Posted on 08/09/2007 10:40:40 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Even some critics of President Bush's Iraq war policies are conceding there is evidence of recent improvements from a military standpoint. But Bush supporters and critics alike agree that these have not been matched by any noticeable progress on the political front.
Despite U.S. pressure, Iraq's parliament went on vacation for a month after failing to pass either legislation to share the nation's oil wealth or to reconcile differences among the factions. And nearly all Sunni representatives in the government have quit, undermining the legitimacy of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite.
Still, there have been signs of changes in attitudes, some on the ground in Iraq, some in the United States:
_Two critics of Bush's recent handling of Iraq, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both of the Brookings Institution, penned an op-ed opinion piece in The New York Times suggesting after a visit that "we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms." They recommended Congress sustain the current troop buildup "at least into 2008."
_Leading anti-war Democrat Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania predicted that U.S. commanders will begin drawing down troop levels early next year and that Congress can be more flexible in setting a fixed deadline for ending the U.S. occupation.
_Polls suggest that Bush has had some degree of success in linking Islamic militants in Iraq with the al-Qaida terrorist movement.
"The administration is aggressively engaged in shifting (public) attitudes. And our side has been less aggressive than it needs to be," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. "The administration has been making inroads on their Iraqi argument, particularly linking it to terrorism."
After sliding to just 28 percent in June, within range of an all-time low, Bush's job approval rating on handling Iraq rose slightly to 31 percent in July, according to AP-Ipsos polling. And a recent CBS/NYT poll showed an increase in the percentage of Americans who think the U.S. did the right thing in going to war with Iraq, up to 42 percent from 35 percent in May.
"I don't claim our recommendation to keep surging into 2008 is a no-brainer. That can be debated. But I think people's opinions need to catch up with the battlefield facts," O'Hanlon said in an interview.
The op-ed piece he wrote with Pollack has been widely circulated by war supporters but denounced by many war critics. "As long as people start to get a sense that what's happening on the battlefield is different and better than what it was, then I feel like we've made our contribution," said O'Hanlon.
O'Hanlon and Pollack supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but they have been sharply critical of the administration's handling of the aftermath.
Like the Iraqi parliament, Congress has recessed for the rest of August, to return in September — when an eagerly awaited progress report on Iraq will be presented by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
Bush previewed that report on Thursday, telling a news conference, "My own perspective is that they (Iraqis) have made some progress but not enough. I fully recognize this is a difficult assignment."
What lawmakers hear from their constituents during the next month could do a lot to shape the Iraq debate ahead of receiving that report.
Visiting Iraq, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said Wednesday from Baghdad that American-led forces were "making some measurable progress, but it's slow going."
"As our troops show some progress toward security, the government of this nation is moving in the opposite direction. This is really unsustainable with the American people," Durbin said in an interview with National Public Radio.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that Petraeus' plan was "producing good results. And the troops have achieved tactical momentum against al-Qaida. ...We're anxious to see what General Petraeus has to say in September. It will be a watershed moment in our efforts in Iraq."
Petraeus asserted that "we are making progress. We have achieved tactical momentum in many areas, especially against al-Qaida Iraq, and to a lesser degree against the militia extremists." Still, he told Fox News on Tuesday that "there are innumerable challenges."
Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said, progress there "is a very mixed bag." After visiting Iraq, Cordesman cited recent military successes against al-Qaida terrorists — but said there has been less progress against Shiite extremist groups.
"I think senior Iraqi political leaders are talking to each other, but they're doing it around the prime minister (al-Maliki). It's not clear the prime minister is exerting any great leadership toward conciliation," Cordesman said.
"Barring a miracle, there will be very little political progress to point to in mid-September," Cordesman said Thursday in a briefing on his trip.
Michele Flournoy, a former Pentagon defense strategist and now president of the Center for a New American Security, said that "the clock in Washington is running down pretty fast. There's sort of a wall next March-April. That's when they'll have to start replacing units, which will hit the 15-month mark." Bush recently extended tours of duty from 12 months to 15 months.
"They're going to have some very tough choices then. Either the 'surge' will de facto end and they'll start bringing people out because there's no units to replace them. Or you're going to have to have a presidential decision to extend tours from 15 months to 18 months," Flournoy said.
Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think tank that follows defense issues, cites "significant progress" on the military front. "There's the backlash against al-Qaida in Anbar Province. There's a reduction in attacks in Baghdad. And there's the ongoing stabilization efforts in the suburban belt around Baghdad," Thompson said.
"The problem is that nobody in the United States sees any significant progress on the political front. The Shiites and Sunni factions in the government don't seem to be able to get along. And that makes Congress wonder whether we're making any real progress. Because, even with better security, the country can't figure out how to take care of itself," Thompson added.
To all the rabid Iraq critics. Security has be the first goal. ONCE you fix the security problems, then it is possible to have political and economic progress. It a false choice being presented here.
Democrats and their enablers in the US Junk Media are once again simply changing the standard because they are losing the argument.
Great news.
And news I expected.
The fact that the press actually promoted the idea that "Al-Qaeda In Iraq" is not part of Al-Qaeda continues to amaze me.
< / leftist rant>
Prior to the war the libs told us there would be tens of thousands of American military dead because Saddam's army was tough, huge, motivated. The libs were wrong.
They then told us we would not be successful until Saddam was caught. When he was caught, the libs told us it was no big deal.
Then the libs told us it was fantasy to believe that the Iraqis could actually hold elections. Well, we all remember the purple fingers. But then the libs told us the vote was no big deal and meant nothing.
Then the libs told us the Iraqis would never be able to put together a constitution. When the Iraqis did do it, the libs told us it was no big deal.
Then the libs told us the war was lost, that a surge would only make things worse. Now, they are admitting that the surge is working and things are getting better. But libs are libs. They will always put a negative spin on anything they do not believe in.
The negative spin now is "Well, the surge may be working, but the Iraqi government will never function".
The libs also tell us that if things turn around, that the American military and Iraqi security forces start to win (which they have already admitted), that it would be, and I quote, "A problem for the Democrats".
It is a very sad day when members of the American leadership (which is what the Congress is) tell us that if America wins the war, if the American military makes gains, turns the tide, that it is a 'problem' for certain American leaders.
Rather than being adult, being true leaders, and telling us it is GREAT that we have finally turned the tide, that it is GOOD for our country, they say winning is a problem.
Never forget that message that the Dims themselves have uttered:
An American victory is bad. Which implies that an American loss is good.
That would be grudgingly concede. If that. The Democrats worst nightmare would be success for our troops in Iraq and success for the vast majority of Iraqi people that want peace and stability.
Our troops are doing their part very well. The Iraqi politicians are failing to do their part.
The Surge is Working and the Rats are Trapped
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
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.