Thread: Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

Krauthammer sees it clearly:

February 22, 2008
Democrats Dug In For Retreat
By Charles Krauthammer

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." -- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008

WASHINGTON -- This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.

Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.

We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers -- ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terror activity -- starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven -- mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists -- to flight and into hiding.

After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.

"National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.

Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.

The objection was not only highly legalistic but politically convenient: Very few (including me) thought this would be possible under the Maliki government. Then last week, indeed on the day Cordesman published his report, it happened. Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.

First, a provincial powers law that turned Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.

Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenues -- about 85 percent of which are from oil -- to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.

What will the Democrats say now? They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenues year-by-year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran?

Despite all the progress military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."

Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory?

Read it again, until you really understand this part: the Democrats would rather lose the war than give to Bush any satisfaction of knowing that he did the Right Thing all along...and they opposed it.

Vote Republican, because the world cannot afford to have the White House turned over to a party so far gone into dementia and hatred.

Blues:

This is the first blast at withdrawing from Iraq before accomplishing the mission that I've seen from a respected university prof. (Boston U.) Maybe I haven't been keeping up. It was put up last year, but is still timely. I didn't know where to post it. I suppose, here is as good any Iraq thread

The MSM and Iraq: Dangerous Consequences to Inaccurate Coverage
Filed under: Are We Waking Up Yet?, Eurabia, Global Jihad, Media, apocalyptic, millennial — Richard Landes @ 2:12 am — Print This Post

Richard North has an important post up entitled: Who Will Give the True Picture? In it he ruminates on a wide range of issues concerning coverage of the Iraq war, both from the American and British perspectives. Among others, he cites an important article by an American Major in the US Army, Gerd Schroeder, who writes about the extensive and available news of positive developments in Iraq which the MSM, if they mention it, spin negatively. Concludes Schroeder:

Accurate, meaningful information that spans the full spectrum of subjects, including good news as well as bad is critical to getting a true picture of the war. If the information is slanted too far one way as it is now, the consequence will not just be defeat of the US, but could lead to mass murder and instability throughout the Middle East, Africa and the world at large. That does not mean that it will happen, but an American defeat would have a chilling effect on our allies and embolden our enemies.
Eloquently, but not sufficiently strongly put. Allow me to rephrase: British and American withdrawal from Iraq will register on the screens of Jihadis the world over as a stupendous victory as in the response of Ayman Zawahiri, as important — if not more — that the victory of Bin Laden and the Mujihaddin in Afghanistan in 1989, which has launched the current wave of global Jihad. Global Jihad Warming will shoot up several degrees, tepid supporters will become more fervent, fervent supporters emboldened to new aggressions. And after Iraq, which will descend into an apocalyptic bloodbath, the major victim will be Europe, with its restive and increasingly aggressive Muslim populations, and their latest non-ethnic (i.e. honkey) recruits. As Henri Desroche said about millennial movements, they “take” like forest fires, and once they do, one cannot “put them out,” only hope to direct them, to have them burn out with as little damage as possible. While our presence in Iraq makes those fires burn brighter (and our media play a key role in that), our departure would be the equivalent of pouring oil on precisely those areas which permit the flames to jump to other forest land.

None of this seems to bother someone as insular as the Tory, Edward Leigh, whose remarks make it clear that he sees no connection between the “inevitable” bloodbath in Iraq and what’s happening at home:

“Everyone knows that the incoming Prime Minister will ensure that all British troops have left by the time of the next general election. Whatever else is said, let us be honest about one thing: this is a political decision. Why do we persist in an illusion? Whether we get out in a month’s time, a year’s time or two years’ time, there will be a mess after we leave. The only difference will be that more British troops will die. That is the reality on the ground. We are now the target - the magnet - for terrorists, particularly those from Iran. Why will the Secretary of State not be honest with the House and say that we have acted honourably, we have done our bit, and we should now withdraw?
Similar shortsightedness, better suited to earlier centuries (even the last) come pouring out from “democratic” leaders in the USA. As the democrats would so readily charge George Bush, so must they consider the moral of La Fontaine’s parable about the Fox and the Goat (who did not see beyond his nose): “In all things one must consider the end.”

Ultimately, however, this gets back to the MSM, and the consistently “anti-war” spin they put on their coverage. Schroeder’s remarks suggest an interesting and depressing parallel with Israel: The government seems to lack the will to fight back.

The Military’s and Government’s responsibilities

If the media are not going to fairly and accurately report the news coming out of Iraq, then the military and government have to step up to the plate somehow. But because the media controls most of our information outlets, it is difficult. Conservative talk radio, satellite TV, and the Internet are three ways to bypass the media. War blogs and conservative news sites can go a long way in getting the good new out. The Pentagon has a news channel, called The Pentagon Channel. In theory, satellite and cable providers could carry it, though of course critics would cry foul.

