Kate O'Beirne & Rich Lowry on Iraq on National Review OnlineThe Democrats gain nothing from a success in Iraq, and stand to lose much. Which is why they're pushing so hard for a loss right now - it costs them nothing and may get them more support from the anti-war base.Forget the leaks and the speculation, President George W. Bush is not looking for a way out of the surge and the Iraq war. In a session with about ten conservative journalists Friday afternoon, a confident and determined president made it clear that he is going to see the surge through, and will rely on General David Petraeus’s advice on how to proceed come September, regardless of the political climate in Washington.
That it'd screw over the folks in Iraq doesn't matter - it's not like they can VOTE or anything...
Hmmm. Wouldn't it be a kicker if Petraeus comes back in September and advises we make Iraq the 51st state? Think THAT would change the tactics of the folks in Washington?
President Bush understands the public frustration with the war: “We put highly trained sophisticated military people in harm’s way and they battle $100 IEDs.” He worries about “exhaustion as we’re dealing with these radicals who have a lot of energy and who aren’t going to be tired.” But he said he has “tools” in the debate, including “the bully pulpit and the ability to convince the American people.” He wants both to convince them that success is still possible, and “remind my fellow citizens of what the consequences of failure will be.”Good. And I'm glad to see he's letting Patraeus guide him. I think he'll get a hell of a lot more accurate information and guidance from him than from Pelosi, Murtha, and Edwards.He says he has four audiences when he broadcasts his commitment to the mission in Iraq: the American public; the American military and their families; the Iraqis (“because there are a lot of people who doubt America’s resolve”); and the enemy (“the enemy thinks that we are weak — they’re sophisticated people, and they listen to the debate”). As for that last audience, “I really think the additional forces into Iraq surprised them—a lot.”
Anbar isn’t as complicated as the rest of the country since there isn’t the element of sectarian conflict that there is in the rest of the country. President Bush talked of a “ground-up” approach to reconciliation. He said that security is most important, then other initiatives can come up behind, including “aggressive use of PRTs [provincial reconstruction teams] to convince local folks that life can progress even though they may have suspicion of the central government.” (Local elections is “one of the key reforms” because of the election boycotts that previously took place in the Sunni areas, he said.)The people of Iraq aren't stupid. They realize they've got about 17 months, and then their future is up for grabs. The enemies of Iraq aren't stupid either - they know they've got about 17 months and then they could have a real good chance to take control of Iraq... so they've got to keep the Democrats on their side.And when it comes to pouring resources into areas where the insurgency is chased out, “If the central government won’t do it, we will through PRTs.” He said he talked with leaders of some of the PRTs today, and “their question was ‘will we have the time?’“ “My answer is...I have got to get us in the position so we will have time.”
It's a bad time to be an Iraqi. You've got a powerful, but fickle, ally in the US, and you've got determined enemies in your neighbors who won't be going away soon. I can understand why some would be working the angles here, because no matter what happens, they're still going to have to be there.
J.
Comments (7)
What most folks don't realize is that the 'surge' did not start the 'turn-around'. That started SEP 2006 with the majority of tribes coming together to form the Anbar Salvation Council, and I remember reading, at the time, about how the police recruits went up from 10 or so a week to 2,000 with a sustainable 300 or so a week thereafter. That was *not* cumulative to the Iraqi Army recruiting which also saw its number rise dramatically. By NOV-DEC 2006 the basis for actually holding talks to re-open factories there. Before the change in command, before the new commitment for troops, before all of that came the announcement of getting the factories open. I looked at the problems of why Iraqi society had trouble coming together with my mosaic article and calling the idiots parroting COIN work for what they were with the oil drop article.
Because of the multiple, long-timelines necessary not to 'build a Nation' but to allow a society to form and stabilize it, the years of fighting have paid off in Anbar, Ramadi, Baqubah. With any luck the work at understanding the basis of this society will stand us in good stead to assist it to stand up militarily, politically and economically. I have always pegged this endeavor with so little commitment by the US at an 8-15 year time frame for the basic fighting to finally be gotten under control. That is from history, not from politics that I derive that ballpark concept.
