Congress & Iraq: Declaring Defeat
Peter Brookes
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04302007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/congress__iraq__declaring_defeat_opedcolumnists_peter_brookes.htm

Early this week, Congress will finally deliver on the president's request for emergency war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan - after more than 80 days (yes, 80 days) of needless dithering with our national security.

But the supplemental spending bill is not only plump with $20 billion in "pork" projects (support to salmon fisheries, beet farmers, etc.), it also includes a completely arbitrary timetable for surrender in . . . er, I mean, withdrawal from Iraq.

Sure, Congress has the constitutional power to declare "war," but since when does it have the right to declare "defeat"?

The lawmakers' effort to micromanage the Iraq war is nothing less than shameful - a cheap stunt to score political points. It's much more about the elections in 2008 than our national security in 2007.

The president will rightly veto the measure. But mere passage of this bill has already done significant damage.

Start with our fighting men and women. The ones in Iraq can't be encouraged by the impression that Congress doesn't feel their continued efforts are worthwhile.

And what about our warriors in Afghanistan? Should they be willing to put it all on the line against the Taliban and al Qaeda while waiting for a congressional call for their withdrawal as well?

Even more unbelievable is that Congress went forward with the bill after calling for a new strategy - when we've barely begun to implement just that.

Yes, the "surge" - as well as a new U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, plus dramatic shifts in our approach - was just announced earlier this year. But just over half of the troops envisioned for the surge have arrived in Iraq so far - and the last won't even be in place till at least mid-June. We're just getting started.

Wait a minute, you say: What about all those recent deadly bombings? The bad news is real - but those attacks are mostly the evil handiwork of al Qaeda and foreign jihadists (80 to 90 percent of suicide bombers are non-Iraqi). Osama's henchmen are still intent on fomenting a sectarian civil war - and hastening a U.S. retreat by influencing politics back here. Congress' action must leave them pumped.

What of our Iraqi partners? Congress' vote of "confidence" has to make them feel like no good deed goes unpunished.

At our urging, the Iraqi government is moving a wealth-sharing bill to portion out Iraq's oil riches to the disaffected Sunni community, as well as a "de-deBaathification" bill to bring former regime members - again, mostly Sunni - back into politics, society, government and the workforce, a shift that can help bring a peaceful end to the insurgency.

And, according to Petraeus, sectarian violence is down by two-thirds since January. Sunni tribes in Anbar and Diyala have switched sides and are now fighting al Qaeda and foreign extremists - an enemy intent on attacking us here at home.

Congress' call for retreat threatens all these gains. If the Iraqis feel like it's just a matter of time before America bails out on them, why keep dealing with us? It might make more sense to them to just sign on with the Iranians or Syrians now . . .

Which brings up the bill's effect on the region: Iran and Syria must be salivating at the idea of America's retreating from the Middle East with its tail between its legs. Afghanistan, meanwhile, has to contemplate the grim prospect of being abandoned next.

Plus, our national/military intelligence services judge that al Qaeda sees its struggle in Iraq as the most important effort in its global jihad - not Afghanistan, as some in Congress seem to think. Doesn't defeating al Qaeda mean anything anymore?

Congress' "Run away!" resolution heartens troublemakers around the word - in North Korea and Venezuela, as well as belligerent or ambitious factions in China and Russia. Our friends and allies, meanwhile, have to wonder if America can still be counted on.

Some in Congress are in a "Let's cut our losses now" sort of mentality. But the war in Iraq is about a lot more than just Iraq. It's about America's power and influence in the world - indeed, our future.

What happens in Washington - even something as mundane as a nonbinding congressional resolution - reverberates across the globe. It's time we fully recognize that.

It's Congress' duty to do what's right for this country, not just do what's expedient or politically popular. To put America first - not party politics - is what we should demand from our elected representatives.

Hopefully, they'll keep that in mind when they send the president the next bill - one that will fund the troops, demonstrate our resolve, deter potential foes and defeat our enemies.

Peter Brookes is a Heritage senior fellow, a veteran and a former deputy secretary of defense.


