Seems that long-time critic of Bush Administration war policy is starting to see some improvements in Iraq - from NRO:
Last week, Connecticut Republican congressman Christopher Shays briefed his Republican colleagues on the progress he observed in Iraq earlier this month. No member of Congress has visited Iraq more often than Shays, and since he’s an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s war strategies, members of Congress were attentive as he gave his impressions from his 16th trip. For the first time in over a year, Shays saw promising signs, and he is anxious to confirm them when he returns to Iraq next month. He is encouraged by the improved security in Baghdad, the cooperation of Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province, and the dramatically improved oil production in the north.
Shays was the first member of Congress to visit Iraq following the invasion. His previous impressions made it clear that, on these trips, he is not outfitted with rose-colored glasses.
Shays has been a liberal thorn in our conservative, Republican hide for quite a long time - but he's also an honest man who states things as he sees them. He survived a very tough challenge in 2006 - fighting for his seat in an anti-GOP year in a very Blue State...and if he were a political trimmer, he'd be moderately anti-war all the way through right now, because he's likely to draw a tough challenge again in 2008. But he can only report what he sees - and he likes what he sees in Iraq.
This is in stark contrast to the Democratic critics of the war - who won't even take a look at the data. Reid has pronounced the war lost, and though he tries to backtrack on that, the plain fact of the matter is that most Democrats have thought the war lost since 2004....2003, really, if you count Dean's anti-war candidacy. Outside of the true-believer defeatists like Dean, most senior Democrats have seen the war as a loss because they just can't wrap their minds around an American victory. True children of the 1960's, their whole worldview is shaped by that disgraceful defeat engineered by the American left. That is the template Democrats work from - America bad, armed enemy good - and they simply lack the wit to think outside their box.
And, of course, the jury is still out on Iraq. In my view, we should know by late June or early July if its really working. Keep in mind that the Democrats will call it a faiure no matter what happens - but if we see by early July that the Iraqi military is by and large capable of handling matters, then we can start announcing troop draw downs and accelerating a complete handover of security issues to the Iraqi police and military. This is what the Democrats most fear - American troops coming home crowned with well-earned victory at the start of an election year predicated upon America returning defeated from Iraq.
Posted by Mark Noonan at April 25, 2007 02:03 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
Mark,
So in your view, what happens if, come July, things are as bad as they are now?
Posted by: Eric at April 25, 2007 02:57 AM
Also, would you say that late June-early July is a timetable for approx. when we can set a timetable?
Posted by: Eric at April 25, 2007 03:00 AM
We can't set a timetable for surrender and we cannot pullout of Iraq. We MUST WIN in Iraq. A recent poll of Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indonesians and Moroccans showed that 70% of those Muslims support Al Qaeda's goals. If the US pulls out of Iraq without a victory, then Al Qaeda wins-supported by 70% of the Muslim population. Imagine, a Taliban-style Islamic theocracy in every Muslim country. A nightmare-and another 9/11-in the making.
From the poll by the Washington-based group, WorldPublicOpinion.org:
"More than half believed al Qaeda's goals included achieving a strict application of Sharia law in every Islamic country, with more than 70 percent agreeing with that aim."
and
"On average less than one in four believes al Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical -- only 3 percent think al Qaeda did it," said WorldPublicOpinion.org.
Posted by: Freedom1 at April 25, 2007 04:20 AM
Also, would you say that late June-early July is a timetable for approx. when we can set a timetable?
I would say that late June-early July would be a timetable for you to get a life, and to stop rooting for American defeat...
Posted by: keefer at April 25, 2007 04:56 AM
I've never been very impressed with Shay's ideology, but he's been very forthright on Iraq. Maybe he should take Reid-tard and Piglosi along with him, since they have no intention to listen to what the generals on the ground are saying...
Posted by: keefer at April 25, 2007 05:28 AM
What are these signs of success that Shay's sees?
