On the heels of the testimony of Gen. Petraeus to Congress this week Senator Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman have written a editorial in the Wall Street Journal that is a must read:
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. The liberation of these areas was made possible by the surge, which empowered Iraqi Muslims to reject the Islamist extremists who had previously terrorized them into submission. Any time Muslims take up arms against Osama bin Laden, his agents and sympathizers, the world is a safer place.
In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn.
But don’t tell that to Senator Biden who declared The Surge a failure and many other Democrats who ready and waiting to screech that its all a failure: (subscription required so full text below)
In hearings this week with top U.S. leaders in Iraq, Democrats will point to growing violence and a lack of political progress to reinforce their calls for withdrawal and highlight differences with the GOP in a presidential election year.
The four hearings planned for April 8 and 9 will focus on the status of the war — in its sixth year — and the broader implications for the U.S. military and the nation.
General David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will be pressed by Democrats to explain the recent increase in violence, the failed Iraqi offensive in Basra against Shiite militias and how the U.S. military will be able to sustain military operations there.
Key to their strategy is the assertion that after the completion of President Bush’s “surge” of forces, the U.S. is no closer to being able to extricate itself from Iraq than when it began.
“This is like Groundhog Day,” said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., previewing his committee’s hearing for reporters. “We’re at the same point we were at the beginning of the surge.”
Republicans will defend Bush’s policies and frame the situation in Iraq as progressing slowly, but surely, to a point where American troops can leave. They also want to quell the notion that Congress should take an active role in war policy, instead saying it should defer to Petraeus and Crocker.
“Congress has a responsibility . . . to listen to [the] testimony . . . and base our actions on the facts, not a commitment to retreat that is based on ideology rather than reality,” said House Minority Leader John A Boehner, R-Ohio.
But no lawmakers have illusions that the sessions will change minds or result in the kind of compromise that could produce bi-partisan agreement on Iraq.
“I don’t see much change occurring unless we can come up with 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate,” said Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich.
Biden and Levin said April 4 that they will focus on the Iraqi government’s lack of political progress and unleash harsh criticisms against Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
“The Bush administration has put all of our eggs in Maliki’s basket, and he’s shown himself to be a political leader who is excessively sectarian, incompetent, and who runs a corrupt administration,” Levin said.
He said he would ask Crocker to comment on his push for greater financial contributions from the Iraqi government and press Petraeus to specify exactly how long a pause in troop drawdowns should last.
The surge added roughly five brigades to U.S. forces in Iraq. Currently there are about 156,000 troops there. Petraeus has indicated that troop levels should be held at about 140,000 after July, when the surge troops have all been withdrawn, to assess the ability to maintain stability.
The pause in the drawdown “just compounds the problems of an open-ended policy,” Levin said.
In the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs hearings, Democratic leaders will emphasize what they see as the administration’s neglect of broader global issues. They also want to know whether the Iraqi government is enforcing laws that would enable political reconciliation in Iraq.
“These laws are ambiguous, and it is very unclear whether they will ever be implemented. There is a great deal of reason for skepticism,” said House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard L. Berman, D-Calif.
The Iraqi government’s benchmarks are also set to be revived in the hearings, with Democrats calling for evidence of achievement, not just effort.
“This business of, ‘Well, they are trying to do this or that, and it’s hard work,’ that just doesn’t cut it anymore,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
The call for more details about what’s going on in Iraq reflects frustration at an administration Democrats feel has not been upfront with the American people about the war.
Levin and Biden, for example, are calling for the White House to publicly release the intelligence community’s latest estimate on Iraq.
Lawmakers will seek more details about what happened during recent violence in southern Iraq, which included heavy fighting between the forces loyal to militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces aided by the U.S. military.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said he wants to know how the Basra mission unfolded, whether the United States was in the loop and what exactly happened when the fighting ended. “We have to get more information,” Reed said. “Were we urging them to do it, or was this Maliki deciding within his own small circle, ‘I have to do this’?”