We were absolutely unprepared for what happened, but that is true in any war: the enemy always does the unexpected. All the fine battleplans and post-war plans went to hell with the absence of their basis on the ground. For all of that it is not smooth sailing, but the turnaround is palpable and the indicators have been present for awhile. The talk by the MSM has attempted to cloud that and the political class has turned a selective ear to any news and only care to hear about losses, not victories. In doing this they are trying to prove JFK wrong and make victory an orphan.
Posted by ajacksonian | July 14, 2007 2:49 PM
Posted on July 14, 2007 14:49
Hmmm. Wouldn't it be a kicker if Petraeus comes back in September and advises we make Iraq the 51st state? Think THAT would change the tactics of the folks in Washington?
As a Democrat, that solution appeals to me quite a bit, as long as the Iraqi people are down with it. I think a whole lot of them would be.
Of course, a significant number or Republicans would freak out. Tom Tancredo would burst into flame.
Let's see, that would make two Iraqi Muslim Senators, a handful of Iraqi Muslim House reps. Some of them would probably even be Islamist. And a whole lot of presidential ballots written in yet another language.
Posted by Jason | July 14, 2007 5:45 PM
Posted on July 14, 2007 17:45
Ithink a lot of them would be too, Jason. I think it's a great idea, myself - establish there's certain criteria that hve to be met, and certain busiess practces that may be customary won't be tolerated any more (and send the IRS over there to 'help' them learn proper busiess practices) and make it clear their national language will have to be English, though bilingual education would be encouraged.
The folks who're saying we're trying to establish an empire would just plain have strokes....
J.
Posted by JLawson | July 14, 2007 9:28 PM
Posted on July 14, 2007 21:28
No, not the 51st State.... 51st-68th States, one per province. They each meet the old west State criteria for population and beat them by a fair shot. Plus we need the stability that 6 Kurdish Senators can bring, 10 Arabs and the other two might be Turkomen or Assyrian or mixed ethnicity and religion. Now the 38 House members get a bit sparse, figure that Anbar and Maysan end up with one each, while Baghdad and Diyala get 3 each... but those would be 38 getting removed from the previous 50, so I would guess that a couple of the less populous would bottom out to one each and the rest get taken disproportionately from the next least populace States as it is 1:768,000 at that point.
That really does point up the foolishness of a fixed House size.
Much better deal for Iraqis to do it by Province: more representation in the Senate.
Have to extend NAFTA to them, of course, via the Equal Protection clause. Yes, the al-Ameriki tribe actually gets some good ideas with it....
Posted by ajacksonian | July 14, 2007 10:03 PM
Posted on July 14, 2007 22:03
It's kinda funny how the MSM runs with these leaks like they just got a big scoop.
Of course, they only run with leaks that fit their non-official but nonetheless predictible leftist agenda.
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) | July 14, 2007 11:19 PM
Posted on July 14, 2007 23:19
AJacksonian -
I LIKE it! It's about time we added a few new stars to the flag!
Hell, if we're going to be accused of empire-building, might as well go ahead and build an empire.
J.
Posted by JLawson | July 15, 2007 10:45 PM
Posted on July 15, 2007 22:45
J - We are a damned strange Empire where you have to ask to join... still, just tell them that if they want to join up with the al-Ameriki tribe, they just have to fill out some forms and petition for it. That really would make folks Upon the Hill spit some teeth out along with their coffee.
'Bring the troops home!'
Well, Iraqis want to be in America so... consider this some 'urban renewal' beforehand. Still, in a decade the place would be over-run with oilmen, farmers, and holiday travel goers wanting to see the sights and ask about that two bedroom house in Kirkuk. Mind you Hispanics and Blacks would be behind Arabs as the new minority structure. Have to let the NAACP know that 'colored' is different from 'black'. And imagine the 'open borders' crowd! Sign on for a stint in El Paso and wind up in Mosul.
The US needs a good, swift kick in the backsides. Remind folks what the 'real world' is about: physical reality, not make-believe ideals.
Posted by ajacksonian | July 16, 2007 9:52 AM
Posted on July 16, 2007 09:52