Posted by: Paul at April 25, 2007 06:34 AM
>i>most senior Democrats have seen the war as a loss because they just can't wrap their minds around an American victory. True children of the 1960's, their whole worldview is shaped by that disgraceful defeat engineered by the American left. That is the template Democrats work from - America bad, armed enemy good - and they simply lack the wit to think outside their box. (emphasis - mine)
This is because they got away with it at the end of the Vietnam War. If the Dems engineer a similar end to this war, the aftermath will not be the same. Different kind of war -- different kind of enemy. Oh, to be sure, the killing fields will materialize in the ME, but it won't be contained in the ME. IMHO, if the Dems get their way in this matter, it won't be long before they have a collective, "oh, sh*t, what have we done" moment. By then it'll be too late.
Posted by: Retired Spook at April 25, 2007 07:57 AM
Bush defines "victory" thus:
"THE PRESIDENT: You know, victory in Iraq is not going to be like victory in World War II. It's one of the challenges I have to explain to the American people what Iraq will look like in a situation that will enable us to say we have accomplished our mission.
First, the -- Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace. I say "relative peace" because if it's like zero car bombings(1), it never will happen that way. It's like -- the fundamental question is, can we help this government have the security force level necessary to make sure that the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in certain neighborhoods has stopped.
Look, there's criminality in Iraq, as well as the ethnic violence. And we've got to help the Iraqis have a police force that deals with criminals(2). There is an al Qaeda presence in Iraq, as you know. I believe some of the spectacular bombings have been caused by al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, Zarqawi -- the terrorist Zarqawi(3), who is not an Iraqi, made it very clear that he intended to use violence to spur sectarian -- car bombings and spectacular violence to spur sectarian violence. And he did a good job of it.
And so there -- and then there's this disaffected Sunnis, people who believe that they should still be in power in spite of the fact that the Shia are the majority of the country, and they're willing to use violence to try to create enough chaos so they get back in power.
The reason I described that is that no matter what you call it, it's a complex situation, and it needed to be dealt with inside of Iraq. We've got people who say civil war, we've got people on the ground who don't believe it's a civil war. But nevertheless, it is -- it was dangerous enough that I had to make a decision to try to stop it(5), so that a government that is bound by a constitution, where the country feels relatively secure as a result of a security force that is even-handed in its application of security; a place where the vast resources of the country -- this is a relatively wealthy country, in that they've got a lot of hydrocarbons(6) -- is shared equally amongst people; that there is a federalism that evolves under the Constitution where the local provinces have got authority, as well; and where people who may have made a political decision in the past and yet weren't criminals can participate in the life of the country(7); and is an ally in the war on terror. In other words, that there is a bulwark(8) for moderation, as opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as successful."
Ok, so victory means:
(1) there are still car bombers
(2) that we provide police protection against criminals
(3) that Zarqawi.. oh wait, he's dead
(4) all the Sunnis are dead
(5) we stop their civil war
(6) that's fancy talk for OIL, which is spread commie-style to all the people (read: wealth redistribution)
(7) Baathists all get along after Baath party heads were severed from their torsos
(8) Bulwark: "A wall or embankment raised as a defensive fortification", i.e. wall off Sunnis from Shias, making Baghdad a giant prison, which is well on the way
Does this look like victory to any of you? Really? Commie-style "everyone gets a piece of the oil" wealth redistribution?
Good luck with that.
Posted by: congressive at April 25, 2007 08:57 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Richard Nixon president when the US pulled out of Vietnam?
Posted by: sunny at April 25, 2007 08:59 AM
Sunny,
No, Gerald Ford...but the cutoff of funds which secured South Vietnamese defeat was all Democrat. The Vietnam War was started by liberal Democrats and then sabotaged by liberal Democrats when they found out that, ya know, war can be hard...and they didn't like it anymore...'cause it wasn't fun...and, and, and....lookit da pictures!!! Can't you see that pictures of war are BAD? Why can't you see that? Peace is better than war, ergo any peace is better than any war....
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 25, 2007 09:55 AM
Peace is better than war, ergo any peace is better than any war....
