Democrats fear success in Iraq

The Democrats are afraid. They are afraid that the surge just might work. Count the MSM in with the Democrats. As I've said before, the surge is not even one month old yet, and many of the troops have not even started their mission. And yet the report out today, says that 8 out of 8 benchmarks for the Iraqi government have been met. Or as some are reporting, "At Least Half Of Iraq Benchmarks Unmet."

The report, to be released shortly, grades the Iraqi government as satisfactory on eight of 18 goals set by the U.S. Congress. It showed that on eight of the benchmarks, Baghdad's performance was unsatisfactory, and mixed on two others. (Reuters)

President Bush will be speaking in a few minutes, and is expected to describe the situation as "a glass half full." Remember, this is a report on the Iraqi Parliament, more than it is on the troops surge. Fox News reporter in Iraq just relayed a comment from the Iraqis. They say this has nothing to do with them, they do not answer to any benchmarks. They answer only to Iraqis.

... on Bill Bennett’s radio program, Inhofe advised that due to the success of the surge, there have been “no anti-American messages since April” preached in Iraqi mosques. (more)

If Iraq succeeds, the Democrats are finished in 2008. This is their only platform. If Iraq is successful, what will they campaign on? What will they bash Bush with?

There's still talk of a possible soft partition of Iraq. But the Iraqi Parliament does not want this, therefore I do not believe it will be voted on. The Iraqi military and police are continuing to improve and are doing a great job in many areas. I'm afraid we can't say the same thing for the Parliament.

______________________________________________________________________-
Trackposted to Pirate's Cove, Perri Nelson's Website, Conservative Cat, and Big Dog's Weblog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[Thomas F Anderson]

Freedom Now,

"Until then your argument is a worthless talking point serving to deflect from your weak arguments."

No need to get projective. No need to transfer your feelings of inadequacy to me. From past experience, I've noticed that people who have a weak or inconsistent argument are the ones who get the most projective.

"Take for instance your praise of Saddam Hussein as a fighter against Al Qaeda. What exactly makes you say that? Wishful thinking or wishful thinking?"

If you deny the fact that Hussein played an integral role in minimizing Al Qaeda's influence in Iraq, then you are truly brainwashed.

[Freedom Now]

Look, you can justify the U.S. invasion of lots of countries, but none of these countries invaded Kuwait.

Thats why we were there.

If China invaded Taiwan then we can talk business.

If North Korean invaded the South then we can talk business.

Until then your argument is a worthless talking point serving to deflect from your weak arguments.

Take for instance your praise of Saddam Hussein as a fighter against Al Qaeda. What exactly makes you say that?

Wishful thinking or wishful thinking?

[Thomas F Anderson]

Freedom Now,

"but China is basically a Capitalist Communist hybrid now and really doesn’t compare. Murder and starvation due to extreme Communist social engineering doesn’t make them any money. Sure they oppress Tibet and threaten war against peaceful Taiwan, but no one cares if that cant be blamed on the U.S. or Israel so it’s a bit of a non issue."

Please clarify this for me. I didn't quite understand what point you were trying to convey.

So I guess the Tiananmen Square massacre doesn't matter? Or thousands of human rights violations? Or the millions that the Soviet Union killed doesn't matter? And what about Sudan? I noticed you didn't address that. And what about the untold amount suffering or dying in North Korea.

Sure, we've threatened some countries with military force. So why didn't we just continue to threaten Iraq with force while giving the UN enough time to find the weapons that were not there?

I don't know where you are getting you research, but I'll be glad to back up my generalizations with links to legitimate news sources. Please tell me what I should clarify. I'll be glad to.

[Freedom Now]

Tom said, “Yes Hussein was a criminal but he was the glue that held the factions together. Was he killing his own people? Sure, but so is China and many other leaders.”

