How not to run national defense

It’s clear that Washington is completely out of step with the electorate. It would seem clear that the 2006 gains by Democrats in Congress were a message from the people that they wanted change. And change they got. Only, it wasn’t the change they were expecting. Congressional approval is down to 18%. The Right doesn’t like the shenanigans of Pelosi and her crew. The uberLeft doesn’t like the fact that the troops aren’t home and we haven’t cured Global Warming and given everyone health care yet. And the people in the middle? Well, what they really wanted was to see the US squash the uprising in Iraq and get the troops home safely while at the same time accomplishing their mission.

But the Democratic Leadership isn’t interested in it. If a general comes forward with good news in Iraq, they’re going to try to spin it so it’s bad news. It’s true. The Democrats are now firmly invested in seeing America’s military defeat for their own political gain.

What’s even more amazing is the reaction of some Republican senators and representatives. Mark Warner, R-Va, is now calling for Bush to announce the withdrawing of US forces in mid-September. Given that it’s been the strategy of the Democrats to withdraw, and at the same time the poll numbers have sunk to historic lows, Warner must have thought, “They’re upset becuase the troops are still there!” No, you bumbling idiot. They’re upset because you’re trying to pull the troops when the shift in strategy seems to be working.

It was clear– crystal clear– in 2006 that the electorate wanted change in the way we were handling the Iraq war and overall global war on terror. And they got that. Rummy resigned. Praeteus took charge in Iraq. And, best of all, the changes made are showing significant progress. Bush’s approval ratings have gone up lately, coinciding with the improvement of Iraq. Go figure!

Earth to D.C.– get the message. Don’t be so heavily invested in defeat. How about you support victory? Maybe if the US was united behind the military effort to establish a democracy in Iraq, the terrorists would be conceding defeat there. Instead we have people saying Bush is greater than or equal to Hitler and that the US military are horribly people who dehumanize people through training (and you don’t even have to be in a combat theater to think so!). And every time there’s a bombing, talking heads come out and say we’re bad people for wanting to keep a military presence in Iraq.

Just once I’d like to see a round table on CNN say, in unison, after a horrible terrorist bombing in Iraq (or Israel for that matter): “We’re tired of these bombings. Let’s not withdraw from Iraq until every last scum-sucking cleric who turns young men into murdering martyrs is arrested and/or killed. God speed, our front-line military. We’re behind you 100%. May you bring stability and justice to a chaotic land.”

But if they did that, they might flock to Olberman.

A Surge for the Surge

Before the Surge even officially begins!

First, from Gallup:

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%.

Optimism, maybe? If that number continues to rise, the Harry “We’ve Lost!” Reid’s are going to have a hard time in November. They’ll be replaced with chucklehead republicans, but at least they’ll pretend to be fighting terrorism.

And now, from the AP:

The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working.

In two weeks of observing the U.S. military on the ground and interviewing commanders, strategists and intelligence officers, it’s apparent that the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year.

The best bit is that the surge hasn’t even started yet and we’re seeing concrete results. Now are you ready to throw the Iraqis to the dogs by electing Ron Paul or any Democrat?

The Out of Touch

We all know the Democrats, for the most part, have started running from the idea of stabilizing Iraq. With few exceptions, every “timetable withdrawal” measure that has come up in the Senate has failed to achieve Cloture. But it looks like chinks in the Republican armor are showing.

Two of the Republicans who voted for the Webb amendment, Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), announced this morning they would also support Democratic legislation, soon to come to a vote, that would begin troop reductions no later than 120 days after enactment. U.S. forces would then shift their efforts to targeted missions such as counterterrorism. The process would have to be completed by April 30, 2008.

“We have arrived at the crossroads of hope and reality, and we must now address the reality. We need to send a strong message from the United States Congress on behalf of the American people that the current strategy is unacceptable,” Snowe said.

Even some of the GOP frontrunners are shying away from a total commitment to the surge, regardless of how well it’s working.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have made it clear that their original support for the escalation does not mean they are signed on to keeping the current 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, even as they have laid out hawkish positions on other aspects of foreign policy.