Senators from both parties will want to know how Petraeus’ Iraq plan will affect troop deployments. The hope is to give troops as much time at home as they are forced to spend deployed.
“You are wearing them out. It is just going to have to happen,” said House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo.
GOP Emphasizing Successes
Republicans intend to defend Petraeus’ call for a pause in the drawdown as practical, while characterizing the surge as a success.
Drastic drawdowns can be hard to execute and destabilizing,” said Armed Services member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. “We certainly have made some dramatic progress.”
Some moderate Republicans, while disagreeing with Democrats on their criticism of the surge, will join their call for more robust Iraqi government commitments.
“It’s time for an Iraqi-led political and diplomatic surge,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. “Let the Iraqis do more to reconcile their political differences, pay more of their own bills, and persuade their neighbors to locate embassies in Baghdad.”
Alexander said he also wants to ask Petraeus about the prospects of eventually ending the U.S. involvement in the war.
Of course they ignore the real political progress going on in Iraq:
On February 13 the Iraqi parliament simultaneously passed three new laws: one that sets the relationship between the central and provincial governments, a second giving amnesty to thousands of detainees, and a third setting the 2008 national budget. Each piece of legislation is important in its own right, but how the overall compromise came about may prove even more significant than the laws themselves.
And then they call for the release, again, of the latest NIE on Iraq…..like that would matter.
But the fact of the matter is that when Bush sent those extra troops into Iraq it quelled the violence dramatically. al-Qaeda was sent running and while not all of the objectives have been met politically, we see improvements in that area daily. Hell, they’ve done more then the present Congress in this country. When troops were reduced, as they were in Basra by the British, we all saw what happened.
So I see no reason why the prudent thing to do wouldn’t be to pause the reduction in forces, after The Surge troops go home, and see what happens. What is the harm in waiting a bit to see the outcome? Yes, we all want them home as soon as possible but if we just start reducing troops without any strategy and just rely on hope to get us through….well, that would be retarded.
See author page
Who is running that civil war? F-troop? Every country has a level of violence and police corruption. Genocide? This is the worst bumbling of attempted genocide since the 6-Day War. I believe Iraq’s progress is moving along much faster than what even the U.S. military believes. Al-Sadr is taking about disbanding his militia and elections are still going to be held this year around Oct. and not postponed like some countries. Any corrupt leader will probably be thrown out.
The Fifth Column aka “The Democrats” in action once again. They are attracted to even the hint of the bad news like vultures to the scent of death. Anybody surprised?
Petraeus/Crocker will merely be a follow up to CFR’s Dr. Stephen Biddle’s April 2nd presentation to Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations, titled Stabilizing Iraq from the Bottom Up.
Not so odd we didn’t hear about this in the press. And I have this to thank from haunting Greg Grant’s Tribal Wars blog today. Also, thanks to … uh… Wes? Doug? … one of you who led me to Grant’s site for alternative materials.
I’ve read the 15 pg report completely. I have only one bone of contention with Biddle’s overview. That he suggests, multiple times, we were striving for an Iraq that resembled Germany or Japan.
Yet this conflicts with Bush in his Nov 2003 speech, warning us that what Iraq concocts as their “democracy” will not resemble ours.
That revisionism of history (due to media misinformation and propagating) aside, his retrospect of events, and his vision for the future will do nothing but frustrate the withdrawal advocates. The last paragraphs of his paper in the conclusion:
Gregory says:
I read today that Sadr will disarm Medhi forces if al-Sistani (the religious authority in Iraq, tho Iranian in descent) sez “do it”. The threat from Maliki is disband/disarm or be banned from elections. It’s an AP source I red it from. So don’t know how much if valid. Sounds like a poltitical passing of the buck to me.
MataHarley,
That does put al-Sistani in a unique position. Sistani hates the little upstart Sadr. He does not trust Sadr and has marginalized him before. Now Sadr is looking, again, like a long term loser. Perhaps al-Sistani will do the world a favor and rebuke Sadr again.
