When Good News Is “A Real Big Problem”

Is it unfair to say the, for many Congressional Democrats, an American defeat in Iraq is an important objective? The standard liberal line is that the Dems’ eagerness to abandon that country merely recognizes that the U.S. has been defeated – so thoroughly and irrevocably defeated that all we can do is throw in the towel. If the consequence is a tremendous propaganda harvest for al-Qa’eda and a genocidal civil war in Iraq – who cares?

If our circumstances were like those of the Confederacy in April 1865 or Germany in November 1918, accepting defeat might indeed be the only realistic course. But what if matters are not quite so dire? A paragraph in today’s Washington Post gives an insight into how Rep. James Clyburn (D–S.C.), the number three man among House Democrats, views that possibility:

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”

So good news about the fight against terrorists is “a real big problem” for the Democratic Party?

The other development on the good news front was in today’s New York Times, an op-ed by two Brookings Institution fellows, both hitherto pessimistic about the prospects for Iraq, titled “A War We Just Might Win”:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. [Sounds like a good approximation of “victory” to me.] . . .

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done. . . .

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq). . . .

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Left-winger Joe Klein has a “see no good” response ready:

It could be argued that what the U.S. military is now accomplishing is clearing the field of foreigners – i.e. the Al Qaeda in Iraq foreign fighters – so that the indigenous Sunnis and Shi’ites can go at each other in a full-blown civil war, complete with Srebrenica style massacres.

Ponder that: Mr. Klein doesn’t think it important for us to defeat al-Qa’eda. If we don’t leave behind a peaceful, stable Iraq, we will have failed. And since peace and stability will be hard to achieve, we should pull out and let the “Srebrenica style massacres” commence instanter.

Not long ago, the Left was sneering at President Bush’s desire to bring democracy to Iraq. Now it complains that he is only defeating our enemies, not building a utopia in Mesopotamia.

The constant for leftists is, George W. Bush must lose, no matter what the cost. Put another way, they would destroy America in order to save it.

Comments

[Peter Hodges]

"Non-BDS sufferers who paid attention during that period will recall warnings that Saddam would employ chemical and biological weapons against our troops, that the initial invasion would cost 25,000 or more American dead and subsequent guerilla warfare at least 10 or 20 a day, that Iraq’s oil well would be set afire before they could be captured, that millions would starve in the war’s aftermath, etc."

Those predictions were courtesy of your boy Kenneth Pollack, the other half of your hot shot think tank team. I vividly recall his hyping of Saddam's supposed "Gathering Storm" and his best selling profiteering thereby. Which he subsequently claimed in another notable book was the result of "bad intelligence".

Which is kind of how I describe your blog.

pbh

[Tom Veal]

It would take a very long post to point out all the ways that Peter Hodges’ memory of history differs from the arguments that were actually made during the run-up to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Non-BDS sufferers who paid attention during that period will recall warnings that Saddam would employ chemical and biological weapons against our troops, that the initial invasion would cost 25,000 or more American dead and subsequent guerilla warfare at least 10 or 20 a day, that Iraq’s oil well would be set afire before they could be captured, that millions would starve in the war’s aftermath, etc.

What really happened was that a somewhat fractious democracy succeeded the Ba’athists; al-Qa’eda and a bevy and Ba’athist diehards tried to subvert it by committing atrocities that, they hoped, would spark a civil war; Iran, hoping that civil war would lead to the emergence of a puppet state subservient to Tehran, joined in by supplying weapons to both sides; the U.S. resisted these efforts by supporting the elected government; and our support is, according even to observers who don’t think much of the Bush Administration, starting to get positive results. The Left’s response is to moan about how Iraq is not perfect (as if its subjection to a tyrant who killed hundreds of thousand of Iraqis and celebrated 9/11 was better) and demand that it be made worse through a precipitate American withdrawal.

[Peter Hodges]

“remember the predictions of helicopters lifting out the last troops à la
Saigon?”

No, I don’t. What I remember is that people protested the war because:

1. They didn’t believe the WMD hype; and they were right.

2. They didn’t believe the Saddam-as-Imminent-Threat hype; and they were
right.

3. They didn’t believe that Saddam had anything to do with the people
who attacked the US on 9/11; and they were right.

4. They didn’t believe the US would be greeted as liberators; and they
were right.

5. They didn’t believe the war would be over in three to six months; and
they were right.

6. They didn’t believe that the US could impose a “friendly” government,
much less a democracy, on a country with less historical cohesion than the
former Yugoslavia; and they were right.

