Posted on 07/31/2007 8:02:17 PM PDT by jazusamo
August 1, 2007
If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.
One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus' September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate Congressional mandate to pull the troops out.
Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?
The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure -- and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.
Senator Reid had to pre-empt defeat before General Petraeus could report progress. The Majority Leader's failure to get the Senate to do that suggests that not enough others were convinced that declaring failure now was the right political strategy.
An optimist might even hope that some of the senators thought it was wrong for the country.
Another revealing sign is that the solid front of the mainstream media in filtering out any positive news from Iraq and focussing only on American casualties -- in the name of "honoring the troops" -- is now starting to show cracks.
One of the most revealing cracks has appeared in, of all places, the New York Times, which has throughout the war used its news columns as well as its editorial pages to undermine the war in Iraq and paint the situation as hopeless.
But an op-ed piece in the July 30 New York Times by two scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution -- Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack -- now paints a very different picture, based on their actual investigation on the ground in Iraq after the American troop surge under General Petraeus.
It is not a rosy scenario by any means. There are few rosy scenarios in any war. But O'Hanlon and Pollack report some serious progress.
"Today," they report, "morale is high" among American troops and "civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began."
In two cities they visited in northern Iraq "American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate" in providing their own security.
"Today," they say, "in only a few places did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless -- something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005."
In the last six months, O'Hanlon and Pollack report, "Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists."
In Ramadi, where American Marines "were fighting for every yard" of territory just a few months ago, "last week we strolled down the streets without body armor."
Victory is not inevitable, any more than victory was inevitable when American and British troops landed at Normandy in 1945. General Eisenhower even kept in his pocket a written statement taking full responsibility in the event of failure.
But victory is not even defined the same way in Iraq as it was in World War II. American troops do not need to stay in Iraq until the last vestige of terrorism has been wiped out.
The point when it is safe to begin pulling out is the point when the Iraqi military and police forces are strong enough to continue the fight against the terrorists on their own.
That point depends on how much and how long the current progress continues, not on how much the Democrats or their media allies need an American defeat before the 2008 election.
O'Hanlon and Pollack warn that "the situation in Iraq remains grave" but conclude that "there is enough good happening in Iraq that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."
But 2008 may have an entirely different significance for politicians than for these Brookings scholars.
---------
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
Except for the Normandy in 1945 thing :)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Good catch, missed it. :-)
Good post.
The Defeatocrats can NOT let AMerica WIN!! It will be Horrible for the Democrats, so they want AMerica to LOSE so they can blame it on Bush. Despicable creatures, those Defeatocrats.
As always most logical! : )
Except for the Normandy in 1945 thing :)
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!!!???
;-)
Especially in the Presidential race. "Now that we've won in Iraq, you should make me commander in chief. Just forget the fact that I said the tactics that won it were bnever going to work in a million years."
Excellent article.
More than simply betting on defeat, the real truth is that Democrats were, and are, betting on more dead American troops. Indeed, some are even *hoping* for more US casualties.
How many Democrats are actually desirous of US casualties? No telling. But you can be certain of one thing, were any moral person to know how many there really are, it would make them physically ill to contemplate such depravity.
It is truly depraved for some to wish for the defeat and death of their countrymen in the hopes of furthering political goals. Welcome to the Democratic party leadership and the sick kooks to whom they pander.
This guy is one of America’s premier minds, and the left will never credit him that because he’s a “Tom”.
A lot of folks are crediting the surge. While I agree with it, I also think a lot of the change is due to 1) the training we’ve been giving for several years is starting to show in better Iraqi forces, and 2) the Iraqis themselves are even more tired of the violence than we are.
You’re right on the money.
Go get ‘em, Blutarsky!
You couldn’t be more correct, IMO. The Anbar Province is a prime example, it has done an about face because of the tribes and the people.
Sowell places the blame for the desire to declare defeat exactly where it belongs: on Harry Reid.
BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.