Yes, ChrisG, it do. Here’s the link to the AP article… 10 or 11 paragraphs down is the deference remark to al-Sistani’s judgment (second, if you know who the phrase “top Shiite clerics” refers to).
But this brings to the surface two known facts.
1: Sadr is a more “legitimate” successor to religious power than al Sistani via his father and heritage (Sistani is Iranian). BUt he lacks all the education and is considered a rogue. And now, even his inherited “Medhi Army” are ignoring his orders.
2: It follows with Sadr’s public announcement to seek more seminary education for more widespread religious legitimacy and authority. His ultimate goal is to usurp Sistani as the religious pubah in Irag… but has a lot of chain of command to either kill or “out educate” over time.
We shall see what Sistani says.
To elaborate on the “passing the poltical buck” bit mention above in response to Gregory.
If Sistani demands disbanding/disarming of the Medhi, he’s likely to create a rift in the Sadr base. Now I’m all for rifts, mind you. They weaken the enemy. The rogue elements Maliki is battling in Basra and Sadr City may not cooperate. But they will be a divided force… still a plus.
However Sistani’s no fool. So I’m hanging on his “response” to Sadr’s “pass
the buck” to him.
A little historical perspective:
http://americanranger.blogspot.com/2008/04/civil-war-surge-letter-to-lincoln.html
Some interesting speculative offerings on Sistani and Sadr here:
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/4625
For whatever my view is worth, I believe we are looking at some vexing predicaments for Maliki, the ISCI and the Bush Admin.
Here’s the dilemma: There is a strong need to hold provincial elections in Oct to satisfy the Sunnis. The Awakening groups have stated they will pick up their guns again if the elections are postponed. So the elections must commence in Oct. But if they aren’t postponed, Sadr will win big over the ISCI. The ISCI is presently our strongest ally in the Iraqi government, (and Iran’s, as I have been saying in other posts). The ISCI wanted to delay the elections because it believes it will lose vast political turf to the more popular Sadrist movement (which, of course, boycotted provincial elections last time).
This Shia-Shia rivalry has significant fallout for the Bush administration for 3 reasons:
1. The ISCI is flexible on a prolonged occupation (which makes the Bush admin happy) .
2. The ISCI is open to foreign investment (US) in the oil rich sector.
3. The ISCI is inclined towards some kind of soft partition in the oil rich south thus making it a super Shiite region (shared by the Bush administration –and also Iran).
However, the Sadrists oppose all three. Therefore, the ISCI’s electoral loss MUST NOT come from any gains Sadr makes at the expense of the ISCI– would prove to be a major problematic to the Bush administration.
Sistani certainly knows this and he certainly doesn’t want to side with the ISCI, thus, tying himself to the occupation forces–and perhaps even igniting a resentment in the hearts of the poorest of Shia masses. Yet, he also doesn’t want another blood-bath. yet i think Sistani would rather associate with Sadr than fall in with the occupation forces. I believe he will side with Sadr …which may then even give Sadr greater political clout in Octobers’ elections.
Sistani could reject Al-Sadr by backing the Iraq’s government’s stance on Al Sadr. The government plans on voting for the militia law before the election. The law would require those with militias to be unable to run. If Sadr wanted political power he would have to turn his militia that backs him against the rogue part of his militia. If that law doesn’t pass, the other clerics could strip Al-Sadr from power. You can’t run a mosque in Iraq from a city in Iran. The clerics could find another cleric to lead the mosque or force Al-Sadr to operate the mosque like he his suppose to. I feel supporting the Sunnis will pay off better than fearing Al-Sadr. There is no sense making an enemy out of a friend by trying to make a friend from an enemy.
Al-Sadr’s days are numbered and his power is weakening. Holding elections in October would tell Al-Sadr he holds little sway. Sure he could win some votes now, but I’m betting it’s going to be less than the 60 he holds now. The election after this would probably have even less Al-Sadr influence and the election after that will probably have almost no influence from Al-Sadr. Part of influence is not being there. The leaders of Al Qaeda are finding this out. Part of Al-Sadr’s problem is he is constantly being challenged. The more flaws discovered, the less people will respect him. Not only that, his underlings could declare themselves heirs (a taste of power) for a guy that’s MIA. Those mini leaders are already ripping off pieces of his power and have been even while he was still in Iraq.
