Lectured by Congressional Ignorance

Senator Gordon Smith, ostensibly Republican from Oregon, discusses support for the war on Today this morning. Sounding more like Harry Reid, Smith spouted the Majority Leader's ridiculous line about "political solutions."

Pay particularly close attention to his comments about General Petraeus' September report to Congress:

"...they believe that General Petraeus spoke the truth when he came to Congress and that is that he would speak to us straight in September and he would tell us whether the Surge was working. He also spoke the truth when he said that there is not a military solution in Iraq...there is only a political solution and that is the duty of the Iraqi government.

And as we speak, as our kids are still fighting and dying, their preparing to go on vacation without even passing an oil revenue sharing law."

Infuriating.

As the Democrats themselves squawked for nearly two years, nothing can improve in Iraq without increased security. Congress' precious 'political' solution will only come as a result of Petraeus' strategy, yet they continue wilfully ignore that point.

And perhaps Smith could have enlightened us--assuming David Gregory could have thought to ask the question--what exactly it is Congress has been doing for the last 3 weeks since passing the dead-end Iraq supplemental package? And he has the nerve to attack the Iraqi parliament when he and his comrades have hung US troops--who indeed are "fighting and dying"--without necessary funding.

I for one won't be lectured by such men as this.

Low-key Meltdown

It seems that the ever low-key Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader from Nevada finds himself in the middle of a bit of a meltdown. Like most everything else about him it is definitely low key; but a meltdown none the less.

First of course came the now-infamous proclamation that Iraq is lost. Then came the attempted clarification on the day-after.

In the days since he's endured many a call for apology at the very least and from some, a demand to step down. Now we're getting Act III in this interview where Reid insists that he will not believe any reports of progress from General Petraeus in his briefing to Congress this week. Rather odd then, as Jonah Goldberg points out, that Reid prefaces those remarks with comments attributed to Petraeus himself as though the "Lying General" and his words to the President can be believed while his report to Congress can not.

When the Senate Majority Leader says there can be no military solution in Iraq, he ignores the truth about what the surge is, what it's goals are and the strategy and tactics involved. On this point, based on watching this ridiculous video, I'm forced to believe that Reid and fellow Democrats who have postured on the Surge since the first discussions in January make a conscious choice to play dumb.

Anyone who looks at the surge, what it is designed to do and how it aims getting there, must conclude that it is not just a "military solution." Indeed, it is setting the table for just the solutions that Democrats are screaming for, namely political and economic reconciliation and reform.

For two years Democrats screamed that security was the primary issue in Iraq--and they were right. The poor security situation was allowing the insurgency and Al-Qaeda to create the mess we have found ourselves in.

Now that the President has, in essence, taken the Democrats advice and added troops in an effort to create the necessary conditions that will foster needed political progress, they complain and call the effort ineffectual.

The willfully obtuse act is not holding up. They're an odd bunch, these Democrats but they aint dumb. You can't be this dumb and win and keep your seat in the US Senate.

Though there are exceptions to every rule.

UPDATE: The Vice President on the good Senator, earlier today.

Five Reasons we're Winning

Think it sounds crazy? Read them, courtesy of NRO's W. Thomas Smith from Lt. Jason Nichols, USN:

Nichols and I discussed five primary reasons he and others in Iraq believe in the effort and want to see the war through to its completion.

First, aside from the complexities of establishing a working, unified government (not necessarily the task of the military), the U.S. military does have a sound plan for victory that is being implemented. The enemy does not. The U.S. plan is based on developing the Iraqi military and police forces to a point that they can independently assume most extra-national defense and all intranational defense/security operations in that country. This includes an improved Iraqi capability for logistics and command-and-control.

“It’s not enough just to have people in the security forces,” Nichols says. “You need to make sure they can lead, gather intelligence, and be resupplied effectively. And we are accomplishing those things.”

The enemy’s only plan for victory is to force the U.S. to leave before those things happen. Instead, the enemy is experiencing “a surge” of U.S. forces.


Second, the enemy — including the Iraqi insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists — is progressively splintering into smaller sub-groups.

“This is often reported in the media as a bad thing — an unknown force being broken up into many unknown forces,” says Nichols. “Fact is, breaking up a larger force into smaller ones is what you want to do.”

Breaking up forces is in fact a textbook means by which a superior military force destroys an inferior enemy force — dividing and conquering. And in Iraq, some of those splintering subgroups are now providing intelligence to — and cooperating with — coalition forces.

Third, an increasing number of Iraqi civilians are providing the U.S. military and Iraqi security forces with information about the enemy that is being processed into solid intelligence.

