A Thorough Fisking For The Post

This comes from the Washington Post this morning. And I did not want to put the whole piece up in the blog. I had just settled on the idea of excerpting it. But the more I read, the more I found that had to be answered. So, instead of this blog being short, it grew. I apologize to our regular readers, but I could not simply let any outlet of the MSM put up a piece where people are arguing over Pres. Bush’s strategy, or his optimism concerning Iraq. As you will read below, these people cannot define "success", nor do they truly have a grasp of what it takes to establish a new, free, independent nation.

Maybe if they had paid a bit of attention to history, especially our own (instead of revising it), they would finally understand what it takes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060401506.html

President Bush's portrayal of a wilting insurgency in Iraq at a time of escalating violence and insecurity throughout the country is reviving the debate over the administration's Iraq strategy and the accuracy of its upbeat claims.

While Bush and Vice President Cheney offer optimistic assessments of the situation, a fresh wave of car bombings and other attacks killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis last month alone and prompted Iraqi leaders to appeal to the administration for greater help. Privately, some administration officials have concluded the violence will not subside through this year.

The disconnect between Rose Garden optimism and Baghdad pessimism, according to government officials and independent analysts, stems not only from Bush's focus on tentative signs of long-term progress but also from the shrinking range of policy options available to him if he is wrong. Having set out on a course of trying to stand up a new constitutional, elected government with the security firepower to defend itself, Bush finds himself locked into a strategy that, even if it proves successful, foreshadows many more deadly months to come first, analysts said.

Has anybody else missed the fact that the insurgency is falling apart? The letters sent to Zarqawi, intercepted by coalition and Iraqi forces stating that the leaders of the insurgents and terrorists are to blame for the failures is a prime example. A communiqué intercepted earlier this year from Zarqawi to bin Laden stated that the al-Qaeda second-in-command was having a hard time recruiting people. For months, the native insurgents have been negotiating a surrender with our forces because they failed to stop the free elections.

Above all, the terrorists and insurgents have stopped engaging out troops so much, and have turned their attention to blowing up the civilian populace. That tactic is beyond foolish, and borders on retarded. The propaganda put out by the insurgents is that they are there to help beat back the imperialistic Americans and their allies. Were that true, then why are they targeting the civilians? The answer is simple. They are desperate.

But it is not stopping the Left from ramping up their rhetoric over the war. They had maintained their stance against the war, but they let their willing cronies in the MSM make the attacks. This was no more evident than the recent idiocy of Newsweek, and Linda Foley standing up to pull off her best Eason Jordan impression. And, of course, almost every week each major mouth in the MSM has to utter "Abu Ghraib" at least once. But it is not just the Left that is doing this. We have those on our side of the aisle that are likewise mouthing off.

Military commanders in Iraq privately told a visiting congressional delegation last week that the United States is at least two years away from adequately training a viable Iraqi military but that it is no longer reasonable to consider augmenting U.S. troops already strained by the two-year operation, said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). "The idea that the insurgents are on the run and we are about to turn the corner, I did not hear that from anybody," Biden said in an interview.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who joined Biden for part of the trip, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others are misleading Americans about the number of functional Iraqi troops and warned the president to pay more attention to shutting off Syrian and Iranian assistance to the insurgency. "We don't want to raise the expectations of the American people prematurely," he said.

After dialing down criticism of Bush's policy following the successful January elections in Iraq, congressional Democrats are increasingly challenging the president's decisions and public assessments, and developing alternative policy ideas. "The administration has failed to level with the American people," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "It's terrible because they refuse to provide a full picture of what is really happening there."

To Mr. Biden: No, you did not hear anyone mention the turning of a corner. Do you know why? Because a soldier does not make that determination. A soldier’s duty is to fight for America. They are doing that. The senior brass in Iraq, in my opinion, are not qualified to speak about the new Iraqi government. This is why we have political people over there working with them. If Sen. Biden would like a "progress report", he might want to call up Dr. Rice. She is the Secretary of State. I am sure she would be happy to brief him on the progress in Iraq.

That progress is more than evident in the information coming out of the country. Almost all of their hospitals are fully-functioning. Every university and technical school in Iraq is up and running. Almost all of the schools have been either rebuilt or rehabbed, and the children are going—male and female alike. The Iraqi Security Forces, backed up by just over 1000 US Marines, slapped a net over Baghdad last week in an effort to nab any insurgents or terrorists operating out of the city; a city where, yes, many car bombs have gone off recently.

Nearly all of Iraq’s courts are running, and it’s judiciary is independent. The parliament, and those representing Iraq on the world stage are in place. Discussions regarding their constitution are ongoing. See, this is what the Left misses. It took us a long time to establish THIS nation. We cannot just walk into a country today, and walk out six months later smelling like roses, and expecting that country to be able to stand on it’s own. We do have other regional concerns for Iraq in addition to the insurgents still attacking that nation.

