First, it's far from clear what role, if any, a 15% increase in total U.S. troop deplooyment [sic] in Iraq has played in the country's journey from something close to all-out civil war two years ago, to today's merely horrifying levels of sectarian violence (500 Iraqis are still dying in such violence each month, the per capita equivalent of another 9/11 attack in the U.S. every two weeks. This is what strikes Beinart as a marvelous success, requiring bipartisan hosannas).The source for this bile? Why, Cernig, of course.
That a relatively modest increase in the U.S. troop presence might in and of itself have played no role whatsoever (as opposed to, say, bribing tribal leaders in Anbar, and allowing Baghdad to become almost completely "ethnically cleansed," as well as the purely internal dynamics of Iraqi politics) is quite possible, yet Beinart is so eager to be the classic Beltway centerist [sic] voice of reason that he doesn't even consider that possibility.
Even more objectionable is Beinart's insistence that President Bush showed great courage by ordering the surge. Do we really need any lectures from conspicuously non-combatant warmongering pundits of military age on the meaning of that word? Two years ago Bush was a lame duck president facing a compliant and spineless Congress, who he knew full well would never have the political will to resist whatever new war strategery he deigned to jam down its collective throat. If he had admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a tragic mistake - now that would have required something like courage. Instead he "stayed the course," despite the immense damage his bull-headed idiocies have wreaked.
What else has the man ever done in his whole life but that?
He and his LGM allies are taking issue with Peter Beinart's piece at the Washington Post, "Admit It: The Surge Worked."
I'm not interesting in debating the point with these idiots. The anti-American left will twist, spin, contort, and defile the Bush administration's record on Iraq, while simultaneously spitting on the gallant civilian and military personnel who worked hard to secure success on the ground.
Tom the Redhunter has frequent Iraq reports from commanders on hand, but see Kimberly Kagan's oustanding overall assessment, "How They Did It Executing the Winning Strategy in Iraq."
Recall, too, that the Democratic defeatists in Congress declared the war lost throughout 2007.
On that, don't miss the report from Peter Feaver, who is a Harvard-trained security expert at Duke University, a former Bush administration official on military policy, and a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve: "Anatomy of the Surge."
1 comments:
We haven't had a terrorist attack on our shores since 9/11. I recently read that we've lost about 4,000 troops in Iraq - but over 7,000 were somehow lost during Clinton's Presidency. Why don't I hear about that?? With Obama, we're going to have terrorist attacks on our shores. And the lethal nature of the weapons of terror attack have risen to WMD's. THAT'S WHAT BUSH WAS SEEING - and THAT'S WHY he took the action he took. No one who attacks Bush puts our national security in context of the level threats we really face in WMD's brought in by terrorists. Bush took all these measures because he saw the very real threats of nuclear holocaust in the USA through terrorist attacks. That's why he went on the offensive in pre-emptive war so that we were not "sitting ducks". Well, we will be under Obama. So they can say all they want to say about Bush - he kept us safe. The railings against him are out of context, unfair, and EXTREMELY UNGRATEFUL... and IGNORANT. Well, the left is about to get an education in pain - the pain of WMD's on American shores... because it's coming under Obama, imo. They're too ignorant to see the greater context because, well, they're ignoramuses.
Post a Comment