Fourth, Coalition forces are increasingly “driving a wedge” between the insurgents and the general population. And more and more insurgents are turning against the sectarian violence-instigating terrorists.

And lastly, as I discussed at National Review Online’s military blog, “The Tank,” while I was in Iraq, one of the most effective elements of General David Petraeus’s strategy is his approach to a given area of responsibility (AOR). Petraeus’s predecessor, General George Casey, would have his subordinate commanders move their forces into an AOR, kill, capture, or run the enemy out; bring in some infrastructure for the community; and then leave. It worked to be sure, but only temporarily. The enemy almost always came back.

Petraeus’s approach is to do those things, but never completely leave. His commanders are responsible for ensuring their AORs are progressing. And U.S. soldiers are staying. In Sadr City for instance — as dangerous as it is — U.S. soldiers are living there, bunking side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts.

Oh, but to read such straight-forward and solid analysis in the NY Times...

Nichols goes on to make it clear that morale remains good in spite of Harry Reid's best-efforts to the contrary. He's not the first to suggest that the only thing needed to ultimately defeat the insurgency is time.

The debate in Washington hasn't caught up to the realities in Baghdad

The key line from this piece in the Weekly Standard:

If the Democrats get their way and Gen. Petraeus is undermined in Congress, the progress may indeed prove short-lived. But it's time to stop thinking so hard about how to lose, and to think instead about how to reinforce and exploit the success we have begun to achieve. The debate in Washington hasn't caught up to the realities in Baghdad. Until it does, a resolute president will need to prevent defeatists in Congress from losing a winnable war in Iraq.

I've wondered ever since the debate on the Surge began how the Democrats thought they could argue against themselves and three years worth of their own advice. Seems in the two months since all that they are no closer to understanding that this represents a very change they asked for years ago.

Now faced with the answer they begged for they still can't bring themselves to support the President simply because he might be right...

Buying a Mandate to short-circuit success (Or, how Democrats are running to get behind the curve in Iraq)

A conversation with General Petraeus reveals what about the Surge is working and why. Yes, his optimism is tempered and wisely so but for the first time in months--even years--it seems we have a reason to hope that things can get better.

So while you might imagine, think or hope that in the light of the first good reports in who-knows-how-long that Democrats who begged and begged for a change in course would be willing to set aside their partisan criticisms for a time and see if we can make the necessary changes on the ground in Iraq. You would of course be wrong.

No, instead you can review here--along with all the attendant-and richly deserved-snark you could want--the Democrat's efforts to bribe their way to a majority on provisions within the Iraq supplemental funding bill that would kill funding for the war. For my money, GayPatriot put it best: "...I thought the Democrats had a 'mandate' on Iraq? Why do they need to buy votes?"

The March 18th, 2007 FNS Sunday Show-palooza

Quite the morning at FNS.

First off, Senator Schmuck Schumer's conflict of interest, or "Senator Specter almost grows a spine":

WALLACE: This week, you said that New York Democratic Senator Schumer -- that his role leading the investigation into the U.S. attorneys at the same time that he's running the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is a conflict of interest. Has he crossed a line here?

SPECTER: I think he has. And I confronted Senator Schumer on it eyeball to eyeball on Thursday in the Judiciary Committee meeting.

But let's look at what the facts are. Senator Schumer is leading the inquiry, and the day after we have testimony about Senator Domenici, he puts his name up on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, criticizing or really making the argument that he ought not to be re- elected.

Now, I think that the inquiry by the Judiciary Committee ought to have at least a modicum of objectivity, and if Mr. Schumer is doing a job to defeat Senator Domenici, which he is now -- that's his job as chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee -- that he puts it up on their Web site the very next day, and then he has made very conclusory and judgmental statements all along.

And I challenged him on that a week ago in the Judiciary Committee, and he calls it a purge, and he's taken a very political stance. Now, he's got a right to do that. He's a politician and I'm a politician.

But I don't think he can do both things at the same time without having a conflict of interest, but that's up for him to decide.

WALLACE: Senator, we only have about 30 seconds left. Are you calling on Senator Schumer to step down -- if he's going to continue this political effort, are you calling on him to step down in terms of leading the investigation?

SPECTER: Nope, I'm calling on him to use his own judgment on that. If I call him to step down, somebody's going to say Arlen Specter is trying to stifle this investigation, and I'm not.
I've been totally cooperative, as all of my Republican colleagues have been, with this investigation. But when he has a conflict of interest, I'm not going to be afraid to say so.

I would have been more encouraged to hear him truly go after Schumer on the issue but I'll take what I can get. The fact that he even brought it up is worth a brownie-point or two.

