28 posts tagged “surge”

Looks like the Iraqis are seeing major progress.

We all know from a military perspective the surge is working.  But the intention behind the surge is designed to give the Iraqis time to sort out their political differences.  Well, Ed Morrissey talks about the Iraqi government's latest move, de-Baathification, that addresses another one of benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress.

This allows Sunnis to retake their jobs and join the Shi'ites and Kurds in administering government functions, especially in Sunni areas. It gives them a stake in the new, representative government instead of being shut out of it. Sunnis will now have every reason to support the central government in Baghdad rather than attempting to undermine it to get back what they lost in the fall of Saddam, and they won't need to again adopt the fascist Ba'ath principles to do so.

This looks like progress to me. It's progress that wouldn't have come without lowering the violence and removing the provocations and depredations of al-Qaeda in Iraq. That wouldn't have happened at all had we not ramped up our efforts and taken a much more aggressive posture against the terrorists -- and the Sunnis would not have cooperated if we hadn't signaled so strongly that we intended to beat AQI and stick it out.

The Iraqis are stepping up to the plate, albeit slowly.

As Urban Lenny puts it:

Let us remember that a reduction in violence in Iraq was not the goal of the "surge"; rather it was a means to the real goal of the troop escalation: political reconciliation between Iraq's religious and political factions that results in lasting peace and stability for the Iraqi people.

Well, I agree.  And I think you have to say this a continued move in the right direction.  Let us check off another one.

(ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification.

Austin Bay's prediction.

John Batiste and Pete Hegseth via a Washington Post opinion article:

We are veterans of the Iraq war with vastly different experiences. Both of us commanded troops in Iraq. We, too, held seemingly entrenched, and incompatible, views upon our return. One of us spoke out against mismanagement of the war -- failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection. The other championed the cause of successfully completing our mission.

Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.

It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.

The bandwagon is getting bigger and here is the kicker courtesy of Michael Goldfarb:

There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom.

The antiwar movement has lost one of its most powerful voices today, and it will be interesting to see whether they turn on one of their own, or come around to the view, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that the surge is working.

I like those words -- the "preponderance of evidence."  I wonder what is like when those silly things called facts get into the way of arguments.  Maybe we should ask Harry Reid?  Or Murtha?

Captain Ed's assessment of the current positive trend in Iraq and the fallout for the Democrats.

For the past year, the Democrats have portrayed the American effort in Iraq as a failure. Their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, publicly announced that we had lost and that we should immediately retreat. Their leading candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, all but called the commander of American forces in Iraq a liar when he reported on the progress that even the Times now acknowledges as real and obvious.

Democrats have a problem larger than just the message. The substance of their policy remains defeatist. They claim that they want a new strategy in Iraq, all but oblivious that the new strategy adopted in January has proven very successful. Their strategy -- smaller forces, disengaged from a reeling enemy -- would actually return us to the failing strategy of 2006. It would provide al-Qaeda in Iraq and the militias a respite just when they have been pushed to the last extremity.

It boggles my mind that there are people out there selling the American military short on our "defeat" in Iraq -- all for political gain.   If only they stayed on board -- they could have made their election in 2008 much more inevitable.

<sarcasm> Here is a toast to the Democrat's foreign policy vision.  May your policies bring us greater security. </sarcasm>

<reality> And here is a toast to the Iraqis.  May your continued reconciliation and security bring you a brighter future and an enduring American friendship. </reality>

DJ Elliott explains what the real surge is all about.

Security in Iraq improves with an increased long-term security presence; a security presence that will increasingly be shouldered by Iraqi troops. The five US surge brigades were not only brought in to buy the Iraqi government time to sort out the political situation, they were brought in to buy the Iraqi Army time to expand. The five US surge brigades are doing some much needed housecleaning in Iraq's problem areas, freeing up Iraqi Army formations to provide cadre for new forming units, and providing additional training partners for the new Iraqi Army formations thus facilitating the accelerated expansion. The Iraqi Army is replacing the US forces departing Iraqi by the end of 2008 at rate of two Iraqi brigades for one US brigade.

Giving our military the time and the plan to get it done.  Something that definitely falls on deaf ears on the left side of the aisle.  Especially now.  I haven't seen many blog posts calling for withdrawal from Iraq anymore.  Just the sound of crickets.

Christopher Hitchens on the recent events and the "good news" within Iraq.

...I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either.

Agreed.

...there may be something to this military effort.

The trend for supporting the surge continues to climb.

In the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, taken Friday through Sunday, the proportion of those who said the additional troops are "making the situation better" rose to 31% from 22% a month ago. Those who said it was "not making much difference" dropped to 41% from 51%.

I guess in the end for most folks -- if there is progress being made they will support the effort in Iraq and if there isn't they will support our withdrawal.  Sounds fair to me.

Hugh Hewitt interviewing Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute:

HH: I have linked to your article, people can go read it at Hughhewitt.com, but let’s get to the bottom line. Is the surge working, Michael O’Hanlon?

MO’H: In military terms, and this is an important qualifier, in military terms, yes there is a substantial amount of progress being made. But of course, the surge strategy was always a broader strategy than just military tactics. It requires political reconciliation within Iraq. And in that broader sense, it is not yet working. I think all we are seeing is potentially an opportunity for Iraqi politicians to build on the military momentum, and try to get things going at a much deeper level. Otherwise, all we will have done in the end will have been to suppress the civil war, and to the point where once we leave, it will probably reignite, and maybe even before we leave. So I think that on balance, I would not say we are succeeding just yet in broader terms. But the military piece of it looks good.

The recent death of al-Badri, the al Qaeda mastermind behind the bombing of the Shi'ite mosque that incited sectarian violence, is more evidence that our military, and the surge, are showing positive signs of squeezing al Qaeda.

But with the Sunnis leaving the political table, so to speak, the political element that O'Hanlon talks about definitely has an uphill battle.

Time is of the essence...

Don Surber has a good post on his blog.

The Surge is working. The initial success on the field by the American army is splitting the Democratic caucus in the House between those who want to Lose At Any Cost and the Weathervanes Who Follow The Polls.

Those polls are bad. Only 3% of Americans approve of the Democratic Congress’s handling of the war. Bush is at 24% in this category. Overall, Bush has better poll numbers than the Democratic Congress.

Rank-and-file Democrats already are worrying about the fate of all incumbents in 2008. They see the shift in public support. 42% now think the war was a good idea, up from 35% in May. These Democrats are tacking back.

I guess the political high the Democrats thought they were scoring is coming down.  Ouch...  3%.

The question I have in all of this is this:  Has Bush been underestimated.... again?