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 25, 2007 09:55 AM
Amen, brother, amen. Peace rules!!
Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 25, 2007 10:34 AM
And we've got to help the Iraqis have a police force that deals with criminals(2).
2) that we provide police protection against criminals
And so there -- and then there's this disaffected Sunnis, people who believe that they should still be in power in spite of the fact that the Shia are the majority of the country, and they're willing to use violence to try to create enough chaos so they get back in power.
4) all the Sunnis are dead
In other words, that there is a bulwark(8) for moderation, as opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as successful."
(8) Bulwark: "A wall or embankment raised as a defensive fortification", i.e. wall off Sunnis from Shias, making Baghdad a giant prison, which is well on the way
Did you even read what you posted? Your little list makes absolutely no sense. When you read stuff like this, does your brain actually tell you things like what you wrote in your summary? If so, maybe you should talk to a professioal.
Posted by: Justin at April 25, 2007 02:54 PM
It's kind of like having religious faith. You can't see it, you can't verify it, you must rely on faith that there is a God.
Same thing with progress in Iraq. You have to have FAITH that it's getting better.
There is a GOD, and there is PROGRESS in Iraq. All it takes is faith.
Unfortunately, I believe in God, but I never had any faith we were doing the right thing in Iraq.
The amount of "progress" now amounts to sheer faith in those who believe in the right wing zealot's true messiah, George W. Bush.
Pray at the feet of George W. Bush righties.
Posted by: raker13 at April 25, 2007 03:36 PM
Posted by: Retired Spook at April 25, 2007 07:57 AM
Dead right, Retired Spook. Dead right.
Posted by: Freedom1 at April 25, 2007 07:21 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
Mark,
So in your view, what happens if, come July, things are as bad as they are now?
Also, would you say that late June-early July is a timetable for approx. when we can set a timetable?
We can't set a timetable for surrender and we cannot pullout of Iraq. We MUST WIN in Iraq. A recent poll of Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indonesians and Moroccans showed that 70% of those Muslims support Al Qaeda's goals. If the US pulls out of Iraq without a victory, then Al Qaeda wins-supported by 70% of the Muslim population. Imagine, a Taliban-style Islamic theocracy in every Muslim country. A nightmare-and another 9/11-in the making.
From the poll by the Washington-based group, WorldPublicOpinion.org:
and
Also, would you say that late June-early July is a timetable for approx. when we can set a timetable?
I would say that late June-early July would be a timetable for you to get a life, and to stop rooting for American defeat...
I've never been very impressed with Shay's ideology, but he's been very forthright on Iraq. Maybe he should take Reid-tard and Piglosi along with him, since they have no intention to listen to what the generals on the ground are saying...
What are these signs of success that Shay's sees?
>i>most senior Democrats have seen the war as a loss because they just can't wrap their minds around an American victory. True children of the 1960's, their whole worldview is shaped by that disgraceful defeat engineered by the American left. That is the template Democrats work from - America bad, armed enemy good - and they simply lack the wit to think outside their box. (emphasis - mine)
This is because they got away with it at the end of the Vietnam War. If the Dems engineer a similar end to this war, the aftermath will not be the same. Different kind of war -- different kind of enemy. Oh, to be sure, the killing fields will materialize in the ME, but it won't be contained in the ME. IMHO, if the Dems get their way in this matter, it won't be long before they have a collective, "oh, sh*t, what have we done" moment. By then it'll be too late.
Bush defines "victory" thus:
"THE PRESIDENT: You know, victory in Iraq is not going to be like victory in World War II. It's one of the challenges I have to explain to the American people what Iraq will look like in a situation that will enable us to say we have accomplished our mission.
First, the -- Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace. I say "relative peace" because if it's like zero car bombings(1), it never will happen that way. It's like -- the fundamental question is, can we help this government have the security force level necessary to make sure that the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in certain neighborhoods has stopped.