Anyone remember Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iranian cleric that held "al-Sadr City" for months before being coaxed out of the fight by a fellow cleric. He was seen by many as one of the heads of the native insurgency. Well, why do you think he was in Iraq at such a crucial point in the war? If anyone thinks that al-Sadr was in Iraq for a vacation, you are sorely mistaken. Al-Sadr was there to help set up the nation for a fall. Iran and Iraq have been bitter blood enemies for years. Just because Saddam was gone, it does not change the fact that Iran still wanted to see Iraq’s downfall.

Reid traveled to Iraq in April and was confined to heavily fortified zones in and around Baghdad and prohibited from visiting some of the most troubled areas where the insurgency is particularly strong. "The place is in turmoil," he said. Since then, Reid said, he has been meeting with former Clinton administration officials in an effort to devise a new Iraq plan, including the possibility of calling for more U.S. troops and requesting additional international assistance.

Well, of course the place is still in turmoil. America was too even after the defeat of Cornwallis. Germany was in turmoil as we took up the burden of rebuilding it after World War II. And despite the Japanese respect for MacArthur, he still had plenty of problems post World War II. But I do have to question why Reid is talking with Clinton officials, for they do not occupy the White House. The current plan is working just fine, and we do not need a plan from a partisan hack like Reid and his cronies. Did the Democrats really expect peaches and cream after we finished liberating the nation? I am an optimist, at heart, but I am also a realist. This was all far from over once the nation was liberated.

The White House says the focus on recent killings overshadows substantial long-term progress in Iraq, where the January elections allowed the United States to turn over more control for security to the Iraqis and set the stage for a new constitution to be written and approved this fall. Once that happens, White House officials say, a democratically elected Iraqi government protected by a better trained and equipped Iraqi military will hold off what remains of the insurgency and gradually allow U.S. forces to withdraw. Iraq's recent decision to put 40,000 troops around Baghdad, the most ambitious military move yet by the two-month-old government, proves that the U.S. plan to eventually turn over peacekeeping duties is not only viable, but working, White House officials maintain. Bush and Cheney, however, continue to decline to set deadlines for how long U.S. troops will remain.

The president has repeated this time and again when the question comes up: The troops will come home when the job is done. We are not finished there yet. To pull out now, even with a modest reduction in troops, will leave that nation open to those around them that are licking their chops. Nations like Iran and Syria would look at Iraq collapsing as a welcome prospect. Not only for the chaos that would ensue, and a better opportunity to turn Iraq into another terrorist stronghold—again—but from a strategic point of view, as well. Syria and Iran had signed a mutual defense treaty, for lack of a better phrase, and have pledged to come to the other’s aid if need be. Pretty easy to do if you have the link in the center, which a destabilized Iraq would become.

"I am pleased that in less than a year's time, there's a democratically elected government in Iraq, there are thousands of Iraq soldiers trained and better equipped to fight for their own country [and] that our strategy is very clear," Bush said during a Rose Garden news conference Tuesday. Overall, he said, "I'm pleased with the progress." Cheney offered an even more hopeful assessment during a CNN interview aired the night before, saying the insurgency was in its "last throes."

Several Republicans questioned that evaluation. "I cannot say with any confidence that that is accurate," said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), a member of the House International Relations Committee. "I think it's impossible to know how close we are to the insurgency being overcome."

To Rep. Chabot: What do you call the deliberate targeting of civilians? It is a terrorist tactic, but when terrorists are dealing with situations like this one, they ultimately resort to specifically racking up a civilian body count. It is a lot like the Democrat’s temper-tantrums in Congress, only a lot bloodier. Can we solidly predict the time the insurgency will surrender? No. The world does not work like that, and I am ashamed of Rep. Chabot for making such an ill-educated statement.

It is not unusual for a president to put the most positive spin possible on U.S. policy, especially during a time of armed conflict when public support is crucial. But the administration's assertions about Iraq have been a source of controversy since the earliest days of the operation, from the insistence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to Cheney's claim of links between Iraq and al Qaeda to the rosy forecasts about how welcome U.S. troops would be.

A poll conducted last month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that only 37 percent of those surveyed approved of Bush's Iraq policy, while the number of people telling pollsters the war was not worth the cost has been rising in recent months.

The death tolls were much larger during the actual war itself. Injured troops were being rotated out of the combat zones immediately; again the levels were greater during the actual war. Yes, our troops are still in harm’s way, and they are targets, but the point is that the terrorists are focusing more on the Iraqis right now in terms of "targets". Large gatherings of civilians are being picked out. The insurgents are going after those that have joined the Iraqi Security Forces.