Next on the agenda, an interview with the man that you almost made President, John Kerry. It's too painful to put in words my utter disbelief that this man came within a state of the Presidency. Read the transcript and you'll understand.

Of course we wind down as always with the panel discussion, with this week's edition far more animated than many as a result of the topics: Valerie Plame and Iraq. It wouldn't be Sunday without the usual Juan Williams bitch-slapping and this time around we get two for the price of one. First on Plame:

WILLIAMS: Well, let's question somebody else's credibility. What happened to President Bush who said, "You know what, I'm going to investigate this and look into whether or not there was any such activity in my White House?"

According to the White House chief of security this week, he knows of no such investigation.

HUME: Can you imagine what would have happened once a special prosecutor had been named if the White House itself was still trying to conduct some type of inquiry on this?

LIASSON: He can do it now. He can do it now.

WILLIAMS: Of course he should -- the president said that he was going to do it, Brit, and apparently nothing was done.

HUME: It was done, if my memory serves, by the Department of Justice, which we are...

LIASSON: Wait a minute. What the president said is if anybody leaks anything in my White House, they're going to be out. That's different investigating the whole Plame...

HUME: And the guy who did leak it is out.

LIASSON: One of them.

HUME: Well, you say one. There was only one leak that ever mattered. And that was the one that first brought her name into the public eye. That was not done by the White House or through the White House. It was done by a guy at the State Department.
WILLIAMS: So it's only the first knife into the back that counts. All the other knives, that's okay.

HUME: Juan, look. Once something is out, it's out.

Second on the cautious optimism on the Surge:

WILLIAMS: Someone is trying to compromise with you, Bill. Someone is trying to say here is a reason -- OK, immediate withdrawal -- you think that's wrong, that might endanger American national interests. We'll do it slowly. We'll try to encourage some political development.

Chris asked Mara, "What about what's going on on Capitol Hill?" I think the key development here is the lack of political progress in Iraq. Where are the Iraqis in terms of making deals and allowing some kind of consensus government to form?

They're not helping. Why are we putting our people at risk?

WALLACE: Brit?

HUME: Well, Juan, two points. First of all, one of the critical elements in a political compromise that is thought necessary here is a petroleum revenue distribution measure.

WILLIAMS: Right.

HUME: The cabinet has now completed that, and it appears that it is on its way to passage. That's one thing the Iraqis are doing.

The other thing is you heard the military spokesman say this week was that the Iraqis have stepped up, they have sent the units into Baghdad they've said they would.

They are clearly trying their best to hold up their end of the bargain. So in two areas there, you have the Iraqis making a difference.

The other thing is we used to have a problem in places like Sadr City that U.S. and combined U.S.-Iraqi units couldn't go in there to try to sweep that place because it was too politically sensitive because of Muqtada al-Sadr.

Well, the Iraqi government has given the green light to all of that. Muqtada al-Sadr has gone to ground, thought to be in Iran, and the Mahdi army has melted away.

So just on those three counts alone, Juan, it's fair to say that while we're a long way from any kind of final success here, the Iraqi government has stepped up. They are doing something different. The strategy is different.

And the problem with the debate in the Congress as I see it at the moment is that the Democrats seem impervious to the fact that something genuinely new is being tried there. That doesn't mean it's going to work, but it does mean that it is something different.

WILLIAMS: No, but here's the thing. The Pentagon this very week, Brit, said this is a civil war. They're using that language that has been resisted by the White House and by Republicans. It's a civil war.

The second thing to say here is...

HUME: Well, all that may be, Juan, but would you dispute that militarily at least some signs of progress are evident, and that on the political side there are signs of progress evident there as well?

WILLIAMS: Well, that's why you have military people in this town calling it, you know, by this derisive term, the "whack-a-mole" strategy.

You've got a huge surge right now. Some people withdraw. Some people wait. Are we going to be there forever to try to hold peace between warring sects?

HUME: Evidently.

WILLIAMS: That's not the American military interest. That's not why we should be there. So, yes, for the moment, you look like you have a decrease in violence, but you know what? It's not anything that we can say is now in place to offer a stable future for Iraq or for our interests in the Middle East.

HUME: Things are better or not?

WILLIAMS: Better for what? For the moment?

HUME: Well, that's the only time we can talk about here.

Juan apparently didn't catch that little tidbit of polling news earlier in the weekend. Like I said though, it just wouldn't be Sunday...

Why the Surge might work

Mudville Gazette gathers together the early reporting on the next phase of 'the surge'; US forces are moving into Sadr City:

MNF-I has deeper background:

New plan for greater securityBy Sgt. Mike Pryor2nd BCT, 82nd Abn. Div. Public AffairsMulti-National Division – Baghdad PAO

BAGHDAD – Coalition and Iraqi security forces are bringing new ideas into the ongoing operation to secure Baghdad.