Puleese!! These people want to “run the war” like they would run the country!! Nobody expected the process would be easy, especially once everybody “smarted up” on the problems there. But, no war is ever easy and no war has ever been charted out on a calendar.
They and we need to let the people over there, the actual experts, run this war and finish it, when it’s finished. I get so tired of hearing the “lefty whine” come out of these people.
*rant off*
You mean to say that we have achieved a stable government that can project itws authority over the entire country in Iraq? After all, that was what the purpose of our occupation was, wasn’t it? Just being about to control territory by force of arms was not our objective when we launched George W. Bush’s greatest Crusade in Iraq.
If not, when can we expect to see that “success”?
More about the Sadr militia disbanding. I hadn’t realized that it is the last militia operating.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDhhNTEzNzdkYmY4ZWY3Njg1NWYxOGQ3MjQ4ZGM2ZDA=
Re: “More about the Sadr militia disbanding. I hadn’t realized that it is the last militia operating.”
This is about the eighth time that a Conservative outlet has told America that we are “Turning the corner in Iraq”. It is about the fifth time we have “taken” Sadr militia.
When it happens, and whe it lasts more than one Friedman Unit, then I will find it credible. Until then it is just more Bush Administration spin.
Verses Democratic spin which Steve demands is the “Truth” (as dictated by the Party) and how dare we “conservatives” use different sources than those dictated by Steve and the “Party” or question leftist “Party Truth”.
I reread one of my letters home from Iraq last year. In it, I stated about the same thing as I discussed my loathing of the left and their lies as I saw reality in Iraq. Reality that does not fit Steve’s master’s agenda or the leftist “Party Truth” he marches too like a good drone.
The Bush Administration track record on “turning the corner in Iraq” certainly makes them the last ones we should believe.
You can anser this. How many times have Conservative pundites declared “we are turning the corner in iraq”?
How many times have we been told about the Sadr militias being “taken” or “defeated”?
How many times have we been told about the “great progress” that does not get reported?
Right now the Bush Administratoin and neoConservatives are giving themselves High-Fives because the violence levels in Iraq are ONLY at 2005 levels. As though that were something about which they shold be proud (another round of medals of Freedom perhaps?)
How about the Donald Rumsfeld pronouncements about “six months” for an occupation.
Or that “Iraqi oil money will pay for the occupation”?
Or the “cakewalk” predictions
Not one single Conservative is willing to hold the Bush Administration acocuntable for the botched occupation of Iraq. Every single Conservative is required to declare what a “success” the occupation is. The books “Fiasco” and “Enemy at the Gates” detailed the gross incompetence ofthe Bush Administration after the fall of Saddam’s government. But every single Conservative, without exception, is required to attack the authors of these books and declare what great things Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell did there.
I repeat my previous comments: Were a Democratic president to have presided over such a botched occupation, Conservatives would be screaming. However, since we are talking about Saint George W. Bush, not one single Conservative is permitted to allow that the occupation was anything other than spectacular. Just as every single Conservative is required to declare that he/she is perfactly satisfied that the Bush Administration has failed to capture the man behind the September 11 2001 attacks, Osama bin Laden. They are universally required to say how happy they are just knowing that he is living in tents and caves.
Your violent hatred for anyone who is not your political clone is apparent. I have never said I hated anyone here. You, on the other hand, are seething with hate, and make no pretence that you do not hate everyone who is not your political servant. And while other Conservatives dclare that I “hate” people and how wrong it si, ther is not one single Conservative here who willutter even the slightest criticism of your hate. Not one. now or ever, because you are a loyal Conservative.
Question ChrisG: Your hero Ann Coulter has declared that those who hold my political opinion are guilty of treason, a crime punnshable by death. Since you hate me so much, would you have me put to death for the comments I have made here?
Yes or No?