Hussein was responsible for the deaths of almost a million people, including those from his wars and genocide. During this same period the Chinese really don’t match up. Under previous regimes like Mao’s and the Gang of Four, yes, but China is basically a Capitalist Communist hybrid now and really doesn’t compare. Murder and starvation due to extreme Communist social engineering doesn’t make them any money. Sure they oppress Tibet and threaten war against peaceful Taiwan, but no one cares if that cant be blamed on the U.S. or Israel so it’s a bit of a non issue.

Once again your point about the dismantling the Baathist power structure is similar to that of the dismantling of the Baathist military with one small difference. While I support the retention of much of the talent of Baathist administrators that do not have blood on their hands, the Shiites and Kurds have never looked at it that way.

There is encouragement now because Al Maliki is now backing a draw down of the country’s deBaathification policies. Since many Sunni tribes and some former insurgent groups have switched sides to fight Al Qaeda, the U.S. has been able to lobby Al Maliki into accommodating our new allies. He is having a bit of difficulty convincing the rest of the government but there have been encouraging signs.

I really can’t apologize for the confidence that I show when stating my opinion. I have researched these topics carefully and try not to write anything that I cannot defend. There are many points that I often believe to be fact, but I refuse to utilize them in my arguments because I cannot find enough evidence to back up such claims. Therefore I have a certain degree of confidence that I have done my best to present the best possible opinion that I humanly can. I am under no illusion that I do not make mistakes.

There is humility and then there is self-doubt. You can still be confident and be humble at the same time.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Freedom Now,

I am relaxed. No problem. All I said was that I was not going to resort to foul language and name-calling. Go right ahead if you like.

It sounds like you have it all sussed out.

It's not so much the Baathist military as it is the political organization that was dismantled. Stormwarning was the one who made the original comment concerning the Baath party, and I agree with him. That doesn't mean that him or me is correct.

Yes, I believe we and Iraq would have been better off with Hussein still in power. Since March 2003, over 67,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the war. 3600 US soldiers have died and over 26000 are wounded.

Yes Hussein was a criminal but he was the glue that held the factions together. Was he killing his own people? Sure, but so is China and many other leaders. Does that mean we go into each country as the world's police? Why isn't the US military going to Sudan?

"Our troops are doing a great job and they will accomplish their mission."
I agree, but they are overworked and stretched thin. Don't you think we need a draft? It's terribly easy for us to say they are doing their job, etc from the comfort of our homes.

[Freedom Now]

Oh Tom relax. You can’t expect everyone to be just like you, you have to learn to get along with people who are different. I am from a much lower caste than you and cursing is not as offensive to me as you find it. There isn’t a single friend that I haven’t accused of bullshitting me before so it’s quite an affectionate term.

So on a similar note, are you really unsure of my stance on the Iraqi reconstruction?… Really?

Come on now Tom. Lets cut out the posturing and get down to business because this is a good one…

You said, “ I agree with you that it was a mistake to dismantle the Baathist (army). Just one of many mistakes due to lack of planning and insight. Again, I believe we were better off leaving Hussein in power.”

Holy Cow! This argument amazes me every time. First off, the Iraqi military dismantled itself. They ran from the U.S. military juggernaut with their tails between their legs. After over a decade of decay while Saddam spent all his money on palaces, mosques, bribes to his loyalists and non-existent weapons programs - the Baathist army was in shambles. So we already have a compelling reason not to rebuild their army. It should also be pointed out that the only competent personnel served in Saddam’s Republican Guard. At the time Saddam still hadn’t been captured so that is a bit of a risk to revive an organization loyal to your enemy while he is still at large. Finally, does any sane person believe that the Shiites or the Kurds would allow the Baathist military to be regrouped and rearmed? Hello? Are you reading this? This army was responsible for hundreds of thousands of murders of Kurds and Shiites. Almost 80% of the country would oppose such a plan.