Out of Iraq? Why Are They Doing This?
How is the Iraq legislation just passed by the Democrats in Congress seen in Iraq? PJM Baghdad editor Omar Fadhil tells you.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/04/out_of_iraq_why_are_the_democr.php

Instead of coming up with ideas to help the US Democrats are trying to stop the effort to stabilize Iraq and rescue the Middle East from a catastrophe.

I am an Iraqi. To me the possible consequences of this vote are terrifying. Just as we began to see signs of progress in my country the Democrats come and say, ‘Well, it’s not worth it. Time to leave’.

To the Democrats my life and the lives of twenty-five other million Iraqis are evidently not worth trying for. They shouldn’t expect us to be grateful for this.

For four years everybody made mistakes. The administration made mistakes and admitted them. My people and leaders made mistakes as well and we regret them.

But now, in the last two months, we have had a fresh start; a new strategy with new ideas and tactics. These were reached after studying previous mistakes and were designed to reverse the setbacks we witnessed in the course of this war.

This strategy, although its tools are not yet even fully deployed, is showing promising signs of progress.

General Petraeus said yesterday that things will get tougher before they get easier in Iraq. This is the sort of of fact-based, realistic assessment of the situation which politicians should listen to when they discuss the war thousands of miles away.

We must give this effort the chance it deserves. We should provide all the support necessary. We should heed constructive critique, not the empty rhetoric that the ‘war is lost.’

It is not lost. Quitting is not an option we can afford—not in America and definitely not in Iraq.

I said it before and I say it again; this war must be won. If it is not the world as you in the United States know it today (and as we here in Iraq dream for it to become) will exist only in books of history. The forces of extremism that we confront today are more determined, more resourceful, and more barbaric than the Nazi or the communists of the past. Add to that the weapons they can improvise or acquire through their unholy alliance with rogue regimes, combined with their fluid structure and mobility… well, they can be more deadly than any forces we have faced in the past. Much more.

The political game the Democrats are playing has gone farther than it should have. Before they took over the congress they were complaining that there had been no feasible plan for winning the war. Now that such a plan exists and thousands of American soldiers are working hard with the millions of good Iraqis to make it work, they wish to turn their backs on it.

I understood that by winning a majority in the legislature the Democrats were supposed to guide America to victory by correcting the mistakes of the past. Obviously I was wrong; they have put all their efforts into making sure the exact opposite outcome happens.

Just look at this one example of how the terrorists are going to make benefit from the defeatism of democrats. Al-Jazeera, the unofficial mouthpiece of al-Qaeda posted this on the same day the House passed the wretched bill:

Dadullah said: “Thank God, he is alive, we get updated information about it. Thank God, he plans the operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In no time al-Qaeda and all similarly extremist factions will start boasting about how America is fleeing Iraq under the heavy blows of the “Mujahideen” planned by OBL himself.

The Democrats just offered al-Qaeda victory on a silver plate. For free. An imaginary victory for sure, for now, but it can still be used by al-Qaeda to promote their ideology of death and attract more recruits.

“America’s will can be broken, America is not invincible,” they will say in a thousand ways. Is this the kind of message you want to send to the enemy?

Reconsider your position before it’s too late. For us and for yourselves.


Tony Snow: What Message Are We Sending?
Brian Faughnan
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/05/tony_snow_what_message_are_we.asp

I just got off a conference call with White House spokesman Tony Snow and NSC Director for Iraq Brett McGurk. The 'occasion' was the receiving and veto of the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill.

Overall impressions: the public debate about Iraq now revolves around several questions. Will the surge work, and can the public be convinced that it's working (two different things)? Can the Iraqis make the political progress (on oil, elections and other issues) that U.S. support is supposed to be enabling? Will the political climate permit the president to keep U.S. troops in Iraq through the 2008 election--and would that be desirable if possible (and under what circumstances)?

All of the White House rhetoric is geared to build support for the surge among the American public, but as Snow pointed out in the call, the American people can't think that the only things American troops are doing in Iraq is "walking around and getting killed." They must believe that this is about more. The only thing that can convince them that there is more to the mission, is results from Iraq. That's where all the focus has to be. If sessions like this one with Snow build support to stay in Iraq longer and thus allow the Iraqis to build a nation, that's fine--but it's not the ultimate test. The ultimate test is what Iraq looks like.

