Posted by Curt on 1 June, 2008 at 9:41 am. 36 comments already!

Well, whadda ya know. The Washington Post is suddenly curious why the reporting of the Iraqi war has been sorta quiet. Hell, judging by the newspapers across this country its hard to even know there is still a war going on over there.

Of course the conservatives have asked this question for going on a year now ever since the surge started producing results.

There’s been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks — which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington’s attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have “never been closer to defeat than they are now.”

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained “special groups” that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

The article goes on to detail how General Petraeus has recommended that more troops come home, over and above the already scheduled 5 Brigades and that the next President will be reaping the benefits of the success in Iraq.

All well and good but the article never delves into the reason why the crickets are chirping in the news rooms across the nation on Iraq. Ever since the war started all we have heard day in and day out is that Iraq is a disaster and will lead to nothing but chaos and anarchy. It was just over 13 months ago that we heard these brilliant words:

“Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything,”
– Senator Harry Reid, April 17th, 2008

When told the surge was working Hillary Clinton said this last September:

I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

They can no longer utter those lines, so instead they just stay quiet. The Democrats and our media has invested so much of their credibility on the fact that Iraq would not, could not, succeed. How else to blame Bush? History will show that Bush did the right thing in taking out Saddam. That the invasion was well executed. That the following 3+ years inside that country was handled badly, and that Bush adapted…as great leaders do….and brought in new ideas, new leaders, and changed tactics. Which worked.

Democrats won’t say this of course because that would give credit to Bush. So instead they just remain quiet along with their cohorts….our MSM.

More here.

>