A Wave of Change on Iraq
- Posted by Justin Higgins on August 6th, 2007 in
When a New York Times editorial came out saying progress was being made in Iraq, written by two liberals, I said it marked a shifting tide. The under-reported good news has been flooding in, and two Brookings Institute liberals took notice. They also helped a lot of other folks notice, and a monumental shift in perception is occurring in the United States. From Michael Barone at Real Clear Politics:
It's not often that an opinion article shakes up Washington and changes the way a major issue is viewed. But that happened last week, when The New York Times printed an opinion article by Brookings Institution analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack on the progress of the surge strategy in Iraq.
Yes, progress. O'Hanlon and Pollack supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Pollack even wrote a book urging the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- but they have sharply criticized military operations there in the ensuing years.
They supported the war in 2003... but didn't everyone? It was politically trendy to support the invasion. They, like many others on the left, changed their mind, and it appears these two men might have started a shift back to pro-victory. This type of sensible thinking is rare, but does occur on the left. Blue dog Democrats don't want to support surrender, it's not their nature. Too bad the blue dogs are the massive minority in their own party though. Barone nails it:
That's not what almost all their fellow Democrats in Congress want to hear. Freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, who unseated Republican Jim Ryun last fall, bolted from a hearing room when retired Gen. Jack Keane described positive developments in Iraq. When she came back, she explained: "But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation -- things are going so well -- those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country, instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem. And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue."
Boyda understands that victory in Iraq would be the end of her political career in the beautiful red state Kansas. That being said, Democrats would be well suited to straddle the fence on the issue until Patraeus gives his progress report on the surge. They may want to play left for their base, but if the news is as good as it's looking now come September, they'll just look foolish. No suprise there.
My goodness
Quite a laundry list of things to get to here.
>The surge is working.
By what metrics are you basing this?
>You just admitted that the terrorists
>are foreign based, not Iraqi
No, he admitted that the "rule" in Iraq is aligned with Iran. The government of Iraq is Shia dominated, and therefore aligned with Iran. You misread his statement.
The terrorists are definitely not from there, however, as they are Sunni extremists. They most likely came from training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with help in funding and arms from Sunnis in Saudi Arabia.
>and that this is terrorism, not "insurgency",
>that this is foreign based terror
Nobody is arguing that foreign-based terrorism doesn't exist in Iraq. However, according to the people in charge, that's not our primary concern. From Time magazine this week:
"Attacks against U.S. forces were down sharply last month nationwide, and military officials have expressed cautious optimism that a security crackdown is working. At the same time, the number of attacks launched by breakaway factions of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia has increased, said Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. second-in-command.
He did not provide a total number of militia attacks. But he said 73 percent of the attacks that wounded or killed U.S. troops last month in Baghdad were launched by Shiite militiamen, nearly double the figure six months earlier."
Shiite militiamen, not Sunni extremists. Not Al Qaeda. Shia insurgents.
>not Iraqis wanting the Americans to leave
From the Washington Post last September, quoting a poll done by our own State Department:
"A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence"
>You just admitted that Iran is behind
>this for their own reasons
Just as an aside, a joke I heard about this: What's the difference between Tehran and Washington, D.C.? Tehran has a plan for Iraq.
>Victory is coming, the success that was
>promised is coming
This was the heart of Steve's post. You guys have been saying this for five years. It's getting old. And repeating it hasn't managed to make it so.
>Had it ever occurred to you that you
>are fundamentally disturbed in WANTING
>defeat in Iraq?
From Wikipedia:
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."
These arguments aren't made because we or anyone else critical of the president want defeat in Iraq. That's ridiculous on its face. Has it occurred to you that you're supporting policies that have repeatedly led us on the road to defeat in Iraq?
>Can you hear me laughing at you?
>Cindy of the Ditch
>They told me people like you existed..
>but I said "nah, only in the zoo."
>You really need help, you know that?
That must be some of the high-minded debate that the right insists they always bring to the table. The left is all about hate, the right is all about reason. Uh huh.
uh-huh
Which part of that doesn't describe America? Just curious.
Plus, what's your definition of victory? I showed you mine.
Thanks, Steve, for
Thanks, Steve, for absolutely and completely not answering my question at all.
PunditGuy, you say, "...victory in Iraq would look like a stable, democratically-elected, secular country with a strong economy that spreads the hope of self-government to a region in desperate need of it."
We can't get that in America, so if that's your definition of victory, indeed, you'll never see it -- but I bet Iraq gets closer to that definition than America does in the next 10 years.
There will be victory in
There will be victory in Iraq. The surge is working. The people are finding their feet, and a fledgling democracy is finally getting its chance to move forward.
You just admitted that the terrorists are foreign based, not Iraqi, and that this is terrorism, not "insurgency", that this is foreign based terror,not Iraqis wanting the Americans to leave.