Question Steve,
In your hatred and slander of all things “conservative”, why do you think Ann Coulter is my “hero”? I think I have read more from Kos or Salon than her.
Since the first part of your asinine accusations are wrong, the remainder is incorrect and invalid as a question. Your question becomes a logical fallacy so often repeated by you. As I stated before to you, your projection onto us of what you “think” “conservatives” are in a question like asking “Since I *know* you have been beating your wife; as a wife beater, do you want to beat me too?”. Since Part A of the question is a lie stated as a fact, Part B of the question does not merit an answer.
As for treason, I would hold Code Pink, their members, supporters, and allies for trial on treason charges as the openly admit to aiding the enemy on their website. Since that forms a large umbrella of the modern left who seem to rejoice at every setback we face in fending off the barbarians attacking us, it does chafe at our patience with them. The fact the talking points of the left and the islamofascists mirror each other also is diconcerting.
Since you have ACCUSED me of wanting to kill you (a capital offense BTW), I feel entitled to ask the following questions. Are you part of these above leftist organizations? Do you support the islamofascists we are fighting? Are you here to spread lies and assist them? Do you provide material aid to said islamofascists (or any other name you wish to call them)?
And here is the kicker. You could answer “yes I am all of the above and more” and I could not do a thing to you.
I do not hate you, despite your crossing SEVERAL lines and attacking me repeatedly (and again attacking me with this “would you have me put to death” arrogant stupidity). For that, I now throw your idiocy back at you ten fold. I think you are misguided, easily brainwashed, delusional, and a projectionist with a paranoia, TV addiction, and family issues. You are a programed robot.
This Steve is projectionism…. AGAIN. It comes back at you and others like you ten fold. “Violent hatred”? I do not assault leftists who attack unarmed US Military recruiting stations or shoot us in our driveways. I do not wish leftists to die even as ANSWERs “peace” protest signs openly state they want me to. That IS the modern left. You may try to keep the words “hate” out of your moronicy and regurgitated talking points, but we all see it and have cited it again and again.
You, on the other hand, have allowed your masters to fill you with hate, lies, and bile, as has been cited repeatedly. But you are a religiously loyal leftist and your above screed is nothing more than the “party truth” your masters feed you and you recite as if you came from a Marxist Madrass.
So, as usual Steve, you are WAAAAYYYYY off base and WRONG AGAIN.
Can you document one post Ihave ever made that expressed anything approaching the raw hatred toward anyone (excepting of course Chris Matthews, the most vapid commentator on television)? Particularly in light of the raw venow that is tossed my way in response to virtually every single post.
What I have done is make blanket statements about “All Conservatives”. Considering that I am right more than I am wrong in those posts (and, unlike conservatives and their hero, George W. Bush, I can admit to making mistakes), I have no qualms about it. That does not indiate that I hate you or anyone else. I just stereotype you and make predictions as to how you will respond. You, however, do vehemetly hate me, because I believe that George W. Bush is an incompetent President, and have said so.
.
Re: “Are you part of these above leftist organizations?”
Nope.
.
Re: “Do you support the islamofascists we are fighting?”
What is an “Islamofacist”? That is apparently a code word that Conservatives are supposed to use.
Is that a member of al Qaeda? Then no.
Is that a member of the Saudi Royal family, who finance Madrass recruiting schools for al Qaeda? The answer is still no, but for Conservatives you have to be careful about your condemnations there because the Saudi royal Family (at least the higher ups) are all personal family friends of the Bush’s and you cannot criticize them.
Is that a member of the Iraqi government, who have an Islamic consitituion and meet regularly with their friends and mentors in the Iranian govenment? The answer is still no, but my tax money is being sent to prop them up anyway, and so is yours.
.
Re: “I do not hate you, despite your crossing SEVERAL lines and attacking me repeatedly”
You have already declared that you “despise” those like me. How is that different?
