HEY LOOK LIBERALS…THE SURGE IS WORKING
Fred Barnes has a an excellent commentary in the February 25th edition of the Weekly Standard. In it he points out that the many of the benchmarks touted by congressional Democrats as the measuring stick for the success of the surge in Iraq are, in fact, being met.
He also points out that the Democrats aren’t saying a word about it.
Back in September, when Petraeus came to betray us and report on the surge to congress along with Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the military success of the surge was evident, but the political success hoped for, tangible steps towards Shia & Sunni reconciliation, was not yet taking hold.
Biden, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the cut and runners in congress pointed to the lack of political progress as proof that the surge was a failure and increased their shrill cries to get out now, bring the troops home, etc.
Today is a different story, but you wont’ hear a peep from the Democrats or the liberal media. Last week the Iraqi parliament passed a series of laws that are paving the way for true political reconciliation.
And as Barnes pointed out in his commentary, that’s not the best news.
Just as important is what the laws reflect in Iraq today. “The whole motivating factor” behind the legislation was “reconciliation, not retribution,” says American ambassador Ryan Crocker, who has never sugarcoated the impediments to progress in Iraq. This is “remarkably different” from six months ago, he said.
One of the new laws enacted gives significant power to provincial councils and mandates new elections on the provincial level, by October 1st. This will bring many of our new Sunni allies from the Sunni Awakening into the political process.
A new amnesty law will release thousands of Sunnis that have been jailed, but charged with no crimes.
While there is still no progress on an Iraqi federal law governing the sharing of oil revenues the Iraqis are indeed practicing revenue sharing in various forms, not the least of which is the un restricted distribution of 10 billion dollars in budget dollars to the various sectarian provinces, most of which is oil revenue.
There is still much work to be done but considering the fact that violence is down, troop reductions are beginning and political progress is taking shape, it’s tough to delcare that the surge isn’t working, when by every measure, it is.
But when did the truth about Iraq ever matter to liberals.
nutslikebush Says: February 19th, 2008 at 3:32 am
Mark this posting. In a few years you will have evidence of chickens being counted before they were hatched.
nutslikebush Says: February 19th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Fred Barnes is one of the utopians. His ideology requires him to say the surge is working, despite much evidence to the contrary. I wish I was wrong and he was right but unfortunately, wishing doesn’t make it so and the sectarian problems in Iraq are worse now than they were before the surge. Iraq is already a failed state and I don’t know how anyone plans to start it all over again. The surge focuses only on a subset of the symptoms, but the disease that is at the root of the problems there is spreading every day. What, for example, does Barnes say about the break down of the truce down between the paramilitary of Muqtada al-Sadr and that of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim? That may be the biggest news from Iraq in quite a while, surely he focused his piece on an analysis of that issue.
The Other Side Says: February 21st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
i really had to laugh when i saw the title of this post. the information comes from the weekly standard. the same people that employ bill kristol and have an obvious conservative bias. if this one commentary is the basis for declaring the surge is working, then it seems like buck is stretching a bit.
the point of the surge was to give breathing room for the iraqi parlaiment to make progress. they didn’t in the alotted amound of time, the surge wasn’t going to be forever. how can iraq make progress without any motivation, e.g. americans leaving. the strategy of giving iraq more time is whoefully shortsighted.
with the work that needs to be done, where is america going to get the soldiers to fight? the iraqi armies are years away from protecting their country so, for the time being, america will have to bear the majority of the fighting. we’re sending more marines to afghanistan for gosh sakes. america needs to begin to look out for their men and women and not hope for the best. the troop reductions are going to be suspended this summer, so we’ll basically have the same number of troops in iraq as before the surge. how can america keep putting all this responsiblity on a finite number of soldiers?
whats the new strategy now? the status quo? or wait until the democratic adminstration is inagurated?
KAK Says: February 24th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Seems to me you are the one laughing, and remember “he who laughs last laughs best”. The jury is still out on the surge. Intelligence analysts tell us don’t believe what the press is writting. Time will tell. The pause in deaths is only because Al Sadar has stood down, lets see if it’s for the moment or permenantly. Time will tell.
Buck Says: February 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Hey Nuts,
Did you notice that Muqtada al-Sadr recently announced the extension of the truce between his faction and that of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim? That may be the biggest news from Iraq in quite some time, would’nt you say? Have you also noticed that al-Sadr has done most of his sabre rattling from the safety of Iran or in hiding? BECAUSE THE SURGE IS WORKING, isolating him and his faction from the majority of Iraqi’s who yearn for peace.
OTHER SIDE
For the record the point of the surge was, indeed, to give breathing room for political action which was the point of Fred Barne’s column. The political actions described in Barnes column are fact. They have happened. Barnes’ point is that the liberal media and liberals like you aren’t saying to much about THE FACT that these political milestones and benchmarks have been reached. So what if they are later than anticipated. War is not a timed event.
