Petraeus's Plan Worked in Iraq
Don Surber
http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/DonSurber/200711230075

THE New York Times devoted a huge hunk of its Page One on Tuesday to the good news of the return to more normal times in Iraq. The story was illustrated with a photo of a wedding scene on the streets of Baghdad.


Violence has been cut in half. And while the nation is far from the tranquil democracy that many of us hoped for in April 2003, it also is a far cry from the chaotic mess it was just six months ago.

We are winning in Iraq.

Will someone please inform the Democrats?

In April, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said: “This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq.”

Then there is Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the most hawklike among the eight Democrats running for president.

On June 1, Biden said: “The surge has not worked and will not work, because its basic premise — to give time for a strong central government to take hold — is fatally flawed.”

Following an election rout by the Democrats a year ago, President Bush changed course in Iraq. He turned the war over to Gen. David Petraeus, hoping for a Gen. U.S. Grant or a Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman. Petraeus came up with the surge plan. Our soldiers would end the violence and give the Iraqis a chance to find their destiny.

The surge was pronounced a failure even before the plans were completed.

On Dec. 24, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., another presidential hopeful, said, “The proposal being considered by the administration to add between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers in a ‘surge’ of American troops will do nothing to address this issue.”

Victory was never an option for Democrats.

But American troops arrived, and it quickly became apparent that Gen. Petraeus — not Gen. Reid — was right. On July 30, the No. 3 Democrat in the House, James Clyburn of South Carolina said a positive report by Gen. Petraeus in September, would be “a real big problem for us.”

Which explains why the Democratic party’s MoveOn organization took out its infamous Betray Us ad on the eve of the general’s testimony to Congress. Democrats wanted to undermine his credibility.

Well, guess what? The Democrats have a real big problem.

Our troops have not acted alone in Iraq. Al-Qaida was chased out of town on a rail by the various tribes.

Bush changed course. Democrats have not. They have squandered their first year in control of Congress by voting 63 times on the war in Iraq — a war that was authorized by a Democratic Senate in 2002.

That works out to a vote on Iraq every five days.The federal budget languishes, still not approved nearly 60 days after the federal budget year began.

The Democrats are committed to defeat in Iraq.

Now Democrats are breaking a campaign pledge from last year not to mess with funding of the war. They want Bush to surrender in Iraq.

American soldiers are far more competent than our senators. The soldiers have met three of the four objectives in the war. First, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Thank God.

Next, the dictator whose executions were on the Idi Amin-level is gone. Hanged.

Third, a defeated al-Qaida also has retreated from Iraq, drained and in tatters. It also lost the public relations war by chopping off the forefingers of smokers. I doubt it will be back.

All that is left is establishing a democracy, which is out of the hands of our soldiers.

Pakistan has been struggling with it since independence 60 years ago. India took 40 years. South Korea, 20 years.The United States took eight years to get its Constitution, but it was another 131 years until women could vote.

It is up to the Iraqis to find their way, but they deserve our help. Democrats need to live up to their name and support democracy.


As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts
By PATRICK HEALY
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25dems.html?ex=1353646800&en=12644e868e374a58&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

“The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”

At the same time, there is no assurance that the ebbing of violence is more than a respite or represents a real trend that could lead to lasting political stability or coax those who have fled the capital to return to their homes. Past military successes have faded with new rounds of car bombings and kidnappings, like the market bombing that killed at least eight on Friday in Baghdad.

Neither Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama nor the other Democratic candidates have backed away from their original opposition to the troop escalation, and they all still favor a quick withdrawal from Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton, for one, has not said how quickly she would remove most combat forces from Iraq or how many she would leave there as president. Former Senator John Edwards, by contrast, has emphasized that he would remove all combat troops from the country, while Mr. Obama favors withdrawal at a rate of one to two brigades a month. Those plans stand in contrast to the latest American strategy of keeping most American combat brigades in Iraq but giving them an expanded role in training and supporting Iraqi forces.

The Democratic candidates received a boost yesterday from a former American commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who delivered the party’s response to Mr. Bush’s radio address. General Sanchez said that despite the security gains, there was “no evidence” that Iraq’s leaders were working toward a peace accord. He endorsed a Democratic measure in the House to withdraw all combat troops by December 2008.

Lately, as the killing in Baghdad and other areas has declined, the Democratic candidates have been dwelling less on the results of the troop escalation than on the lack of new government accords in Iraq — a tonal shift from last summer and fall when American military commanders were preparing to testify before Congress asking for more time to allow the surge to show results.

This is a delicate matter. By saying the effects of the troop escalation have not led to a healthier political environment, the candidates are tacitly acknowledging that the additional troops have, in fact, made a difference on the ground — a viewpoint many Democratic voters might not embrace.

“Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement after her aides were asked about her views on the ebbing violence in Baghdad.

“The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks,” she said. “We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it.”

While the war remains a top issue for many Democratic voters, the candidates are also turning to pocketbook concerns with new intensity as the nominating contests approach in January. Mrs. Clinton devoted a week to her energy plans recently, and spent Monday and Tuesday talking about the economy. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, still draws strong applause from audiences when he criticizes Congress for authorizing the war and Mr. Bush for waging it, but he is increasingly highlighting other concerns.

“We’ve never seen gas above $3 in November,” Mr. Obama told a crowd on a recent evening in Allison, Iowa. “People are working harder for less. Folks are maxing out on their credit cards, trying to stay afloat. People are struggling. And it doesn’t seem like Washington is listening.”

Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Bill Burton, said that the reduction of violence in Iraq was “welcome news,” but he also noted that a record number of troops had been killed this year and that political differences among the Iraqis had not been bridged.

“The best leverage we have to get Iraq’s political leaders to do their job is to immediately begin to withdraw our troops,” Mr. Burton said.

Mr. Edwards told reporters in Des Moines on Tuesday that there was not enough political movement to justify reassessing his Iraq policy at this stage.

“I think the underlying question has not changed in Iraq, and that question is whether there has been any serious effort, serious movement on the political front,” Mr. Edwards said. “Until there is political reconciliation between the Sunni and the Shia, there cannot be stability, there will not be an end to the violence. So I think that’s the ultimate test, and I have seen very little progress if any on that front.”

Mr. Edwards regularly brings up Iraq, but his focus is less on the troop escalation and more on his opponents’ judgment, especially Mrs. Clinton’s. He frequently lumps her in with Mr. Bush by noting her Senate votes supporting both the Iraq war and a recent resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

“We’ve seen this movie before; we know how it ends,” Mr. Edwards says about Iraq and Iran.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Democratic candidate who has been praised by his rivals as a thoughtful voice on Iraq, agreed in a statement that there had been “real progress on security” in Iraq. On the campaign trail, though, he frames discussions of the troop escalation around his plan to create strong regional governments in Iraq, rather than talking about the declining violence as an end in itself.

Two other Democratic contenders, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, have also insisted that there is no “military solution” for Iraq and that troops should be withdrawn swiftly.

One candidate favors withdrawing all troops immediately and unconditionally: Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

“Let’s be clear: 40 dead American troops is 40 too many,” said Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for Mr. Richardson. “Measuring progress through body counts is wrong. Sixty-five percent of Iraqis support killing American soldiers. There is no national political progress. None. It can only happen when we send a clear signal we are leaving.”


The Gangs of Iraq Are Killing Each Other Off
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20071123.aspx

The Gangs of Iraq are killing each other off. What it has come down to is the gangs, militias and organizations that have been making a living planting roadside bombs and carrying out contract hits on American and Iraqi troops for the last three years, are being defeated by tribal and community groups fed up with the constant violence. The terrorist activity of the last three years was paid for by kidnapping, extortion, black market gasoline and so on, and wealthy Sunni Arabs eager to put the Baath party back into power. Religious leaders, who often took fees for allowing their mosques to be used as armories and safe houses, also preached against the heretical Shia, who now ruled the country. Now the pro-peace Sunni Arab clergy have displaced the pro-violence imams, and established their own "Council of Religious Scholars" to prove it. 

Generally unnoticed over the last two years was a growing revolt within the Sunni Arab community. The Sunni Arab nationalists, the guys who supported Saddam and what he represented, did not have the backing of all Sunni Arabs. Neither did Saddam. And after Saddam fell, the fighting between Sunni Arabs began. Many Sunni Arabs greeted the Americans, and the prospect of democracy, with enthusiasm. These Sunni Arabs found themselves threatened by their fellow Sunnis, and distrusted by the majority Kurds and Shia. But the anti-Saddam Sunni Arabs have grown in number over the last three years, aided in part by the departure (for Syria, Jordan or internal exile) of nearly half the Sunni Arab community. 

The tipping point occurred this year, as the anti-terrorist Sunni Arabs became numerous enough to defeat the terrorist groups. The fighting continues, and serious violence will probably not end until sometime next year. Many of the terrorist groups have roots in the community, or simply will not flee or quit. They will fight to the death. But many others are giving up, or sticking to less murderous criminal activities. There's still money to be made in kidnapping, extortion and stealing. The Iraqi economy has continued to boom since 2003, so there's a lot more to steal. 

All these changes have been a boon for foreign journalists. It's safe enough now for these reporters to get out among the Iraqi people. There's still plenty of violence and tragedy to report, and now it can be done personally, rather than through Iraqi stringers. 