Now on to the substance of the call.

I'll start off with simple housekeeping stuff: Snow indicated that the president will release a statement on the veto at 6:10 pm, and the veto message will be delivered to the Congress tomorrow. The House will try--and fail--to override the veto tomorrow morning.

With the insistence of the Democrats on the dogged pursuit of a funding bill that the President made clear he would veto months ago, everything up until now has been political theater. So just 86 days after the president initially submitted his emergency funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress will begin to work on the request tomorrow.

Snow indicated that the president will veto the legislation for the following reasons:

* The timetables for withdrawal handcuff the generals in conduct of the war.

* The legislation substitutes the opinions of people in Washington for the opinions and leadership of America's generals on the ground.

* It provides funding, but with handcuffs--preventing our military from pursuing victory.

* It contains unrelated domestic spending items.

* The debate over withdrawal damages U.S. credibility, and the reputation of the United States in both the region and the world.

Snow pointed out that the timetable is opposed by the Iraqi people, government, military, and law enforcement. It is opposed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. Its supporters include Moqtada al Sadr, Iran, the Syrian government and Al Qaeda. Snow said that it is popular today to argue that the threat of American withdrawal will help create discipline in the Iraqi government, but that the Iraqi people are already spending significant 'blood and treasure' to try to create a stable country. Rather, the talk of withdrawal will tend to confirm Osama bin Laden's argument that the United States is a 'weak horse,' and that the Iraqis should look elsewhere for support. In this way it undermines those we want to help, and helps those we want to undermine.

Snow argued that it is important to recognize the consequences of victory and defeat in Iraq. Victory will show that democracy can succeed against terror, and that people can choose a democratic regime with a government of their choosing, even in the face of aggressive terrorism. Failure will lead to cataclysmic violence, regional destabilization, and a haven for terror networks. It is vital that we succeed.



McGurk reminded us that the Baker-Hamilton commission rejected timetables and the declassified National Intelligence Estimate said that the presence of coalition forces is essential. Without those forces, the Iraqi government would collapse and both Turkey and Iran would intervene.

In response to a question from Fausta about the impact of the lack of funding, Snow said that while funds have been shifted, the problem would become more dramatic after May 15. The last thing affected would be combat operations, but the impact would be felt.

When Erick from RedState asked why the White House has been unwilling to fight more aggressively, Snow pointed out that the White House has been saying for three months that this legislation would be vetoed, and that there is only so much the White House can do. He said that victory is essential for the long-term future of the US.

McQ of QandO asked for some indication of what the White House would be looking for in the next bill. But Snow demurred, saying that he did not want to try to negotiate ahead of time. The president would insist on a measure that did not tie the hands of the generals and did not undermine the Iraqi government. The real question he asserted, is what the Democrats would do--would they support the troops and a chance at victory?

Mark Finkelsten at Newsbusters offered a chance to slam George Tenet over his recent book, but Snow didn't rise to the bait. He noted that Tenet had a difficult job and had tried to do it well; that his famous promise of a 'slam dunk' merely represented the considered view of all the agencies that looked at the question of Iraqi WMD. He also pointed out something that few have commented on: that the book has nothing about the White House pressuring analysts to conclusions about WMD, or 'cooking' data. There were undoubtedly many on the left who would have liked to find that, but it's not there.

When asked by a Human Events writer about the report that the Iraqi parliament would take two months off this summer, Snow said that the U.S. government is communicating to the Iraqi regime the importance of making progress on key priorities--such as the oil law. He said that a message has been sent clearly that the patience of the American people is not unlimited.

When Hawkins of Right Wing News asked whether Harry Reid should resign for having said that the war is lost, Snow again demurred--saying that that was up to Reid's Democratic colleagues. He chose to point out, instead, that the main point is how out of sync Reid's comments are with those of the people who are reporting back from Iraq. In fact, re-enlistment rates are now higher he said, among those who have fought in combat than those who have not.

Robert Bluey asked what can be done to get the message out about the pork in this bill, and Snow said (among other things) that it's important just to have fun with it.