that this was "lying to Congress."
With that in mind, the question keeps returning, "Why did Bush give up so easily on the WMDs?" He obviously knows something---that pushing it would expose Russia's complicity, or Syria, or someone else, and then we'd have to take action. Former Cong. Curt Weldon said that the actions of Iran in terrorist activities were beyond question, but that if we admitted it, we'd have to take action, and aren't yet in a position to do so.
A lot of pieces will fit together over time.
How would you like to belong to a Party that America winning a War is Bad for you??
Pray for W and Our Troops
They would go ballistic, which would actually confirm his point.
His present plan seems to be to let the Dems dig their own hole, maybe that's more effective.
Your observations are greatly appreciated, LS.
It’s good to hear from you again.
(steely)
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.