American troops are noting a dramatic reduction in violence against them. Earlier this year, the average American brigade encountered about half a dozen IEDs (roadside bombs) a day, and nearly as many incidents of gunfire directed at their patrols. That violence has gone down by more than half. Many neighborhoods are safe enough to stop and walk around in, and even do a little shopping. Getting local souvenirs for the folks back home has become popular. More Iraqis, especially the kids, come out to practice their English. Lots of Iraqis are learning English. Lots of Iraqis want to get out of Iraq and go to America. Lots of Iraqis already in America, and they tell the folks back in the old country that there have been no Islamic terrorist bombs going off in America since September 11, 2001. It's safe in America, and it's getting safer in Iraq.


Let's Hear It for Good News from Iraq
By Jeff Jacoby
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/25/lets_hear_it_for_good_news_from_iraq/

THE NEWS from Iraq has been so encouraging in recent months that last week even the mainstream media finally sat up and took notice. Can the Democratic Party be far behind?

more stories like this
Car bomb kills 9 in Baghdad
US scaling back political goals for unifying Iraq
US to increase troops in Diyala province
US blames Shiites for Iraq blast in pet market
Sadrist calls for new parliament in Iraq
In a story titled "Baghdad Comes Alive," Rod Nordland reports in the current Newsweek on the heartening transformation underway in the Iraqi capital:

"Returning to Baghdad after an absence of four months," he writes, "I can actually say that things do seem to have gotten better, and in ways that may even be durable . . . There hasn't been a successful suicide car bombing in Baghdad in five weeks . . . Al Qaeda in Iraq is starting to look like a spent force, especially in Baghdad."

The signs of life, Nordland acknowledges "grudgingly" - his word - are undeniable.

"Emerging from our bunkers into the Red Zone, I see the results everywhere. Throughout Baghdad, shops and street markets are open late again, taking advantage of the fine November weather. Parks are crowded with strollers, and kids play soccer on the streets. Traffic has resumed its customary epic snarl. . . . The Shorja bazaar in old Baghdad, hit by at least six different car bombs killing hundreds in the last year, is again crowded with people among the narrow tented stalls. On nearby Al-Rasheed Street, the famous booksellers are back in business . . . People are buying alcohol again - as they always had in Baghdad, until religious extremists forced many neighborhood liquor shops to close."

Newsweek's isn't the only big media voice bringing tidings of comfort and joy from the Iraqi theatre.

On Tuesday, The New York Times led its front page with a good-news headline - "Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves" - and a large photo of an Iraqi bride and groom, bedecked in wedding finery and accompanied by a band. Below that: a picture of smiling diners at Al Faris, a restaurant on the Tigris riverbank that is booming once again. Inside, across four columns, another photo showed an outdoor foosball game in Baghdad's Haifa Street, once dubbed the "Street of Fear" because it was the scene of so many lethal sectarian attacks.

In another Page 1 story the day before ("U.S. Says Attacks in Iraq Fell to the Level of Early Last Year"), the Times recounted some of the auspicious data: civilian fatalities down 75 percent in recent months, Iraqi security-force casualties down 40 percent, total weekly attacks nationwide down nearly two-thirds since June. The Los Angeles Times, too, fronted a story on the promising developments, reporting on an "unexpected flowering of sectarian cooperation" in which "Sunnis and Shi'ites are joining hands at the local level to protect their communities from militants." The results, reported the paper from the rural community of Qarghulia on Monday, "are palpable. Killings are down dramatically and public confidence is reviving."

Of course things could still change for the worse. In the Middle East there are few guarantees. Neither the US military nor the Bush administration plans to dust off that "Mission Accomplished" banner anytime soon.

Still: "By every metric used to measure the war," as The Washington Post editorialized on Nov. 18, "there has been an enormous improvement since January." The Post credits this achievement to American soldiers in Iraq, to General David Petraeus, "and to President Bush, for making the decision to launch the surge against the advice of most of Congress and the country's foreign policy elite."

With the media at last paying attention to the progress in Iraq, shouldn't leading Democrats think about doing the same? Perhaps this would be a good time for Hillary Clinton to express regret for telling Petraeus that his recent progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief" - in effect, calling him a liar. Perhaps Senate majority leader Harry Reid should admit that he may have been wrong to declare so emphatically: "This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything."

All of the Democratic presidential candidates have been running on a platform of abandoning Iraq. At the recent debate in Las Vegas, they refused to relax their embrace of defeat even when asked about the striking evidence of improvement. They continued to insist that "the surge is not working" (Bill Richardson), that "the occupation is fueling the insurgency" (Dennis Kucinich), and that the "strategy is failed" and we must "get our troops out" (Barack Obama).

Blind opposition to war that seems lost is understandable. But can Democrats be so invested in defeat that they would abandon even a war that may be winnable? With developments in Iraq looking so hopeful, this is no time to cling to a counsel of despair.