Anyways, it may seem no different to have a quiet genocide under Saddam Hussein rather than have a bloody insurgency, but the true difference is that by leaving Saddam and his sons in power we have a recipe for endless war and genocide with no solution. You have to make a mess to clean one and this was a really dirty mess to begin with.

Our troops are doing a great job and they will accomplish their mission.

[Stormwarning]

Last line not directed at you. Read my blog about my point of view about Pakistan and Musharraf.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Stormwarning,

I am not claiming a link between Iraq and al-qaeda. What I am saying is that there were some contacts between the Iraqi government and al-qaeda. But nothing materialized. On other occasions it is believed that Hussein rejected meeting requests. Hussein's influence neutralized al-qaeda's presence in the region. In that respect, he was an ally. Much the way he helped fight Shia extremism in the 1980s.

My point is this: Hussein's dictatorship helped neutralize terrorism in Iraq. Whatever power Hussein had was in large part dictated by the US. In that sense, we should have left him in power like Bush Sr. did.

I agree with you that it was a mistake to dismantle the Baathist. Just one of many mistakes due to lack of planning and insight. Again, I believe we were better off leaving Hussein in power.

I noticed you didn't discuss Mussharraf in Pakistan. Well, let me be succinct. We should have concentrated our efforts on Afghanistan and the adjacent countries (Iran and Pakistan). Afghanistan is, after all, a more legitimate affair.

My point is this: Hussein's dictatorship helped neutralize terrorism in Iraq. Whatever power Hussein had was in large part dictated by the US. In that sense, we should have left him in power like Bush Sr. did.

So I've given you my point of view, that's all it is. It's impossible to know what would have happened if Hussein had stayed in power. I believe it might have ended much the way Castro's reign will end in Cuba. We've been able to live with him 90 miles off our shore for many years.

Well, we might both agree that there have been mistakes in Iraq. As I have mentioned in other comments, I don't think the world or the region is going to fall apart if we leave Iraq. If you think it will, please sign up and join the army.

I'm not sure what you meant by the following:
"Unfortunately, I feel like I'm listening to the end of the old orange juice daisy chain of messaging. Some much misinformation from purportedly credible people. NOT. Yeah! You know who I mean."

[Stormwarning]

THAT is SO WRONG! There was no al Qaeda in Iraq while Hussein was in power.

Plain and simple...the problem we have in Iraq is that Bremer dismantled the Baathist bureacracy and this regular army (that's not just my opinion...its one held by a known expert who is a friend and associate...knows more than anyone here all rolled up together). Now, the Iraqi police are not capable of doing their job without the US military.

Unfortunately, I feel like I'm listening to the end of the old orange juice daisy chain of messaging. Some much misinformation from purportedly credible people. NOT. Yeah! You know who I mean.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Layla,

But that's just my point. Under Saddam Hussein, al-qaeda's presence was neutralized. At least under Hussein, the Iraqis couldn't play both sides of the coin. In that respect, Hussein was an asset.

But what can we say about Mussharaf in Pakistan? Terrorists groups seem to be doing well enough to have sanctuary and re-group.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Freedom Now,

I will not resort to foul language or name-calling. Nonetheless, I'm sorry if you feel I am insulting yours or anyone else's intelligence.

It seems as though your mind is made up about me. That's unfortunate.

Freedom Now, I'm not sure exactly what your stance is on the war. I suspect (that's all I can do until you tell me) you prefer the status quo. If that is the case or whatever the case might be, you certainly have a right to your opinion. But please don't be surprised if others disagree. The fact that you disagree with me doesn't surprise me. Civil debate is healthy.

"Everything you do is calculated to end the U.S. troop presence in Iraq." So, what is wrong with that? Do you suggest we stay there forever? Please tell me what your ideas are. If you think I should keep my mouth shut or be banned from this site, then you are certainly not for democracy. Otherwise, I suggest you get used to hearing opposing views.

[Layla]

I hate to disappoint here but neither Republican nor Democrat is to blame for the mess in Iraq.