Look, there's criminality in Iraq, as well as the ethnic violence. And we've got to help the Iraqis have a police force that deals with criminals(2). There is an al Qaeda presence in Iraq, as you know. I believe some of the spectacular bombings have been caused by al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, Zarqawi -- the terrorist Zarqawi(3), who is not an Iraqi, made it very clear that he intended to use violence to spur sectarian -- car bombings and spectacular violence to spur sectarian violence. And he did a good job of it.
And so there -- and then there's this disaffected Sunnis, people who believe that they should still be in power in spite of the fact that the Shia are the majority of the country, and they're willing to use violence to try to create enough chaos so they get back in power.
The reason I described that is that no matter what you call it, it's a complex situation, and it needed to be dealt with inside of Iraq. We've got people who say civil war, we've got people on the ground who don't believe it's a civil war. But nevertheless, it is -- it was dangerous enough that I had to make a decision to try to stop it(5), so that a government that is bound by a constitution, where the country feels relatively secure as a result of a security force that is even-handed in its application of security; a place where the vast resources of the country -- this is a relatively wealthy country, in that they've got a lot of hydrocarbons(6) -- is shared equally amongst people; that there is a federalism that evolves under the Constitution where the local provinces have got authority, as well; and where people who may have made a political decision in the past and yet weren't criminals can participate in the life of the country(7); and is an ally in the war on terror. In other words, that there is a bulwark(8) for moderation, as opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as successful."
Ok, so victory means:
(1) there are still car bombers
(2) that we provide police protection against criminals
(3) that Zarqawi.. oh wait, he's dead
(4) all the Sunnis are dead
(5) we stop their civil war
(6) that's fancy talk for OIL, which is spread commie-style to all the people (read: wealth redistribution)
(7) Baathists all get along after Baath party heads were severed from their torsos
(8) Bulwark: "A wall or embankment raised as a defensive fortification", i.e. wall off Sunnis from Shias, making Baghdad a giant prison, which is well on the way
Does this look like victory to any of you? Really? Commie-style "everyone gets a piece of the oil" wealth redistribution?
Good luck with that.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Richard Nixon president when the US pulled out of Vietnam?
Sunny,
No, Gerald Ford...but the cutoff of funds which secured South Vietnamese defeat was all Democrat. The Vietnam War was started by liberal Democrats and then sabotaged by liberal Democrats when they found out that, ya know, war can be hard...and they didn't like it anymore...'cause it wasn't fun...and, and, and....lookit da pictures!!! Can't you see that pictures of war are BAD? Why can't you see that? Peace is better than war, ergo any peace is better than any war....
Peace is better than war, ergo any peace is better than any war....
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 25, 2007 09:55 AM
Amen, brother, amen. Peace rules!!
And we've got to help the Iraqis have a police force that deals with criminals(2).
2) that we provide police protection against criminals
And so there -- and then there's this disaffected Sunnis, people who believe that they should still be in power in spite of the fact that the Shia are the majority of the country, and they're willing to use violence to try to create enough chaos so they get back in power.
4) all the Sunnis are dead
In other words, that there is a bulwark(8) for moderation, as opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as successful."
(8) Bulwark: "A wall or embankment raised as a defensive fortification", i.e. wall off Sunnis from Shias, making Baghdad a giant prison, which is well on the way
Did you even read what you posted? Your little list makes absolutely no sense. When you read stuff like this, does your brain actually tell you things like what you wrote in your summary? If so, maybe you should talk to a professioal.
It's kind of like having religious faith. You can't see it, you can't verify it, you must rely on faith that there is a God.
Same thing with progress in Iraq. You have to have FAITH that it's getting better.
There is a GOD, and there is PROGRESS in Iraq. All it takes is faith.
Unfortunately, I believe in God, but I never had any faith we were doing the right thing in Iraq.
The amount of "progress" now amounts to sheer faith in those who believe in the right wing zealot's true messiah, George W. Bush.
Pray at the feet of George W. Bush righties.
Posted by: Retired Spook at April 25, 2007 07:57 AM
Dead right, Retired Spook. Dead right.