Their recent moves underscore the president’s growing isolation on Iraq as the GOP begins searching for a post-Bush foreign policy. The shifts also distance the three top contenders from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the former front-runner who Tuesday reaffirmed his commitment to the troop escalation.

Where does this sudden change on the issue come from? Upcoming elections, of course. For some reason, the 2006 election has been regarded in the political world as a “referendum on Iraq”. As the Democrats beat the Republicans, it must have been a statement that Americans want the troops out of Iraq- NOW! (as some bumper stickers exclaim).

But the disconnection of the modern politician with the actual population is remarkable, and it’s primarily driven by the reliance on pollsters and their questions. Nobody bothered to ask the people after the 2006 midterm elections why they voted for a Democrat instead of a Republican. Instead they just assumed, based on polling data, that the people were voting for Democrats to get America out of Iraq. Indeed, even Bush’s abysmal approval ratings have
bolstered such a claim. But is it the truth?

Congress has been working diligently to try and move the troops out of Iraq. If they were doing such a bang-up job of representing the true wishes of Americans, the approval rating should be higher than Bush’s. In fact, it’s not. It’s worse than Bush’s ratings! How can this be?

The truth of the matter is that Americans weren’t objecting to the war but to the management of the war. Bush bungled things, largely because of Rummy’s outdated perspective of the modern Iraqi and underestimation of the following insurgency (and, in all truth, I think everyone’s been surprised at the insurgency). But Bush has made several changes and has put the #1 guy in charge of Iraq, Prateus, who can effectively mount a counter-insurgency operation. He needed a troop surge to do it, and he’s getting it, and he’s getting results. We’re not even in the full swing of the Surge and we’re already seeing concrete results.

But you won’t know it looking at our politicians. Some, like Fearless Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), already think we’ve lost in Iraq. Now a bunch of weak-kneed Republicans are siding with the Democrats because they are more than willing to sell American foreign interests down the river for some political capital. We’ve already seen the Democrats do this, but Chuck Hagel, you really should know better.

The 2006 election was a message that the people wanted change in how we were tackling Iraq. Bush changed, and it was a GREAT change. I feel optimistic that our current strategy will lock up the insurgency and finally allow Iraq to get back to normal. (Of course, none of the good news is reported, which is probably why these GOP turncoats are wetting themselves as they look forward to 2008).

We’re on a new course, and we should stay this course, at least long enough (2 years) to determine if this strategy is working. And from what people on the ground, like Michael Yon, are reporting– good things are happening. Why should we abandon our good work for minor political appeasement? Shame on all the quitters– if we abandon Iraq, we’re surrendering to Al-Queda. Is that the message we really want to send?

What’s going on in Iraq?

People are out there declaring the latest troop surge a failure. Harry Reid is ready to surrender to Al Queda (I mean, if we’ve lost, let’s just go all the way with it, Harry).

But the operation isn’t about killing the insurgent heads in Iraq as much as it is securing the local population and removing the threat of intimidation. Sounds like Counter Insurgency 101 to me.

Go over to the QandO blog and read all about it.

********************************************************

Meanwhile, in neighboring Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is preparing for the coming of the Mahdi by rationing fuel. Maybe he thinks inciting the population to riot will bring the Mahdi’s coming?

Or maybe not. There are no gas stations on fire. Nothing to see here. Move along.

How is Partial Birth Abortion like killing thousands of Iraqis?

I have no idea. But that didn’t stop Hannah Hayes from making the connection. Bottom line: we should let women have abortions so long as the Religious Right condones military action around the globe.

*staggered look of total disbelief*

Why Do We Call Them "Defeatocrats"?

Because they say things like this:

“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,” Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

It’s amazing that a US Senator would be out demoralizing the troops like this. Even if you think you ARE losing a war, you never SAY you’re losing a war, Harry. It demoralizes the troops and emboldens the enemy.

If you really thought the war was a lose cause, wouldn’t you and the other Democrats push to end it, instead of just “advising” to end it?

It’s all about the politics. Having something that’s an actual policy and something that would help our country and Iraq– well, that’s just not something the defeatocrats can come up with. So their solution is “If both Iraq and the US can’t win, then let’s make sure we both lose.”