You just admitted that Iran is behind this for their own reasons, and you just proved why victory is so crucial.
Oh dear.Poor you.
Victory is coming, the success that was promised is coming....and all those hopes of defeat and jumping up and down and screeching"I told you so" are falling by the way side...and oh man, that sticks in your craw, doesn't it?
Had it ever occurred to you that you are fundamentally disturbed in WANTING defeat in Iraq? That you are revelling in the chance of failure for the single perverted reason of " attacking the NeoCons?"
Really...that's sick..even for you.
And as for Jan 2009..i think he will do that just fine..and oh yeah, you can't stand that fact either can you? The President will enjoy a long vacation, where he won't have to listen to the screechings of idiots like you.
There will be no impeachment and there never will be... Karl Rove was not indicted,the Plame mess was and is a joke....al;l thoise "hopes iof getting him" have proven to be...nothing.
Can you hear me laughing at you?
Even your "peace mom" Cindy of the Ditch has reached and passed her use by date. Running against Pelosi..oh brother, is she in for a rude, brutal lesson in politics.
It's over for you...you got nothing of what you wanted, and all you ever wanted was to hurt America in favour of your own perverted agenda. They told me people like you existed..but I said "nah, only in the zoo."
You lose, and the American spirit prevails.
If you hate the US so much, go live under El Presidente for Life Chavez..we won't miss you.
You really need help, you know that? You have one of the worst cases of BDS and gibbering moonbat syndrome I have seen in a long time.
Please..get help.
Soon.
"Victory"
"Victory" in Iraq, as promised by neoConservative speeches about a "Shining Example of Democracy" in the Middle East (Iraq) is not longer possible. George W. Bush squandered any chance of that, along with hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives when he permitted "The Greatest Secretary of Defense in History" (Cheney's words) to bungle the occupation without a word.
So, instead of living in fear of Saddam, Iraqis live in fear of Shia or Sunni militias kidnapping them and drilling holes in their head with electric drills.
Iraqis have a lower standard of living, less electricity, water and sewage disposal than under Saddam. And, instead of living in a secular dictatorship, now live under Islamic law, complete with honor killings and rule by mullahs aligned with Iran.
Victory, after Bush Administration bungling, is left to the US getting out of Iraq, not expending $300 million PER DAY, and losing hundreds of lives a year. The Sunnis, Kurds (unless Turkey invades, as they are threatening to do right now), and Shia will have to sort out the mess themselves, with the assistance of Saudi Arabia (which is funding the Sunni militias right now) and Iranians (who supported the Shia leaders for years and retain their loyalty, even while participating in the current Iraqi "government", that does not exist beyond the Green Zone).
That is going to be a terrible result, with dire consequences for all. But that is all that is left. NeoConservative declarations that "we just might win" are fantasy, with no real chance of actually happening. Their only purpose is to stall the day of reckoning to another president so George W. Bush (the man Conservatives consider the equal of Abraham Lincoln) can run out the clock to January 2009.
The lives that are wasted in the mean time mean nothing to these individuals.
"They supported the war in
"They supported the war in 2003... but didn't everyone?"
Only in the bubble you live in to protect yourself from reality.
Can't speak for Steve
...but victory in Iraq would look like a stable, democratically-elected, secular country with a strong economy that spreads the hope of self-government to a region in desperate need of it.
I'd also like a pony, and a million dollars, please.
There is no victory condition in Iraq that even smells vaguely realistic at this point. It's time to face facts; we should have finished the job in Afghanistan first, then invaded Saudi Arabia.
Hey Steve, please define
Hey Steve, please define "victory." Not what you think Bush means that is means, nor what you think Nancy Boyda thinks it means -- but what does it mean to you, personally?
Is it victory to have millions not living in fear of Saddam daily?
Is it victory to have people being free to vote for the first time in their lives?
Is it victory to claim hundreds dead at a mosque bombing?
I'm serious -- what would victory look like to you?
A Wave of Change in Iraq
Yes. I can see it!
We are turning the corner in Iraq.
The next six months will be crucial!
The insurgents are on their last legs!
Come on!.
The neoConservatives, and their apologists of whatever stripe have no credibility left. Their promise is no longer Donald Rumsfeld's "if we are there ten months, that will be too long". It is, "There is a slight chance we might actually win, someday".
And that is enough for the Conservatives and Bush apologists to become giddy at another "Mission Accomplished!"
All these promises have only one thing in common, assisting George W. Bush in running out the clock to January 2009 so that he can "get out of Dodge", claiming "We were on the road to victory when Bush was president" all the way.
And all those lives (American and Iraqi) to be expended until a real solution is found by the next president? Too bad! After all, what are a few thousand lives when the personal ego of President Bush is at stake.