7. They feared that while the invasion would succeed, the aftermath
could not be managed by less than 350,000 troops; and they were right.

8. They were afraid that the invasion might result in a civil war; and
they were right.

9. They were afraid that our military would be stretched beyond its
capacity and be unable to respond to other, more serious threats; and they
were right.

“From the point of view of American interests, it will be adequate to
administer a bloody setback to al-Qa’eda and other mufsidun.”

I don’t see how this war sets anybody back but us.

“half a loaf is better than throwing away the wheat.”

You are delusional. There is no half a loaf and the Bush crowd already
stole the wheat. The Army is exhausted and we are in debt up to our
eyeballs.

And then there’s Sec. Gates assessment:

“we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust, and how
difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation,
which, let’s face it, is not some kind of secondary issue.”

Which, remarkably, echoes O'Hanlaon's latest quote in the Times:

“Ultimately, politics trumps all else,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. “If the
political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I
don’t see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.”

Did I want this to happen? Get serious.

pbh

[TomVeal]

The ones turning to “Plan B” are the leftists who were so sure that America would suffer a massive military defeat in Iraq – remember the predictions of helicopters lifting out the last troops à la Saigon?

Now that that scenario is starting to look fantastical, the fallback is that the Iraq won’t become a stable democracy. Maybe not, but stability and democracy sadly aren’t the norm in the Arab world. From the point of view of American interests, it will be adequate to administer a bloody setback to al-Qa’eda and other mufsidun. We would like a better result, of course, because most Americans – the newly indifferent-to-genocide Left excepted – favor peace and prosperity throughout the world, but half a loaf is better than throwing away the wheat.

[Peter Hodges]

"O’Hanlon and Pollack worried about the long-run ability of the Iraqi factions to work together harmoniously"

I'd say that "ability" is pretty much nil:

"BAGHDAD, Aug. 1 — Iraq’s largest Sunni political faction resigned from Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s cabinet on Wednesday, severely weakening the government’s credentials as a national unity coalition and setting back hopes of reconciliation. The move was accompanied by a wave of bombings in Baghdad that killed at least 76 people."

An eventuality which should have been obvious from the outset.

Oh, right, it was obvious, but the Bush Gang ignored the warnings.

Now that the neo-con "strategy" is collapsing, despite the expense of over a trillion dollars and lives uncounted, it is time for the right wing to switch to plan B, the "stab in the back" excuse as exemplified by your "they would destroy America in order to save it" rant.

The path out of this Fiasco can only begin by holding to account those who fixed the intelligence around it. Your continued support for those who hijacked the war against the "Islamo-Fascists" (your term) for their own profit remains pathetically hysterical.

Whatever threat al Qaeda and the "IFs" could possibly have posed, the means of dealing with it never required the diversion/waste/disaster of the war in Iraq.

But you don't care about al Qaeda at all. Your world view is of a different order. American Supremacy is all you think about.

As if that could possibly be the cure for all the problems that confront us.

As if history has not taught us that all such delusions fail in the end.

pbh

[Tom Veal]

Hedging? In the op-ed that I quoted, Messrs. O’Hanlon and Pollack worried about the long-run ability of the Iraqi factions to work together harmoniously, but their bottom line was clear and isn’t undercut by Matt Yglesias’s version of Mr. O’Hanlon’s testimony: “[T]here is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.”

BTW, anyone who looks around can verify that neither man has had much favorable to say about the Bush Administration’s handling of Iraq. Their pre-war support for deposing Saddam Hussein dissolved very quickly, and their pessimism made the Left happy. Now they’re back to being “knuckleheads” to the moonbat set.

[Peter Hodges]

"two Brookings Institution fellows, both hitherto pessimistic about the prospects for Iraq,"

Both of those knuckleheads were big proponents of the war and the surge.

O'Hanlon testified on Iraq's future before a House Armed Services subcommittee Tuesday afternoon, where retired Gen. Jack Keane, one of the main proponents and architects of the surge initiative, lauded him as "an objective, astute observer."
"I agree with General Keane that trendlines are improving on the military, tactical level" O'Hanlon told the subcommittee. But of the surge strategy, he said: "I'm dubious, despite my generally inspiring visit last week."

According to Matt Yglesias (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/), who witnessed the testimony, O'Hanlon also said "sectarian violence and the civil war is as bad as ever, and that the current strategy will probably fail. He thinks we should partition the country."

In short, your expert is hedging his bets.

Will you also print a retraction?

pbh