Right Wing Nut House

I am known as something of a stick-in-the-mud when it comes to humor. For instance, I love Monty Python but hate Benny Hill. Eddie Murphy does nothing for me while Bernie Mac puts me in stitches. George Carlin sends me into hysterics but Rosie O’Donnell makes me want to puke.

This must be the reason I didn’t get the joke the Democrats were playing on the American people with the Iraq War Supplemental appropriations bill. Knowing full well that the President was going to veto the measure because of the artificial timetable for withdrawal that they were able to bribe, threaten, and coerce enough of their caucus to support, the Democrats nevertheless delayed vital funding for our military just so they could turn around after Bush’s veto and yell “Gotchya!” at the voters:

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president’s veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, “transition” the U.S. military role and show “a reasonable way to end this war.”

“We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. “But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.”

The only “mistake” anyone has made is believing the Democrats are serious about anything - much less the war. The funding of our troops (or defunding them for that matter) has turned into a gigantic political game where the Democratic leadership has shown they don’t have the balls to end the war by voting to cut off funds and put their political capital where their mouth is nor do they exhibit one iota of responsible governance by finding the quickest way to send the necessary monies to our troops who are currently engaged in the hardest combat since at least the battle for Fallujah.

The entire exercise regarding the debate, passage, veto, and now capitulation by the Dems is a travesty. And it would be nice to think that the White House and Congress could actually “work together” on anything with regards to the war except that too, is a game - this time played by both sides as each seeks to saddle the other with the “blame” for the delay in funding. Sensibly, the President thinks it a bad idea to let al-Qaeda and the sectarian thugs know exactly when they can ratchet up the slaughter of innocents by announcing to the world the day the last American combat troops will leave Iraq. Frustrated Democrats want some way to change the President’s course also toward something more sensible; perhaps a realization that our troops might be better used elsewhere in Iraq killing al-Qaeda terrorists and protecting the Sunnis from rapacious and murderous Shia radicals in league with the government there.

Of course, the Dems want no such thing but if Bush was smart, he’d realize where the Democrats end game is headed - a total defeat for the Administration - and try to at least maintain some semblance of a mission in Iraq. It doesn’t have to be as I’ve outlined above. But it’s got to be less than what he’s doing now and more than the Democrats would be willing to support six months from now when almost certainly they will have the upper hand.

But this would be too much to ask; especially when there are elections to be won. So Bush stubbornly soldiers on while the Democrats stubbornly refuse to act on principle and conscience by defunding the War and forcing the troops to come home. In the meantime, our boys are dying, Iraqis are dying, Iran is licking its chops, ready to move in and pick up the pieces while the rest of the Middle East looks on in horror at the whole mess.

We’re on a collision course with disaster and our national leadership are acting like spoiled brats. I’d like to say to hell with both sides but there are 150,000 Americans whose lives are being expended in what is shaping up to be a futile effort to give the government of Iraq the breathing room to create some kind of viable nation out of the mess of sectarian and political factions who are currently (and for the foreseeable future) at each other’s throats. I say futile because if anyone believes that Prime Minister Maliki and his Shia brethren in the government have any interest whatsoever in doing the things necessary to heal their bloody, war torn nation, I’ve got a bridge over the Euphrates river I’d be glad to let you have for a song.

There are ways to leave Iraq and avoid disaster. And then, there’s rank stupidity:

President Bush vetoed the Iraq-war spending bill this evening, calling it a blueprint for failure and defeat and intensifying a showdown with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

“It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing,” Mr. Bush said at the White House, where he vetoed the bill after the signatures of Democratic legislative leaders were barely dry.

The president said the bill would demoralize the Iraqis and send them and the world a terrible message: “America will not keep its commitments.”

The President may be in for a rather rude surprise when it comes to what exactly would constitute keeping our “commitments” in Iraq. Perhaps he should be jawboning the Iraqi government into keeping their commitments to us - i.e., this is round one in a ten round bout and while he holds the upper hand today, upon each successive revisiting of this issue, it will become more and more apparent that the Iraqi government has no intention of keeping their promises made to him and to the United States to achieve much of anything in the way of reconciling their war torn and riven country.