And, yes there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. His own intelligence people had met with higher ranking members of al-Qaeda since 1995. The State Department released those reports in late 2002, early 2003. And he also had ties to Hamas, Hezbollah, el-Fatah, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

"We are just paying a heavy price for mistakes made before," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

"It's dangerous when U.S. officials start to believe their own propaganda," said David L. Phillips, a former State Department consultant who worked on Iraq planning but quit in frustration in 2003 and has written a book called "Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco." "I have no doubt that they genuinely think that Iraq is a smashing success and a milestone in their forward freedom strategy. But if you ask Iraqis, they have a different opinion."

Phillips added that U.S. officials keep pointing to landmarks such as the January elections as turning points but "at no point have any of these milestones proven to be breakthroughs."

Has Mr. Phillips been absent during "current events" class? First of all, no one I am aware of will refer to Iraq as a "smashing success". We realists understand that things like this are difficult, and they NEVER go precisely as planned. Setbacks are bound to crop up, and when they do, they are addressed. And the January elections were a breakthrough on two fronts. It demoralized the terrorists and native insurgents because they could not prevent the people from going to the polls. Secondly, more and more civilians are turning against these animals when they slip into their towns. I have read numerous news accounts of Iraqi citizens patrolling their cities, and beating or killing terrorists that try to set up shop.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari last week lobbied Cheney and others for a more assertive U.S. military approach in Iraq, as well as for more help meeting the fall deadline for writing and approving a constitution. But even that carries risks. "Heavy-handed meddling by the Bush administration only undermines Iraq's new political leaders," Phillips said.

Dumb@$$, it was lobbied for, not approved of. And I am positive that the administration will help when they can, and butt out when they need to. Also, I know that the citizens would prefer a much more assertive effort from us, however every time we attempt to do so, everyone starts to scream and yell we are being too tough. I see it on a daily basis in the newspapers and on the Internet MSM sites. They are always questioning our tactics, our strategy, and how we act over there. (Don’t be an ugly American!) Our soldiers care less about their image, and more about doing their jobs, and the media and the administration should let them do it.

Peter Khalil, a former national security policy adviser for the Coalition Provisional Authority that ruled Iraq after Hussein's fall, said the rosy views expressed by Bush and Cheney reflect tentative hopes for progress down the road rather than a focus on day-to-day events at the moment. "They're thinking more long term when they make such optimistic remarks," said Khalil, now a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. "There's some cause for optimism; however, things could turn badly very quickly."

Major Sunni leaders recently agreed to abandon their boycott of the political process; if they can be brought into the drafting of a new constitution and subsequent elections, Khalil and others say, it would undercut the elements of the insurgency that are powered by disaffection among the once-ruling Sunni minority. To do that, Khalil said, the new Shiite-led Iraqi government has to find the right balance in terms of including former members of Hussein's Sunni-dominated Baath Party.

"If you address these issues, it's very, very difficult to see them continue on in the use of violence because they become part of that [governing] structure," Khalil said.

A Western diplomat in Baghdad said victory would have to be won in a drawn-out struggle that will have peaks and valleys. "We should not expect some big-bang breakthrough so that one day the insurgency ends," he said on the condition of anonymity. "We should expect a long grind-it-out." After all, he said, "this is the hardest thing we've done to try to rebuild a state almost from zero."

"If you pull back far enough," he added, "you see a positive trend. . . . The negative is we've had some really spectacular car bombs, really gruesome car bombs and we've had a terrible civilian death toll. . . . The overall trend lines for the last six to seven months are better, but not so much better that we can say it's over or we won."

McCain said Bush needs to carefully balance his reassuring statements to a troubled nation with frank talk about the arduous and unpredictable future. "It's a long, hard struggle and very gradually maybe we are making progress," McCain said. "There are tough times ahead."

The only reason that the media is even bringing up McCain is they love to stoke his ego (Sen. McCain, if you do run for president, the press is going to turn on you. If you manage to take the nomination, they will destroy you. They are no more your friend than they are mine.)

Khalil is the only person quoted in the entire piece (save VP Cheney) that even understands what is going on right now. The administration is looking at the long-term when it comes to success in Iraq. Things do not look great right now, thanks much in part to the MSM, but they are still trending more to the "good news" than the "bad news". Yes, something could lead to a turnaround, but not unless it is something extremely successful from the insurgents. And he is also right in his analysis of the Sunnis. Their desire to join in the creation of the government and the constitution is just one more nail in the coffin of the insurgency. The native insurgency in Iraq is dominated by the Sunnis that supported Saddam. The terrorists are irrelevant in that equation.

But a united Iraq will be a factor in the continued existence of the terrorists there. And that is what we are trying to build. People have to remember that this is a long, slow, and quite difficult process. The moment the elections were held, the world suddenly realized there were twenty-five million people all with different opinions.

Oh, the Excedrin that was chewed on those first few weeks...

The Bunny ;)