How about we all face the fact that it is al-Qaeda in Iraq that has pledged alliance with Bin Laden - Iran for housing and training terrorists - and the Iraqi's themselves that love to play both sides of the coin.

[Freedom Now]

Tom

You are like a spammer, you put the same comments in every post.

You really should comment about the posts in question.

Anyways, your deadlines are just designed to initiate a withdrawal. You are bullshitting us. You endlessly campaign against the war and then have the nerve to try to tell us how to wage it? Everything you do is calculated to end the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

There is nothing wrong with that, but please don’t insult our intelligence.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Debbie,

I think the WAR is bringing down America. Fighting two wars of attrition on distant shores is not the answer. Wars of attrition, especially those fought
unilaterally, lead to the end of great civilizations. History tells us so.
Since WW2, it's been one war after another.

If we need more time, take it, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with benchmarks or deadlines. Critics of withdrawal deadlines argue that such talk only emboldens the enemies. Might deadlines also encourage the Iraqi government to step up? Heck, they were going to take two months off this summer until we put the pressure on.

Everyone on the right says wait until September. Well, if General Petraeus says we need more time, I think the government ought to think seriously about a draft. It is not fair to those having to serve several tours of duty.

"These people may have a point, because I'm not sure WE, the United States and the coalition, can work it out for them." Why don't we set some deadlines? If not, why don't we give those people a chance to pull out of Iraq. Otherwise, this could go on longer than Vietnam. If you and others are okay with this, oh well. I just don't think it's in our best interests. It is impossible to fight terrorists in every location around the globe.

Our best defense is proactive intelligence, strategic strikes, forming alliances, strengthening borders, and some luck. Over-extending our armies and doing little to secure our borders only weakens us. This is common sense, yet our government does the opposite. It makes me wonder.

[Debbie]

Thomas F. Anderson, I do understand where you are coming from, and you are certainly not along in your thoughts.

Are there groups that profit from war, of course.

The Bush administration thought that Iraq had WMD. Maybe the intelligence was wrong, maybe they DID have them and shipped them out to Syria, or Saudia Arabia. Or buried them in Iraq like they did their airplanes. I think the Bush Administration's motives were good, but things have not gone as they had hoped.

There are many who believe we should pull out of Iraq and let the Muslims fight it out among themselves. Sunni vs Shia vs al-Qaeda vs Iran vs. Syria and on and on. They think we should let them have a blood bath if they want to, or either work it out some other way. These people may have a point, because I'm not sure WE, the United States and the coalition, can work it out for them.

But it did not have to be this way. Had we gone in with everything we have, our military could have swept the place clean for WMD, Saddam and the Bathists. Or as you say, maybe he was neutralized. I can't know all these things and don't claim to.

I do know that Iraq is bringing down both the Democrats and the Republicans. The Dem voters are mad because they have not brought the troops home.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Debbie,

Thank you for you thoughtful response. And I am sorry if my last response was offensive in anyway (I try not to be).

You posed a good question: can we just leave Iraq? Well, I'm still not certain that is the best thing, but I just don't buy into the idea that the world or the Middle East will fall apart if we do.

In order to answer the question, we have to look at the past. We've abandoned other places in the ME before (Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.) Sure things have been bad in the ME, but it is condescending of us to think that countries must follow our lead. Bush Sr. was smart to pull short of Baghdad. He understood the region. He understood that it was all about containment. And Iraq was contained rather well until Bush Jr opened up a can of worms. Cuba is the same: containment.

Bush Jr has made it more difficult to contain Iran. In fact, it has strengthened them. The set up in Afghanistan was perfect for containing Iran and Pakistan, but we have squandered that with the war in Iraq. My opinion is that greed trumped rational foreign policy when it comes to Iraq. The signs are certainly there. They cannot be ignored.