What this will do to his “veto-proof” GOP firewall is uncertain. Judging by the nervousness of many Republican lawmakers who wish to see at least some political benchmarks laid out for the Iraqi government to achieve as part of the funding bill, my guess is that unless their is a sea change in the attitude of the Iraqi government, GOP desertions will become significant after the first of the year.

Good to see the Iraqi Parliament taking our efforts to tamp down the violence so seriously; they’re going on vacation for two months in July and August. And Prime Minister Maliki is proving himself quite the reliable ally - at least for Mookie al-Sadr and his band of cutthroats. He’s cashiered a few generals who actually took him at his word when he said he wanted to rein in the Shia militias who are causing a lot of the sectarian bloodshed.

Maliki is a practiced liar - and an empty suit of a Prime Minister as well. He and his Shia brethren in his ruling coalition can read the writing on the wall as well as anyone in this country; that the closer we get to the 2008 election, the better the chances that any veto of the Democrat’s invitation to al Qaeda to initiate a bloodbath in Iraq will be overridden with the help of an increasing number of Republican legislators who see the War as a political millstone around the party’s neck not to mention a sure fire roadmap to the unemployment line for them. (The latter reason uppermost in their greedy little minds, I’m sure.)

At the risk of incurring the wrath of my dwindling number of readers, might I suggest that the President face this reality and sit down with the Democrats in order to come to some kind of an agreement about the future of our mission in Iraq? It may be old fashioned in this day and age to talk about “the good of the country” but that’s just me, I guess - A fat old codger who can remember when lawmakers took the political adage “Politics stops at the waters edge” seriously. Of course, I’m also old enough to remember when that compact between the parties was shattered. The political ghosts of Viet Nam still haunt this country and unless we can find our way back to a sensible, rational means for the two branches to co-exist and come together on the goals and troop requirements needed for this war, I fear that the disaster that is staring us in the face will almost certainly come about much to the detriment of our interests in the Middle East and our efforts in the War on Terror (or whatever we’re going to be calling it once the Democrats admit we need to fight one).

Even a successful surge - and it is showing signs of success in important ways - will fail to bring about the desired political results that would give us the victory all of us want but is looking more and more impossible to achieve. The recalcitrant Iraqi government seems perfectly content to expend American lives to increase their own legitimacy with the Iraqi people as the violence begins to subside while not doing what is necessary to validate our men’s sacrifices by bringing the warring factions together in order to form a viable state.

So the President’s veto of this bill will not be overridden. And the two sides will sit down and probably come to a compromise agreement that will fund the troops for a very limited time - perhaps 3 months if reports are accurate - with the Democrats abandoning their formal invitation to our enemies setting a date certain for the al-Qaeda/militia bloodbath to begin in earnest. Instead, the withdrawal timetable will be advisory only, thus encouraging our jihadi friends to simply watch, wait, and keep their powder dry and their swords sharpened.

Needless to say, we can’t go on like this. But we will. And when the dust settles from this political row, we can look forward to another Congressional food fight to break out when we revisit the issue in the fall.

Okay. So?

Dan Riehl devotes three posts to my thoughts and still can’t figure out what I wrote. He also said I write with a Thesaurus beside me. Judging by Mr. Riehl’s wild and crazy personal attacks, that must mean that Dan replies with a dictionary next to his keyboard, struggling to comprehend the meaning of words that any high school drop out in my day would have no trouble deciphering.

I’ll try and keep the syllables under 4 just for you Dan.

What all the hub bub boils down to is that many of you are saying that I am weak and cowardly because I changed my view on the war. In other words, I am not steadfast enough and that I don’t stick with “my principles” thus, making me wishy washy; a “sunshine patriot” as one wag was kind enough to put it.

This is a good criticism, an honest criticism. I have no problem with it. It is based on the excellent notion that standing by what we believe even when things get rocky is the essence of honesty and integrity.

But something happened on the road to Damascus and I changed my thinking. Allow me to explain.