Yet the military has decided to crackdown on the very war blogs that get good information to the public. While operational security is the #1 priority in our information operations, the military needs to ensure that good news continues to flow through outlets that are supportive of our war rather then squelching them with, what may be, well-intentioned, but very damaging limits on accurate information flowing to the public. Commanders need to ensure that they maintain operational security while not inhibiting the critical information that war bloggers send out, getting real information about the war to the public.

The President

Lastly, whenever the President campaigns to gain support for the war and explains the facts to the public, support for the war goes up. He should do much more of this. I am not talking about one or two speeches, I am talking about three and four week campaigns, with speeches made several times a day, across the whole country. A campaign that is as well thought-out, and as vigorously executed as any political campaign for elected office.

Our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan are putting in 18-hour days, seven days a week, for 15 months. No vacations, no holidays, no weekends off. I think that the President owes them his full effort in doing his part to proclaim the real progress that is being achieved. Vague statements of progress are not sufficient. An information campaign is what is needed. It is time to cowboy up.
Are you listening, Israel?

UPDATE:

LGF has an interesting post on an article by Rohan Gunaratna, an al Qaeda expert who predicts that if the US (and presumably GB) leave Iraq, it will become a terrorist Disneyland which will be used to launch attacks around the world, forcing the West to reinvade (at much great cost) later.

Given that merely the election of a non-Dhimmi candidate in France elicits promises of terror attacks for global Jihadis, I think we should heed such warnings. Iraq is most decidedly not Vietnam: the domino theory really does apply.


Augean Stables » The MSM and Iraq: Dangerous Consequences to Inaccurate Coverage

Well, I've been reading and watching news for the past week...and I'm in a bloody-minded, hard-hearted mood right now. Specifically, I've about come to the conclusion that Democrats should be hunted for their pelts, based on their manifest disloyalty to their country and their willingness to destroy the progress in the war, so that they will not have to be exposed for their lack of judgement and patriotism. OR, gawd forbid, grant some credit to their most-hated enemies: Dubya and the US Armed Forces..

SO...who wants to nominate a vignette for the Democratic Daily War-Losing Measure? I've got quite a few in the pipe if nobody has a favorite, or the variety is just too hard to choose from.

Anybody want to start us off?

Blues:

Whatever is in that pipe, start smoking.

What exactly do you mean by a vignette?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

What exactly do you mean by a vignette?

An illustrative short story; an example.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Anybody want to start us off?

Wesley Clarke. ...said that just because McCain was a fighter pilot and POW does not qualify him to the POTUS.

julie,

it doesn't, and so that's not really the comment one should be pissed at clark about.

the comment that SHOULD be in question is assertion that mccain had not demonstrated "executive responsibility"- something patently untrue, and ironically something that fits obama more than mccain.

Okay Astralis, then you state a nomination to get things started.

Originally Posted by astralis

bluesman,

before we lose track of this whole conversation in the back-and-forth, i would just like to make clear the point of all this.

- not every democrat sees the goals of the party above the goals of the nation.

as a corollary to that,

- not every democrat is pleased to see dead US troops.

- when it comes to bungling the war, i do not believe dems have sole, or even majority, responsibility.

If that's still your position, you're on crack.

Astralis:

You say, "when it comes to bungling the war, i do not believe dems have sole, or even majority, responsibility."

You are dealing with two different things as if they are one and the same.

"Bungling" the war falls in the realm of mistakes made in presecuting the war.

What the dems (not all of them of course) did is not bungle, but obstruct.

Congress, led by both Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate went well beyond the needs of Congressional oversight, of which there must always be some even in wartime. The Truman Commission during WWII, comes to mind.

They used Congressional oversight as a fig leaf to thwart the conduct of the war in every imaginable way short of voting to cut off all funding, which as bad as that would have been, would at least shown the courage of their convictions. But they didn't cut off funding because it would have denied them an issue on which they could continue to lash the president and the Republicans. If that doesn't make you at least suspect they were after the White House, I'd be interested in knowing why.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Astralis:

You say, "when it comes to bungling the war, i do not believe dems have sole, or even majority, responsibility."

You are dealing with two different things as if they are one and the same.

"Bungling" the war falls in the realm of mistakes made in presecuting the war.

What the dems (not all of them of course) did is not bungle, but obstruct.

Congress, led by both Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate went well beyond the needs of Congressional oversight, of which there must always be some even in wartime. The Truman Commission during WWII, comes to mind.