As for the suspension of troop draw downs in the summer. Says who? Petraeus said back in September of last year that his goal was to draw down the troops until we reached pre-surge levels, which would happen sometime this summer, and then, if the situation warrented, continue the draw down and start lowering the number of troops even more.
Isn’t that exactly what you are asking for? An incentive for the Iraqi’s to beef up their armed forces and police forces.
You just won’t accept victory will you?
The Other Side Says: February 26th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
reports are coming out that show that the troop drawdown with be halted this summer and with 8000 more troops in iraq than before the surge. thats not progress, the continuing the pre-surge strategy.
its not about ignoring victories, its about being skeptical about anything said about this war. since its inception, there have been lies and poor management. as a result, the soldiers are being placed with immense burdens with no real target for success. placing hope on the political progress of the iraqis isn’t a strategy.
The Other Side Says: March 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
so petreus just spoke to the washington post and said:
“no one” in the U.S. and Iraqi governments “feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation,” or in the provision of basic public services.
if this is the “victory” that republicans are talking about then its pretty bad. iraq is a work in progress and will take time to mesh together. taking one article and blowing it out of purportion claiming it as definitive proof of progress is grasping at straws.
the supposed success of the surge is being trumpeted throughout the repulican party. what about the cease fire by muqutada al-sadr? i bet that helped decrease the violence. its dangerous to put all success on a pedistal and blast democrats for not seeing the light. republicans are relying on hope instead of a pragmatic strategy to succeed in iraq.
and democrats aren’t denying the decrease in violence, they’re being skeptical with anything that is said from republicans (just watch their lies about the protect america act).
bush just talked with the troops and listened to thier concerns about the two wars. he replied with an audacious response about how he thought war was “romantic” and that he would be there too if he wasn’t too old. those comments show bush’s disconnect with the troops. he had his chance to fight and he didn’t. how can he be trusted to make any decision that affects the troops if he has no idea what they’re going through? this has been the problem all along. decision made regarding this war didn’t include much thought about the human aspect and the results are terrible.
Rufus Says: March 21st, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Hey idiot, there has been a cease fire all this time…so much for your surge. Wake up and smell the coffe. The war mongerers and oil companies are robbing you blind and you are happy to support them…so sad.
Rufus Says: March 21st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
oh and another thing bushie lover, this economy is in the hell hole and your party is responsible. Support your Country, vote DEMOCRAT!!!!
Accountablility
Freedom and Liberty for AMERICANS
The Other Side Says: March 27th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
any strategy that relies on the cease-fire of an american hater, al-sadr, cannot be sustained. if the surge worked, then why is bush suspending troop withdrawals this summer? oh yeah, if things are going good, keep troops there to sustain it and if things are bad, keep troops there to prevent chaos.
the violence is getting worse and the political progress isn’t there. how can anyone call the surge a success? how long to american troops need to stay in iraq with no winnable strategy?
The Other Side Says: April 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
i’m surprised no one commented on the “new” plan that petreus just laid out while testifying to congress. wait until september to make another assessment, sounds familiar. all in all, this war will be left for the next president no matter what.
but the curious thing is that the so-called catastrophic results of leaving are mentioned but never the definition of victory. these same words come from people who have been so utterly wrong about everything regarding this war and should be taken with a grain of salt. neither petreus nor crocker could define the victory that supporters of this war keep using as a reason to stay. the goal posts have been moved so much that any semblence of an attainable goal is gone. why do we need to keep our men and women in harms way if they’re fighting for virtually nothing?
this same strategy of keeping a strong military presence hasn’t worked so the leaders need to try something different. iran and al-qaida’s influences are directly related to the us occupation in iraq. using them as justification for staying is missing the point. now the rhetoric against iran is being ratcheted up for another attack. why can’t the bush administration talk to the iranian government? al-qaida in iraq shouldn’t be a reason to stay either because they are small in numbers and no one likes them. their not the same thing as the real al-qaida in pakistan who has actually infultrated baghdad.
america needs to withdraw troops and divert our attention elsewhere like maybe afghanistan and pakistan’s trible regions. we’ve done as much as we can in iraq. the iraqis will have chaos, but how much more than now is unknown. but they may see a need to reconcile and make political progress if america isn’t there to hold their hands. the new gao report says that al-qaida is primed to attack us again and we are woefully underprepared. the al-qaida that can attack us isn’t in iraq so iraq is not “the central front in the war on terror”. our military is so far stretched and mentally harmed, 300,000 soldiers have some kind of mental injury, and our economy cannot afford the $12 billion per month price tag.
america is less safe than before this illconceived war. unless there are concrete definitions of “victory”, staying in iraq would be a mistake. how many more dead american soldiers will it take before america withdraws?
CSP Says: April 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm
The reason Democrats are not saying much about surge “gains” is that they recognize these “gains” cost billions to try and maintain, are temporary and are already beginning to crumble.