When any of us form opinions - be it on Iraq or whether the Cubs are going to win the 2007 World Series - we base that opinion on an underlying set of assumptions. For instance, an assumption regarding the Cubs is that they haven’t won a World Series since forever and are perhaps the most doggedly jinxed baseball club in Christendom. Other assumptions would include the fact that the ownership rarely does anything right and that Wrigley Field and day baseball saddle the team with a disadvantage. Ergo, my opinion that they don’t have a Tinker’s chance in hell to win it all is based on solid assumptions, grounded in logic and a coherent view of the situation as it exists in baseball, in the National League, and in the eyes of history. The Cubs are toast and I’ll stick by that opinion come hell or high water.

Now suppose it’s late October and high water has arrived; the Cubbies are up in the World Series 3 games to none, needing only one win for the championship. I can still hold the opinion that they haven’t a ghost of a chance to win. But what has changed?

Some of the underlying assumptions are no longer valid, or obsolete, or simply false. Other assumptions remain rock solid. But in maintaining my opinion that there’s no way the Cubs can win, I have had to stretch logic, ignore some facts, concentrate on tangential issues such as perhaps an act of God will halt the Series now before the Cubs can win. In other words, I’m reaching to justify my opinion.

That’s where I found myself a year or so ago with regards to Iraq. Some of the underlying assumptions I had about the war changed. I believed for the longest time that the Administration and the Pentagon had a good idea of what was going on in Iraq and had a viable strategy to deal with the problems there. That assumption proved false. This became apparent when Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney would paint what was happening there in the rosiest of hues - so many schools built, so many clinics opened up, etc. Meanwhile, the insurgency grew, became more vicious, and al-Qaeda began to implement their strategy of pitting Shia against Sunni in order to foment civil war.

Anyone who was reading reports of what was going on in Iraq would more than likely do a double take listening to either one of those gentlemen. Are we talking about the same war? Those of us who have questioned what is happening in Iraq - most of the people that I’ve read anyway - were enormously troubled by this disconnect.

One by one, assumptions I had formed at the beginning of the war and occupation fell victim to changing realities in Iraq. This is not the same place it was 4 years ago nor is it even the same as it was a year ago. And if it has changed - if the facts, perceptions, and reality has changed, what did that do to the underlying justification for my opinions?

Once I began “reaching” to justify my opinions, I got very uncomfortable. The threads of logic became more tenuous the more I examined those pesky assumptions. I realized that many (not all) of my original assumptions were basically obsolete, done in by the cruel logic of domestic politics and a growing realization that the the US military could do everything that was asked of it and more and still come up short thanks to the balking politicians in Iraq, the twisted narrative of the war being spun by the left and the Democrats, Administration failures to implement a strategy that would win the war, and a growing belief that the country was sliding out of control.

So if you’re in my shoes, what do you do? Continue to defend a position you know is becoming untenable as a result of changing realities (and new information not available at the time you formed your original assumptions)? Or do you alter your assumptions and change your opinion?

It could very well be that abandoning long held opinions and beliefs about the war makes me a cowardly wretch. It all depends on how you look at it I suppose. But as I said, I still hold to some of those original assumptions; that Saddam was a potential threat, that the reasons for going into Iraq were basically sound (so much for my new found friends on the left, eh?), and that deposing the murderous tyrant was a good and moral thing to do. I don’t buy in to the left’s narrative regarding Iraq, finding it based on hysterical posturing and bilious phantasms (sorry Dan, couldn’t resist). And I also believe that Iraq is still a central front in the War on Terror (or whatever the Democrats are going to call it).

That said, this is one battle - a battle I sincerely believe we’ve botched as badly as Anzio or Tarawa, or any other blunder made during World War II - and what must be done now in my opinion is try our best to avoid disaster. There will be other battles and we will learn some hard and bitter lessons from this one.

That is, as long as we strive to be honest with ourselves. For me personally, this has meant questioning my beliefs when I thought the circumstances demanded it. If that means I’m “thinking too much” or seeing “too much nuance,” so be it. That is who I am. That is how I write.