What is an “islamofascist”????? And then you throw in the “conservative” crap again!!!!! AQ is part of that definition, as are the Maadis, HAMAS, the PLO, Hizbollah, Ansar al Islam, ect. No “code words” Steve. This word was defined long ago, though your “thought leaders” and “heros” on the left indoctrinated you into believing the word somehow applied to you and an attack on it was an attack on you. A pity that you fell for it.
And you might want to look at Clinton’s Library donors before accusing President Bush of anything. Though as a placation, BOTH major parties are guilty of these ties.
Correct: Never. Wrong: Consistently. Even more dead wrong:
Wrong on BOTH counts. You have been refuted TIME AND AGAIN with your “blanket statements” and your response is more of the same as if telling the same lie repeatedly makes the lie a truth. The only blind loyalty is yours to the left.
But then, I can easily “just stereotype you and make predictions as to how you will respond.” I already know how you will and those of us who read your garbage daily do also.
And here is your fragile persecution complex showing:
Wrong again, as usual. We do not “vehemetly hate” you or hate you at all. Actually we pity you, your brainwashed parroting state, and your many psychological issues. I know that “hating” you might give you some vindication in your persecution issues, but we do not. Laugh at you and pick our jaws off the ground when we realized you actually are a true believer in the garbage you literally copy/paste (with updates as the DNC releases new talking points), and are very angry with your stupid charges against me here and on other threads. But hate is not there.
Heck, you should have seen the letters I wrote to the RNC when I left the Republicans in 2003 over their lack of resolve in fighting socialism, non-defense related government expansion, ILLEGAL immigrant amnesty, and bowing to the Democrats as fast as possible. They became, as I cited many times before “democrat lite”. I do not like nor support the idiotic policies of the left, but both major parties are “left” and “kinda left”. So congrats Steve, no matter who wins the election, (barring a huge surprise strong 3rd party) a leftist is in power. You have socialism in slow motion (McCain), or socialism full speed ahead (either Dem).
From
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/despise
From the definition, I look down upon your projectionism, Party indoctrinated hate (what they teach, though you do not say the word), and “conservatives this/that” lies, and “woes me”/”conservatives get different standards here” B.S. with aversion, scorn and condemnation. I find them and your attacks worthless and distasteful. You accused me of wanting to kill you. I do not, but you crossed another line with that charge. I find your diatribes disgusting and full of lies, and contemptible. Your “holier than thou” arrogance is even more disgusting.
But no where in this is “hate”. I leave that to you and the left “like you”. One day you will look in a mirror and see it. Until then, we will have to put up with your arrogance and projectionism.
Interesting as you said “those like me” as that is EXACTLY what Code Pink, ANSWER, ACT, ACORN, Move-On, and other leftists groups fall into. You said you are not part of them, yet they are “like you”. They have the same screaming points, same visceral reactions to anyone who does not have a (D) after their name, and same desire to censor/refuse to hear conservatives, even when we act on policies supported by the left.
But as bad as these leftist groups are, I do not hate them. I save that for the real Islamofascists and others like them who desire to crush civilization and kill/enslave us all. Unfortunately, they also endorse a leftist for President which leads to even more jaw dropping on our part…
And as a final note: You comment was caught in the spam filter. Do not feel bad. I am logged on as an admin and mine get caught too. Anyways, IF I did “hate” you, why did I recover it? Why so the writers here constatly scour the spam filter and rescue your comments even though you spew the same crap over and over? Something to think on as you look in that mirror.
Re: “Steve. This word was defined long ago, ”
Yes. Defined by the neoConservatives as a buzzword. Your hero, Rick Santorum was incensed when the Bush Administration tried to move away from the term, to be more specific toward individual terms, such as al Qqeda, a sunni Muslim organization, or Hezbolah, a violent Palistinian group. They are different. By lumping them into one, big amorphous term, you, and your NeoConservative may have nice FoxNews sound bites, but you have alienated a large group of the world, upon whom we depend for our oil and alliance in defeating the trrrorist groups, including al Qaeda.
But then, those levels of though are not easy, rush limbaugh labels that can make quick broadcasts, and Republican campaign bumper stickers.
Which is the real objective of NeoConservative invective, isn’t it?