While the rhetoric has been high on both sides since the beginning of the Iraq war (well, after the mainstream media decided that it had been ‘duped’ over Weapons of Mass Destruction) there hasn’t been more important time for the reality of the situation to shine through. Personally, I’ve been something of a cheerleader for the original idea of the Iraq war, utilizing long overdue and completely justifiable regime change as a means to foster democratic growth in a region that has been stagnant with despot and totalitarian governments propped up by precious natural resources, and have supported the effort even as we’ve seen setback after setback and the drop of support among the American people. I won’t even bother to bring in the sentiments shared by the rest of the world, as I don’t think that the publics in any other country have a prayer of ‘getting’ the Global War on Terror.
I’ve seen the Administration begin to falter on their own hardlines, including passive responses as even the term “Global War on Terror” and the unwillingness of George Bush to refer to our enemy by its proper name (Islamic terrorism/fascism, whathaveyou) save for short staccato soundbytes that instantaneously get squashed out by faux-civil rights groups such as CAIR- whose membership has dwindled in the aftermath of 9/11 and their obstructionist/apologist nature. Yet this group with some 1,200 members is taken at face value to be the defacto speaker for the Muslim American community by the mainstream media.
Getting back to the point, the Iraq war has now moved into a phase where there seems to be undeniable progress. Even democrats, who regrettably have nothing to gain from progress in our mission, are forced to concede that there are significant military successes as a result of the Surge. The danger is already apparent and all too obvious. Those who will be politically damaged by progress in the war will seek to undermine it; this much was already all but conceded by House Majority Whip James Clyburn when he stated that a positive report from General Petraeus in September would be “a problem” for the anti-war Congress. We’ve seen the shift in focus toward the lack of political progress in Iraq, as opposed to the security concerns, because the latter has abated to some extent.
The true extent of progress in Iraq is hard to gauge, as the media will remain critical of the conflict despite verifiable gains on any front. That any progress has begun to trickle into the questions that the mainstream media asks candidates, officials, and pundits should be seen as a massive step in the right direction. Yet given their interests, we have to wonder how much is being quietly downplayed still.
That being said, those who have been to Iraq provide us the best wartime window, as must of the day-to-day reporting that takes places comes from hired local help who are not endangered by roaming the countryside in search of news. The problem with this is that these sources aren’t reliable, not only because of their own biases and motivations but because of the lacking Iraqi communication infrastructure. It’s literally hearsay, and that is what we’re treated to from the AP and Reuters on a daily basis.
So here are a few stories that are of note from earlier this week that will hopefully provide a better window into the Surge and our progress there while not tilting too far to either the realm of political pessimism or pom-pom optimism. Both are dangerous to the future of our efforts and dangerous to our men and women in the armed forces, as while we can sit and write stories, they are on the front line sacrificing in the most serious way.
Not to start this round-up on a sad note, but the story of Sean Stokes over at BLACKFIVE is a powerful one and certainly required reading for those of us that support the war so that we get a fuller understanding of what it truly is to serve. So that we keep the human face on this debate and remember that beyond the rhetoric of ‘chickenhawks’ and ‘hippies’ that permeates the internet, what we’re discussing is not just the future of our country, but the future of hundreds of thousands of individual heroes.
Keeping with the theme of the great strength of the men and women serving in Iraq, Bill Kristol has an article over at Time written after a recent trip to Iraq where he details not only how the Surge has been working, but also how the most impressive thing that witnessed during his trip was the American troops.
Before going to Iraq, I didn’t fully appreciate all the things our military leaders are doing there. Obviously, they’re fighting–and doing so more discriminately and effectively than they did in 2003 or 2004. But that’s just the beginning. Now that Petraeus and Odierno are pursuing a real counterinsurgency strategy, their subordinate commanders and officers are spending a lot of time engaging the local population in security, political and economic efforts. It’s clear from the briefings by colonels and lieutenant colonels at various forward operating bases that they have internalized Petraeus’ counterinsurgency doctrine.
…
The rule in Iraq is that brigade and battalion commanders–and even captains and lieutenants–are also taking on responsibilities as diplomats, politicians, development consultants, educators. The limited number of American civilians (and the virtual absence of Europeans) has thrown all the responsibility of nation building–more accurately, community building–on the U.S. military. And rather than complain, the soldiers do it willingly and even cheerfully, and with remarkable competence.
…
… the soldiers who have done well in Iraq will be major figures in American life for the next couple of decades. These men and women are no less suited to national leadership than are entrepreneurs, lawyers or local community leaders. In fact, they’ve had to show more courage, they’ve had to operate in a more fluid and volatile environment–and they’ve risked their lives for their country. Just as John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush benefited from their experience as young officers in World War II–and from the high regard in which their experience was held–so the Iraq vets will have every chance to rise to the top of American public life.
Granted Kristol takes some of the previous strategies in Iraq to task in his article, and I can’t help but have a little affection left for old Rummy, but the message is clear: things are working and must be given the chance to work.
This week The American Thinker compares Iraq to some of the more criticized engagements of World War II, but comes to a different conclusion. The article is worth a read and it does a commendable job of illustrating the deadliness of the enemy we face, something that should not be lost on those who do not support the war but often is.
The Japanese were a
“fanatical enemy, that is they believed in their cause with an intensity little understood by many postwar Americans — and possibly many Japanese, as well.”
Today’s Islamist fundamentalists are also a fanatical enemy, similarly and regrettably little understood by many of today’s Americans (despite the parallels between Pearl Harbor then and 9/11 now).
The enemies’ military tactics are eerily similar. The Japanese design was to conserve forces and fight a battle of attrition that was not over until the last Japanese position was knocked out. Sledge writes that the“Japanese covered nearly every yard of Peleliu from the beach inland… some positions were large enough to hold only one man. Some caves held hundreds. The Japanese had constructed the perfect defense-in-depth with the whole island as a front line.”
Sledge describes to a “t” the “fronts ” American forces have encountered in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Tactics such as “playing dead and then throwing a hand grenade — or playing wounded, calling for a corpsman, and then knifing the medic when he came….” will resonate with soldiers on the ground in Iraq ( some of whom have been unjustly prosecuted for the “crime” of self defense). Sledge describes the combatants as “like two scorpions in a bottle.” The enemy was annihilated, the victors nearly so. “Only Americans who excelled could have defeated them.” Thomas Paine’s prophetic words are true: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.”
Oliver North took those defeatists among us to task this week and has a suggestion for Bush: go to Iraq. I remember when Bush made that sneak visit to Iraq on Thanksgiving and it certainly seemed to help for a bit. There is NO reason why our president shouldn’t be going over there as a means of showing the effort is not only moving forward, but also to inspire those putting their lives on the line every day. It would also garnish a good bit a media attention, and would help focus on the apparently improving security situation.
Some other items worthy of note include:
The defeat of the British in the South of Iraq and their indifference to this disastrous development; it does appear that the British people are intent on sleeping through this threat, which is another example of why what “the world” thinks about us shouldn’t be too much of a concern. A little bit of advice, they’ve never really thought that much of us to begin with.
Sister Toldjah’s commentary on the shifting stance of the anti-war crowd to one of indifference to progress, as I detailed above.
Atlas Shrugs has some more on WMD common knowledge circa 1995. I’d love to go into more detail about Saddam’s programs and whether or not that nasty stuff just up and vanished, never existed, or was spirited away, but I’m not sure if the interest is there. (Hint: It was probably choice numero tres)
Update 8/12/07:
Redstate has a well written story about the aftermath of an insurgent attack.