As inept as the Republicans have been lately, at least they’re not attempting to completely sabotage US troop morale.

EDIT: I just posted this over at HotAir…. if the Democrats truly believe we’ve lost the war, and they won’t end the war, then they’re perfectly happy to throw the lives of American soldiers away on a lost war. By inference, they must hate the troops to want to senselessly waste their lives like that. If they truly supported them, they’d be fighting tooth & nail to save them in an unwinnable war.

Unless they really do think the war is winnable, and they want to stealthily support the troops to avoid upsetting the base by saying they’ve lost, but in reality they think they’re winning and they’re “opposing” the war without opposing it so they can later take credit for not stopping the war they thought we were losing but instead were really funding in a double-secret kind of way!

Whew. That’s crazy run-on sentence.

Michael Ware — Friend or Foe?

Drudge has a highlighted report about Michael Ware, CNN Baghdad reporter, heckling Sens. McCain and Graham about the security in the city. CNN’s version is here. Allahpundit at HotAir has been on this story since the inception, and he’s got video.

However, I’m a bit troubled, as I think Ware is right, and McCain is right, to a degree. Are the streets of Baghdad safer? Sure. Does that mean Johnny Q. Westerner can wear his Sunday Best and stroll through the neighborhoods? No. He’s a target by just about anyone. But what of the average Iraqi? They’re in far less danger and could traverse most streets safely. So they’re both right.

However, Ware’s conduct at the press conference was very unprofessional. And he’s said he’s drunk most of the time, so you have to wonder if he was under the influence at the press conference?

I’m not thinking this was a case of press bias, either, as Ware certainly understands the stakes, especially in setting timetables. And his criticism of a timetable got him mentioned on Limbaugh.

So don’t play him both ways. He can’t be a CNN Liberal and a CNN rogue conservative. My guess he’s a drunk Aussie frustrated at the politics of it all. In that case, pass me a beer.

********************************************

In related news, Nancy Pelosi and some other useful idiots were over in Syria talking to Assad. Why? I have no idea. But the Republicans were at least pressing Assad to stop supporting insurgents in Iraq. Or so they said. In the meantime, they were providing political cover to Pelosi so she doesn’t seem like she’s subverting the power of the Executive branch in a partisan fashion.

The Dreaded Thursday Morning Update

Happy start of Lent to everyone observing. Hope your days are filled with reflection.

The NYT (and basically everyone else under the sun) is highlighting the “infighting” between Hillary and the Messiah (Obama). You can read about the details here. You can also read about the “infighting” between VP Cheney and Sen. John McCain. McCain laid into Rumsfeld for being the worst SecDef ever, and Cheney, who’s been a buddy of Rummy since the Jurassic, stuck up for his friend.

Hardly equal, that infighting. But everyone’s comments, except for Cheney’s, are attempts to garner support for primary elections that are still a good year away.

Sick of it yet? I’m sure we’ll all be come primary time.

**********************************

England is pulling out of Iraq. It’s no surprise– this has been in the works for a good year now. But leave it to the WaPo to label it as a “bad-news” story.

Let’s face it, though. The British are supporting parts of Iraq that have been relatively quiet, like Basra. So to redeploy the British troops elsewhere isn’t a bad idea. And if they land in Afghanistan to bolster the NATO forces there, so much the better.

***********************************

And HotAir is reporting that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) is recommending we sell F-16 parts to Hugo Chavez.

This, of course, will open up equipment shipments to Iran, Syria, and North Korea to bolster their militaries as well.

***********************************

I may post more today. I have 40 reports to grade and a proposal to finish, so we’ll see how far I get.

Your Wednesday PIMF Moment

PIMF stands for “Preview is my friend”, and some people at the Toronto Daily Star should be using it more often.

Iran Nuclear Program Report to Boost Tough Sanctions on Iraq

The report would likely say that Iran has expanded enrichment efforts instead of freezing them.

The report on Iran nuclear program is expected to confirm that Iran continues uranium enrichment activities.

The report, prepared by U.N. nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based ernational Atomic Energy Agency, could trigger tougher U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran.

the report will be sent to the agency’s 35-nation board and to the Security Council.

