Posted on 11/28/2007 10:33:27 AM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo
It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the last several months is of equal moment -- a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening. And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: "This is not working. ... We must reverse it." A euphemism for "abandon the field," which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.
How do they avoid acknowledging the realities on the ground? By asserting that we have not achieved political benchmarks -- mostly legislative actions by the Baghdad government -- that were set months ago. And that these benchmarks are paramount. And that all the current progress is ultimately vitiated by the absence of centrally legislated national reconciliation.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
I’m going to read this later but I’m going to post my comment now:
Krauthammer hits another homer.
(I fully expect to agree with my own post after I read this article.)
Kind of like all in in the dark.
She probably would say the same thing about the New England Patriots.
On the money. Of course, if all the political benchmarks were met tomorrow, the dems would further move the bar to conform with the old “Bush’s failed policy” argument.
Krauthammer is absolutely correct. They are moving the goal posts. Hannity was all over this yesterday on his radio show as well.
If Pelosi is basing success in Iraq on legislative benchmarks, she needs to take a long hard look at the ugly facts staring back at her in the mirror. Using her ignorant San Fran logic, her Commie led Congress has failed miserably. Not a single “Benchmark” that the Dems promised has come to fruition.
Iraq is far more than winnable. I predict there will be one more surge by insurgents but that it will be quickly repelled. The real question is what sort of nation will come out of Iraq in the aftermath and (a secondary but important issue) how much oil can we get from Iraq as thanks for liberating them from Saddam.
The media machine has known for a long time that if the Iraq war ever turned out well in the end, it would have to do a lot of historical revisionism to make it appear as though the democrat party didn’t virtually oppose the war monolithically. But what hurts them is the fact that the war appeared to be going badly for so many years, the job of revising history would require a feat on par with mass brainwashing, and will never succeed if attempted with direct and brute force methods. Instead, it will require nuance and nudging. People will have to be convinced, not that democrats didn’t oppose the war, but by re-defining the mission in Iraq as a failure even after it has succeeded. In the many months leading up to the next election, if Iraq’s situation continues to become more positive, the old media will collude to convey Iraq as a victim of US aggression even if THEY don’t see it that way.
“So, just as we have learned this hard lesson of the disconnect between political benchmarks and real stability, the critics now claim the reverse — that benchmarks are what really count.
This is to fundamentally mistake ends and means. The benchmarks would be a wonderful shortcut to success in Iraq. But it is folly to abandon the pursuit of that success when a different route, more arduous but still doable, is at hand and demonstrably working.”
Great piece, BTLD!
They can do this because no one on either side has advanced a clear measure of what either victory or defeat looks like beyond "what we see in front of us isn't victory so therefore it's defeat." That sort of childish formulation is about all the Pelosi/Reid/Murtha wing of the Democratic party has managed, but it works because it fits into the lead paragraph of a news story.
I watched a morning show this weekend, PBS I believe, where Charles was on with two members from the dino-media. Charles made these same points and the two dinos (a fat man and some woman) replied “balooney.” It was amazing, no content, no refuting his points, just “balooney.” The script is so well written in the dino-media, defeat so set in stone, that to hear anything but is met with a reflexive denial.
That’s the usual liberal mantra when Dr. K wipes up the floor with them.
Thank Charles....
This was published yesterday. I was surprised that I didn’t find it posted here, already...
The great problem has been the totally artificuial character of the central government. None of the parties have a constituency rotted in anything except the hold of power=> From this distance, Baghdad reminds me of the Beltway, but with year round fireworks.
Gen. David Petraeus' genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders -- without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.A genius, indeed. So what do you call a person who calls a genius a liar, as the Beast did in the show-trial Senate hearings?
Do the critics forget their own arguments about the irrelevance of formal political benchmarks? The transfer of power in 2004. The two elections in 2005. The ratification of the constitution.Yes, they do forget. They are all a pack of JFnK's, being against the benchmarks before they were for them.
At best, another Pakistan, at worst another Iran, and sadly, no oil except that which we pay for. Bush has made it clear that oil revenues will be used to rebuild Iraq or, more probably, go into the pockets of whatever corrupt Iraqi politicians can manage to get their hands on it.
We don’t elect politicians with balls so it’s a safe bet that that will remain our policy as regards oil even after Bush. Kiss the trillions of dollars spent “liberating” the Iraqi people goodbye. We will never see that money again. The good news is that we will have military bases in Iraq forever. We don't have to kiss the Saudi's butts quite so passionately anymore in order to keep a presence in the middle east.
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.