So can we leave Iraq? If you don't think so, then you see the glass as half empty. Will things get worse before they get better? Perhaps, but I think it is silly of us to believe that the people of Iraq or the region can't handle this. If it creates 3 separate provinces of power, so be it. At least one or two of them will be US allies. Again, Bush and Co. should have given more thought to this before invading.

Even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, I don't think the region or world is going to fall apart. For more on this please go to this link:http://the-independent13.blogspot.com/2006/09/should-us-attack-iran.html

Look, I realize that the theocrats of many ME countries have ties to terrorists groups, but the governments are not totally beyond reason. Behind all the rhetoric and hot air is some reason. To ask the terrorism to stop before negotiating with governments is not going to work. Hell, many times the legitimate governments have little control over what the terrorists do. Do they work together sometimes? Sure, but they also work separately. We have to learn how to drive a wedge between them. Republicans ought to be good at this.

Look, the Arab League's official position concerning Israel and Palestine is a two-state settlement. And Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accepts the League's position. That means they are not going to annihilate Israel. It just won't happen. Sure, President Ahmadinejad throws the terrorists some red meat now and then, but he is not the leader of Iran. The Ayatollah is. Anyway, Israel has nuclear weapons and the US has its back. The countries of the ME understand this.

Remember the Iran hostage crisis? As bad as it was, not a single hostage was killed, ZERO. That shows me that even radical groups have some sense.

Well, I could write about this all day. I hope you understand where I am coming from.

[Debbie]

Thomas F. Anderson, I agree with your statement, "the US government should have planned the Iraq invasion much better." I've said this all along. And of course blanket statements are never completely true. In fact, this past week the New York Times had an article discussing the major successes in Iraq.

I have never said we were right going into Iraq. Afghanistan, yes. But we are there now, and yes it's a mess, but we can't leave it that way? Or can we?

That's the question. What happens when/if we just up and leave? How should be get out? How will this keep America safe, or not?

[Thomas F Anderson]

We are naive to think no anti-war messages have been preached in mosques since April. Where is the original source of this news? And I don't mean Family Security Matters. I mean a legitimate news agency (AP, UPI, Reuters, etc.)

It is so totally biased and a false generalization to say Democrats fear success in Iraq. And all this talk about the MSM being part of the left-wing is totally absurd. Only ONE major newspaper (Chicago Tribune), and ZERO TV organizations opposed the War in Iraq. That's right, they 99% of the MSM supported the President's War in Iraq.

In light of new information concerning the war and its mistakes, many have changed their opinions. If you would like to continue to blindly follow the President, please do. But it is not fair to make blanket statements about people you disagree with.

Iraq and Saddam Hussein were trying to get rid of al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda. In that respect Hussein was our ally like he was when he helped fight Iran and Shia extremism in the 80s. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have put pressure on Hussein, but the main threat was and still is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the US government should have planned the Iraq invasion much better. Basically it was a case of wishful thinking. Let’s be honest, there were warning signs that things weren’t going to be as easy as the US government thought, but they chose to ignore it. The Bush administration did a terrible job of planning.

Afghanistan has gone relatively well, but the US government has neglected this area of the fight on terrorism. In fact, there are elements in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that help perpetuate al-Qaeda. Why isn’t the US government putting more pressure on them?

Your criticisms of Democrats are sometimes fair, but your overall attention to the war on terror appears to favor Republicans. Weren’t the Republicans in complete power of Congress and the Executive branches from 2000 to 2006? Hasn’t the war been funded every time (even recently) at the request of the President? Basically, Republicans have gotten their way from 9/12/01 until 11/2006 (more than 5 years). Can you answer why Bin Laden is still at large and hundreds of US soldiers are still dying each month in Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9/11)?

If you blame it on those damn democrats, then you are no better than them. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the situation in Iraq.

[BillT]

"The Iraqi military and police are continuing to improve and are doing a great job in many areas."

This continued improvement will strengthen the parliament. A government without an effective military and police force is a government in name only.