The council set a 60-day deadline on Dec. 23 for such a freeze and said continued Iranian defiance past that ultimatum, which runs out Wednesday, could lead to sanctions additional to those it imposed last month.

Top Iranian officials showed no signs of compromise and has rejected the Security Council resolution as “illegal,” saying it would not give up its right to enrich under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

“The enemy is making a big mistake if it thinks it can thwart the will of the Iranian nation to achieve the peaceful use of nuclear technology,” Iranian state TV’s Web site quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Wednesday.

Call me crazy, but nothing in there is about Iraq. So how can Iran’s nuclear program cause harsher sanctions– on Iraq?

What’s worse is this article title makes no sense just by viewing it. How many editors did this slip by?

It’s worse than Vietnam! Bay of Pigs! Monroe Doctrine! Declaration of Independence!

And let’s face it, people died when we fought for our independence. Brave US servicepeople died as did thousands of civilians in the proxy war of France and Britain that led to US independence.

Iraq is the worst foreign policy decision ever. That’s the new talking point. Chuck Hagel is even talking about it. And, of course, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) is blabbing it on the Sunday morning news shows.

This is nothing new, of course. In our world, we have become so complacent that people don’t really care one way or another about US foreign policy decisions so long as it doesn’t raise taxes or start a war. And let’s face it, after 9/11, America was pissed, and toppling the Taliban just wasn’t going to cut it. Iraq was a perfect place to station 150,000 US troops and put some pressure on Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, a subtle play to suggest to them “Knock off this terrorism crap.” I speak more eloquently of it here.

Now, it’s been over five years since 9/11, and many have “moved on”. Now we wonder, “Geez, were we really that sore that we invaded Iraq? Again?” and many regret the decision because they thought it would be over by now. Well, occupations and national restructuring is not an overnight thing, and most Americans are tired of hearing about it on the news, so they vote to stop reading about it in the newspaper or on the nightly news.

But it hasn’t left the nightly news. And the average voter is saying, “What? Why do I even vote! I want to hear about Bald Britney, not Iraq!”

But to get the average voter to care, you really have to step up the stakes. Saying Iraq is a “foreign policy mistake” isn’t going to raise any eyebrows. Throw in “Worse than Vietnam” however, and everyone starts to wonder– “Is it really worse than Vietnam? Wow. We better get everyone out of there before Tom Cruise makes a sequel to ‘Born on the Fourth of July’!”

It’s like the Hitlerisms. Saddam is Hitler, some on the Right said (and, to be perfectly fair, Baathism did have roots in Nazi methodology and ideology). Ahmadinejad is Hitler! (Denying the Holocaust does not a Hitler make, I’m afraid.) Kim Jong Il is Hitler! Putin is Hitler! Bush is Hitler! Cheney is Hitler!

Hitler was a bad guy, arguably the worst guy, ever. But simply dragging out the comparison for shock value is doing nothing but lessening the impact of the word.

Take for example the F word. Take one John Kerry, presidential nominee, and an interview with Rolling Stone. You hear that and you’re shocked! Your future President shouldn’t use that language!

Now, call an auto salvage yard in New York (something I did looking for parts once). In a five minute conversation, I think the F-bomb was dropped 100-150 times. At that point, the word has no meaning. Seriously. If everything can be described as a “f***ing” something or other, it has no meaning.

Now, the anti-war crowd is threatening to debase any possible weight a comparison to Vietnam would carry.

US casualties vs. Vietnam? Much much lower.
Draft? No.
Unclear foreign-policy objective (stop domino effect)? No (Iraq was invaded because Iraq continuously violated the cease-fire).
Continuous anti-war protests on large scale? No.

But, in order to get you to stand up and oppose the war, Harry Reid now says this is the worst thing ever. It’s worse than Vietnam! YOU SHOULD CARE WHY DON’T YOU YOU APATHETIC AMERICAN SLUGS!

The truth is, if you would let America win in Iraq, if you let the COIN ops work, and give it the time necessary to succeed, then it wouldn’t be close to Vietnam. It would be more like… WWII. Because we would have won. And the Democrats can’t risk that.