Sadr City is being included in negotiations through efforts on all sides. Commanders from the Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police, and 2nd Brigade Combat, 82nd Airborne Division met with a civic leader of Sadr City, Raheem Al Darraji, on March 1 in order to discuss upcoming security plans for Sadr City and the infusion of national level Iraqi security forces. The meeting took place at a police station in Sadr City that will soon become the area’s first Joint Security Station, manned 24 hours-a-day by all elements of the security forces including U.S. forces.

“It was a very positive meeting,” said Col. Don Farris of Lone Star, Texas, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team based out of Fort Bragg, N.C., “They’ve shown they are willing to reach out to the government of Iraq and coalition forces.”

The 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division is the first of several BCTs that will flow into Baghdad in the coming months as part of the troop surge to combat sectarian violence. They are already having an impact in the key area of Sadr City.

Farris’ unit has been establishing small bases called combat outposts on the edges of Sadr City since early last month, positioning themselves for a significantly increased presence in the densely populated six square mile area. That move, which at one time would have been politically unthinkable for the Iraqi government, is now becoming a reality.

This time rather than barricade them off, it appears that leaders in Sadr City are ready to work with coalition forces when they come.

Weary of a cycle of violence and militia activities, as well as al-Qaeda attacks in the area, Mr. Raheem Al Darraji stressed again and again during the meeting that he welcomed the presence of Iraqi and U.S. forces, and the help they could provide his people.

“We want you here sooner, rather than later,” Al Darraji said. Initial reports indicate the overall Baghdad Security Plan – which has placed thousands of additional troops on the streets of the Iraqi capital – has achieved reduced levels of violence thus far.

Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem, commander of the 8th Brigade, 2nd Iraqi National Police Division, a joint partner said there is no reason why the successes of the security plan in other parts of Baghdad can’t be replicated in Sadr City. “We will do the same as we did in Adhamiyah. It is one nation and no one is above the law,” Kareem said.

Farris also stressed that point. The Iraqi Government and its coalition partners have the authority to go after criminals, extremists, and insurgents wherever they are located.

“There are no sanctuaries, anywhere,” Farris said.

Mookie doesn't seem thrilled by it all, but that is hardly a surprise: Sadr himself has allegedly responded through "associates" from his unknown hiding place (perhaps deep in Iran):
Sadr, in a statement issued by associates, did not threaten force against the troops, but he rejected U.S. and Iraqi officials' statements in the last week that negotiations had cleared the way for the establishment of the joint security station in Sadr City.

Sadr's words carry huge weight in Sadr City, a teeming poverty-stricken area in northeast Baghdad, and his opposition to the presence of American soldiers could throw a wrench into plans to set up the station.

Will it work? Can't know 'til it's tried. But as for why it might work, it's pretty straight-forward; the combination of security and political involvement has been the missing ingredient in Iraq now for too long. This approach isn't a silver bullet but it gives the US and Iraqi's a chance at stabilizing the capital and thereby the country.

Author, Radio show host & Prophet

First came this:

From the Ricks' interview:

HH: Do you expect to see, Thomas Ricks, staged atrocities [in Iraq]? And if so --like Hezbollah did in the summer war-- and if so, will the American military be prepared and nimble enough to respond to them, and the American media responsible enough to give the context?

TR: Don’t know. There’s no question, though, that Muqtada al-Sadr, a supporter of Hezbollah, to my knowledge, he mounted the largest demonstration ever in their favor.

HH: But do you expect that they will try and rig the media war?

TR: They will use every tool they can. They are very smart, and they’re very tough, and they’ve succeeded in a very difficult operating environment. Sadr’s taken on the U.S. government twice, and has emerged not only alive, but more powerful.

Then today comes a firsthand report of this:

Violent incidents are still decreasing in number and impact in Baghdad. Yesterday for instance the only reported incident was the abduction of an adviser to the minister of defense by gunmen in western Baghdad. It was less than 24 hours until the security forces succeeded in freeing the abducted general and arresting 4 of his captors. . . . The Mehdi army is not responding to the raids with fire, but they are trying to undermine the security plan by spreading rumors about alleged crimes committed by US soldiers, specifically against the Shia.

It was a sucker's bet really. Given the inclination of western press to print and run with any story-line they get from the "other side," it wasn't one of the harder predictions to make. I suppose the question is, just who will bite and how hard?

Deja Vu all over the place!

From Glenn Reynolds yesterday:

It seems clear that this really is about a change in tactics more than additional U.S. troops, which I think is a good thing.

It's an Inspector Clouseau moment: "Yes...that is what I have been saying..."