Iraq is doing well! Let’s not squander our success by doing something rash and pulling out prematurely. I know you’ve heard it all before but linked is a great WSJ Opinion piece http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121617045543756423.html that discusses the current situation in Iraq. It directly contradicts many liberal talking points. For example:
“All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all of the legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. More important, it is gaining wider legitimacy among the population. The attention of Iraqis across the country is focused on the upcoming provincial elections, which will be a pivotal moment in Iraq’s development.”
As for the civil war…
“…there have been virtually no sectarian killings recorded for the past 10 weeks. Violence is still perpetrated by organized groups, but AQI, the remnant Sunni insurgents and Shiite fighters are now focused on attacking their own members who have defected to our side. This is a measure of their weakness. The Iraqi population is increasingly mobilizing against the perpetrators of violence, flooding American and Iraqi forces with tips about the locations of weapons caches and key militant leaders – Sunnis turning in Sunnis and Shia turning in Shia.”
This sounds to me like the general population taking our side against the insurgency, which I had already seen signs of back in 2006 when I was there. What better indicator of our inevitable victory in this counter-insurgency war? So much for the mess in Iraq that many on the left will have you believe. Do you hear any left-minded individual in the media acknowledge this progress? Nope. Recognizing this success would mean admitting that perhaps we can accomplish our original goal of having a working democracy in the middle east. And that accomplishment would be disastrous for Bush-haters everywhere. Thus, as Rush Limbaugh likes to mention, many on the left are invested in failure and would rather see us leave Iraq with our tail between our legs than even acknowledge that progress has been made and that hope for a successful Iraqi democracy remains. God forbid that in the next few years improvements in the quality of life of Iraqis transcends their quality of life under Saddam under a new democracy. Why that would mean we accomplished what we set out to do in 2003. Since the liberal talking point is that what we set out to do is not accomplishable, this result must be avoided and not acknowledged even in the face of reality. Perception still defines their reality. And so, now it’s a race. Can the left agenda pull us out of Iraq before success becomes complete? Only time will tell.
–Joel
10 comments ↓
Your insight and the article from the WSJ hit home on a key point. If we succeed in Iraq, the Democratic Party will lose a massive amount of political influence. I think the Dems should issue a new slogan.. “Dedicated to Defeat!”
I think someone forgot that the main reason the insurgents are no longer shooting at our brave young men and women is that we are paying them not to. What is wrong with just declaring victory and leaving?
Let’s not forget that this is a Wall Street Journal OPINION article… While I love the WSJ for it’s front page journalism, everyone knows that the opinion page is right wing. This is overly rosy thinking in my view….
And IF they’re right and most of our surge missions have been accomplished, then this is the best time EVER to leave Iraq! It just kills me that pre-surge, the Republicans were saying that we couldn’t leave because there was too much violence but now that there is less violence we can’t leave because of… what again? Oh yeah, we need to continue to control the oil supply… I almost forgot.
My prediction (and recent news articles promote this idea) is that Bush will begin a phased withdrawal almost exactly as Obama is proposing because it’s a part of the Iraquis conditions for retaining the UN mandate for occupation!
And diehard conservatives will split down the middle. Some wanting war at all costs and some defending the new party line… and just like Bill suggests: declaring victory!
Bill- kindly back up your assertion that we are “paying” Iraqi insurgents to not shoot at our men and women. While we do award contracts to local Iraqis who create and fix infrastructure, I’ve never heard of, or seen, large scale payoffs of insurgents to not shoot at us. I’ve never seen an article or editorial that makes this assertion either.
Also, can you imagine the salivating that will happen amongst conservatives, when and if President Obama decides to withdrawal by 2010 and declare victory. The political fallout for a country that ends up a terrorist safe haven will land squarely on a Democratic administration. My guess is that if this happens, Obama will face similar criticism that Bush did when he declared “major combat operations are over”. If Obama knows what’s best, he should be very careful when he declares victory in Iraq (if he is our next president).
Justin, so what if the WSJ article is an opinion piece? It follows the good example of many quality opinion pieces in that it outlines a detailed and clear reason why things are very much better in Iraq now after the surge. Just for once, can we admit that Bush was right about the surge and Obama was wrong? I don’t imagine Obama supporters would be willing to concede this point.
Joel: Please see the article in the Sunday Times September 9, 2007, by Marie Colvin and Sarah Baxter, “American forces are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to Sunni insurgents to switch sides…”
I think by any definition that is, “buying them off”.
Again, if everything is going so well over there, what is wrong with declaring victory and coming home?
It’s important to stomp out every last smoldering cinder before leaving the campgrounds, otherwise that cinder could turn into a forest fire. In other words, just because things are going well in Iraq doesn’t mean we should necessarily reduce the pressure on insurgents and other enemy combatants. That might be exactly what they need (and counting on) to start rebuilding their strength (and threat). It would be interesting to see how things go once the pressure is decreased, but I think if things go bad, it will probably require reapplication of pressure.
Also, the enemy is on the defensive now, it is probably wise to keep it that way.
Eli,
So using your analogy, you’d rather stay to stomp out the last cinder of last night’s campfire than go to the next forest over and put out a fire that is raging and growing? Especially considering you have a finite amount of fire-fighting resources… how do you decide to use them?
Translation: Afghanistan needs our troops over there, and here at home we could use some of those 10 billion/month tax dollars to keep our economy from tanking… especially considering we’re bailing out one big company after another.
Justin,
I’m saying that once we’ve gained territory it is important to keep it secure (perhaps I made a bad analogy). We have seen that terrorists and insurgents are opportunists, and will flock to any weak front (where they can inflict the most damage). Ideally we would have no weak front at all, but unfortunately we do not have the resources to make this reality. We cannot afford to over-extend our troops to the breaking point. We do the best we can with what we have. We can’t keep making the mistake of expecting Iraqi police and security forces to hold their own against a ruthless enemy (not yet anyway). If only we had the manpower of a country like China, we might be able to keep most populated territory in Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time. If we did have more committed allies it would surely help to more quickly and thoroughly devastate enemy combatants. Instead we see how the effects of socialism and a large Muslim population have paralyzed Europe into the Obamanation (haha) of appeasement. Well at least some European countries have been wise enough to enact laws similar to our Patriot Act (which last I checked (2006) was responsible for the discovery of 5 terrorist cells, including one in Buffalo, where I go to school).
The cost of war is definitely a valid argument; this is yet another reason I am so adamant about Fairtax. The beauty of Fairtax is how many issues it solves at once: the economy, unemployment, illegal immigration, cost of the war, entitlement programs, social security, and of course our impossibly complicated tax code. It would make us the economic powerhouse that we should be.
Anyway that’s my take on it, and you are entitled to my opinion!
Leave a Comment