They used Congressional oversight as a fig leaf to thwart the conduct of the war in every imaginable way short of voting to cut off all funding, which as bad as that would have been, would at least shown the courage of their convictions. But they didn't cut off funding because it would have denied them an issue on which they could continue to lash the president and the Republicans. If that doesn't make you at least suspect they were after the White House, I'd be interested in knowing why.

While I'll agree with your distinction of bungling vs. obstruction, I think it too misses the fact that the Congress (and Democrats) essentially gave the White House a carte blanche to run OIF until it became a campaign issue for 2004. The GOP demonstrated (personified by the administration) that it was quite capable of not just making mistakes, but bungling the conduct of the war (the military deserves some culpability, but it still would have been difficult playing a good hand when it was a bad one they were dealt).

One thing to remember, however, is that the Democratic blustering over obstruction, which caused real pain in terms of the adminstrative juggling to shift funding to operations during the periods of budget brinksmanship, didn't impact the conduct of the war as I see. The Administration still made its decisions despite whaterver "consensus" existed (e.g. the Iraq Study Group report). What it did provide was a credible threat to the Iraqi politicians that they needed to get moving forward if they wanted to see a continued American presence despite the "stay the course" rhetoric. I won't argue that it was a decisive lever, as it appears that the threat of Sadr in the upcoming elections has provided a stronger motivation, but it did provide a card to be played by the Administration.

JAD,

You are dealing with two different things as if they are one and the same.

"Bungling" the war falls in the realm of mistakes made in presecuting the war.

What the dems (not all of them of course) did is not bungle, but obstruct.

Congress, led by both Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate went well beyond the needs of Congressional oversight, of which there must always be some even in wartime. The Truman Commission during WWII, comes to mind.

They used Congressional oversight as a fig leaf to thwart the conduct of the war in every imaginable way short of voting to cut off all funding, which as bad as that would have been, would at least shown the courage of their convictions. But they didn't cut off funding because it would have denied them an issue on which they could continue to lash the president and the Republicans. If that doesn't make you at least suspect they were after the White House, I'd be interested in knowing why.

i would have argued that they didn't cut off funding for the war simply because they did not want to appear as the weak dems of the 1970s. i suspect your explanation, though, holds some modicum of truth.

i certainly agree with your contention that democrats are working here primarily for their political gain- most likely because they weren't invested in the war in the first place.

however, the title of this thread aside, bluesman has since said (and correct me if i'm wrong here, blues) that he no longer believes that democrats are doing what they do out of a sense of political gain, but out of pure anti-americanism. that they are perfectly willing to take a political hit if it means they can harm america one more time.

that's a different animal from what you and i think. i suspect if we do differ in opinions- and from what you've written so far, nothing really opposing to my viewpoints- it is in degree and not kind.

JAD,

also, in continuation of what shek said- the administration, charged with running the war, bungled it to a degree that congressional obstructionism simply cannot match. dem pressure does not explain the foolish decisions of rumsfeld, bremer, et al.

i do not buy bluesman's arguments, for instance, that were it not for the 2004 dem presidential agenda (or the 2006 legislative agenda), the terrorists in iraq would have given it up as a bad job and gone home. that we were on the verge of "winning" in 2004, and that the dems stole defeat from the jaws of victory.

his argument here primarily rests on intention. democrats "intend" for defeat, whereas republicans "intend" for victory.

leaving a portion of that particular argument aside, it still seems clear that the republicans, being where they were, did a better job of letting things all go to hell than the democrats ever did- even if they did have the best of intentions.

i am no supporter of the democratic position on iraq, but i think it is a bit much to say that were it not for the democrats, we'd be victorious by now.

Originally Posted by astralis

democrats "intend" for defeat, whereas republicans "intend" for victory.

I'm not sure how you can be at all sentient and argue against that proposition. Have you been asleep continuously for the past five years?

i am no supporter of the democratic position on iraq, but i think it is a bit much to say that were it not for the democrats, we'd be victorious by now.

It's not a bit much. It's gospel-true. And I'll go farther: if if had been left to the Democrats, we would have been defeated four years ago. THAT is absolutely and incontestably true. Argue against that, and I can once and for all write you off as a fundamentally dishonest and unserious person. As it is, I think you're merely in love with the idea that you're even-handed and impartial, so much so that you're willing to entertain the notion that there are two sides to every story, and each has equal weight and merit. That's not true, and the Iraq War as approached by the two major American political parties is an excellent example.

Pick the right side, and fight that side all the way. This 'honest broker' act makes me sick, when one side is so obviously disloyal to the national interest.