The Hill reported yesterday that the liberal group MoveOn.org was undertaking an advertising campaign against Democratic Congressman Brian Baird of Washington because his recent trip to Iraq had changed his mind about the President's "surge" of troops into Baghdad and al-Anbar Province. According to the Congressman, progress is in fact being made in Iraq, which immediately makes him public enemy number one for MoveOn.org, which will try to unseat him in favor of someone more anti-Iraq.
Calling his move a "flip-flop" because Congressman Baird previously opposed the war and the President's "surge," the group actually said the war in Iraq was "unwinnable." Now, that's a very broad statement that should be based on a complex set of tactical, operational, and strategic considerations. Somehow I doubt that the folks at MoveOn conducted that type of analysis, or that they have the expertise on staff to reach such a conclusion based on fact. That's not to say that the war is "winnable," but it does raise questions about credibility.
According to The Hill, the ad campaign against Baird features an Iraq veteran who describes the "resistance" he encountered in 2003 and 2004. What is important, as The Hill notes, is that this soldier did not have the benefit of the President's "surge" of additional troops, the last of which just arrived in Iraq in June of this year.
What bugs me most about this attack by MoveOn is that the group has no subject matter expertise or first hand knowledge of conditions on the ground in Iraq since major combat operations involving surge troops began in July. Instead, it's the typical party line that the war was lost a long time ago, so there's no point in even trying anymore. Progress of any sort is irrelevant. Anything other than "End the war now" is ridiculed.
Instead of listening to MoveOn, Americans should pay attention to people like Carl Levin and Brian Baird, or Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute. All oppose our actions in Iraq and all said the surge would fail. The fact that each of them has had a change of heart (Levin cited progress but still wants to end the war and O'Hanlon is now calling for more time for the surge) speaks volumes about what is happening in the security sphere. Of course, the political accommodation is still woefully lacking, but the surge is achieving what it was designed to do: provide a level of security conducive to national reconciliation.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 18
It's all politics to them.
Number of benchmarks met: 0
Greg: "...provide a level of security conducive to national reconciliation..."
I agree with ty for once: it will be decades before we see a resolution of the deep-seated divisions in Iraq. Anyone who thinks a few thousand troops more or less will bring order and stability is nuts.
In fact, the quelling of violence on a temporary basis, by siding with an Iraqi Army which is infiltrated with many Shiite militiamen, against a variety of local militia of various tribal and sectarian affiliations, as in Diyala Province, is a recipe for heightening tensions and building pressure for retributory attacks. It also does just the opposite of what you suggest, Greg: it helps convince the tribal leaders who control the Iraqi Parliament that waiting out the US occupation is preferable to proceeding with political and legal accommodations. Listen to the words of al-Maliki. Like him or not, he's giving you the party line from the powers that be.
This sounds like a familiar theme. Wait a minute . . . it is! This is how Geo. II vetted the senior military brass by removing anyone who disagreed . . . that smaller force he harped on so vehemently has now been built up to what they were asking for originally . . . and anyone military generals wishing to stay in the military will tell this man what he wants to hear . . . or retire . . . like former Secretary Powell . . . and write a book.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Why do republiCONs hate America and want us to lose so badly? How many Americans will have to be murdered by these republiCONs before their bloodlust is finally satisfied?
" Well, the people at moveon.org are idiots."
Why? Because they happen to disagree with you and your moron pretendident? I think not. In a few years, after another 5,000 or so Americans have needlessly died in this republiCON disaster, even you and your blindly ignorant pals will finally admit that this was unwinnable. It's only a matter of time, and you too, will become "an idiot." It happened with Vietnam, and it will happen with this republiCON version of Vietnam.
What I find incredibly telling about the shameless hypocrites and blind fools that continue to support an illegal, unnecessary, unwinnable disaster in Iraq, is that there is never a shred of credit given to a group such as moveon.org, which has NEVER, EVER swayed in its opinion of this debacle. From day one, they've been dead on correct about this entire mess, and they've never swayed from their position, even when openly and viciously attacked by those who wish to continue seeing Americans die for no reason.
When this monstrous failure is finally brought to an end, there will be thousands of US soldiers who will owe their lives to this organization, for helping to bring an end to their slaughter, in the same manner that thousands of US soldiers owe decorated American war hero John F. Kerry a debt of gratitude for saving their lives, by helping to bring and end to that era's disastrous failure of an occupation.
Sooner or later, this country will realize, perhaps, that we are not a nation of occupiers, and as such, we simply have no business attempting such idiocy. Someday, there will no longer be any citizens so anxious and willing to see American soldiers killed and maimed for no good reason. Someday, these enemies of the country will be shouted down, in the same manner that they've attempted to shout down the voices of sanity and peace.
Because the ones who are making all the money on our loss have convinced the ones who can't think for themselves that they too might get rich on war if they invest in war machines.
We will leave Iraq in a state that is unsatisfactory to American aims and interests, no matter what, sooner or late. Better sooner than later.
And what does that mean *specifically*?
Zero secterian violence? A 30% reduction in secterian violence for three consecutive months? Only two car bombs per quarter? Nine car bombs a year? Less than 5,000 dead from insurgent fighting in a six-month period? 12,000 dead from sectarian violence in a 14-month period? An Iraqi security force with less than 33% infiltration by militia? A totally unified government? A half unified government?
Where is the exact line of victory drawn?
What specifically has to happen in order for it to be called a "win" by the military.
300 million dead Americans.
As for the National Guard, anyone who serves at least 180 consecutive days on active duty is considered a veteran and is entitled to benefits. All the guys going to Iraq (maybe not the Air Force since they are on 4 month tours) stay longer than the minimum 180 days.
As for winning, at this point it really is this simple: If we leave now we cede the entire region to Iran. There are differing viewpoints on whether this is acceptable or not, and you can make your own decision. Iraq will be a vacuum when we leave and the only power in the area capable of stepping in (and controlling the oil reserves, at least in the south) is Iran. For some that is okay, for others it is not. Our national interest right now is what to do with regard to Iran, and that question is being sorted out in Iraq.
This war as wars go has been not well-managed, too expensive and not productive of desired results. On the other hand, it is the best we appear to be able to do, sadly, with this commander in chief. Sorting out the lessons learned should be clear that we need miliary people and commanders who know what they are doing.
The appearance of Bush going on vacation while our men are dying for an improvement in strategy is demoralizing. This is an important effort though, it is not some petty war for temporary oil profits as some want to paint it, or another Viet Nam.
At what point is this going to grab the people's attention as to the threat to Western Culture and economies? When gas is $10/gal and lights start going out on a daily basis. Companies start closing, and life get really tough?
I don't think it is quite as simple as ceding the region to Iran, we might be able to get Saudi Arabia and Iran to go to war against other, the problem is that Israel is in the middle of them and will light up the nukes if they are seriously threatened.
The only way to solve this for good, in my opinion, is just how we solved it with Germany and Japan, break them apart as delicately as possible and stop these ugly cultures of intolerance and hate from reproducing and spreading out and infecting the world and newer generations whatever the cost.