Maybe I should get into the stock prediction business.

As I fully expected, some on the right are in full throated howl over my suggestion that we alter our mission in Iraq. The predictable response of the slack jawed yawpers doesn’t necessarily depress me, although I am not insensate to the barbs . Their personal attacks (in lieu of answering my points with intelligent counters) reveals how truly bereft they are of any understanding of what it will take for the efforts of our troops in tamping down the violence to bear fruit.

Also as I predicted, the left has attacked me for not advocating a complete withdrawal. There are also those who have “congratulated” me for “finally” seeing it there way.

Frankly, that’s hogwash. For more than a year I have been expressing my belief that the Administration’s strategy was not working, that despite the brilliant performance of our troops, any military gains made against he insurgency were lost because of the political inertia that even our best efforts could not affect. The Iraqi government was failing to take the steps necessary to reconcile the various factions and create a viable, democratic state. Just because people vote doesn’t mean democracy is in place. The rifts and divisions in that bloody land are standing in the way of uniting the people behind the idea of nationhood. In order for the idea of “nation” to take hold, there must be an accounting of both ancient history and recent history. And before Iraq can become a nation, Sunnis and Shias will have to look at each other and see a fellow countryman rather than an oppressor or a threat.

Only by accepting the concept of power sharing will the Shia government in Iraq succeed. And only when they are convinced that the Shias are not out to destroy them will the Sunni insurgents lay down their arms and join the government. The sad fact is that the United States military - as bravely as they have carried out their mission - can only create the conditions where this is possible; they cannot unite the factions through any conceivable military action.

What has changed? Clearly, the government of Prime Minister Maliki doesn’t have time to affect the changes necessary that would lead to this reconciliation. By that I mean our efforts at improving security (the largest but by no means the only aspect of our new strategy) will only last as long as we have sufficient troops on the ground to carry out that mission. And the entire point of my article was simple; time is running out. Blame it on the press. Blame it on the Democrats. Blame it on Elvis. The fact is the American people have had enough. And what little support there is for our mission in Iraq will only lessen the closer we get to the 2008 election.

I blame Bush for this. He has been AWOL in using the Presidency as a soap box to consistently, patiently, and honestly explain why we’re in Iraq, what the stakes are, who the enemy is, and why we must fight. His inexplicable silences over the last 4 years - sometimes lasting weeks - allowed the political opposition to hijack the war narrative and twist it for their own political purposes. Every six weeks or so, the President would embark on a 3 or 4 day PR offensive, appearing mostly at military bases and talking up the war. It was never enough. And we’re paying the price for this PR blunder with an American public who have been frustrated with the lack of progress in defeating the insurgency as well as the stalling tactics of the Maliki government.

For in the end, that is where the problem lies. The Prime Minister, the major parties in Iraq (SCIRI, Dawa, the Sadrists) have expressed little interest and less desire in affecting the changes in power sharing, de-Baathification, amnesty, reconciliation, and promised constitutional changes that would alter the political climate and start the Iraqis down the road toward a peaceful society. And again, there is nothing the US military can do to push the government off of square one and get this process moving.

And lest anyone misunderstand me (or, for those of you who simply didn’t bother to read what I wrote) I am not advocating anything more than a token withdrawal of American troops. And that would be as a consequence of cutting a deal with Democrats in Congress who almost certainly would insist on some kind of cutback of troops if they were to sign on to a redefined mission of fighting al-Qaeda, protecting the Iraqi borders (including the Iran-Iraq border), and preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. Only the significant presence of US troops will prevent the massacre of Sunnis by Shias hell bent on revenge as well as those who wish to make Iraq “Sunni free.” That same presence would probably also prevent a general Middle East war as well.

So those who believe I was signing on to the Democrats plan for phased withdrawal are simply wrong. In fact, I think it would be a blunder that would make the blunders made the previous 4 years look tame by comparison. Only those wishing the absolute worst for the United States, Iraq, and the Middle East would advocate such a course of action. Better that we maintain a strong presence in Iraq and allow the various factions to work out their own solutions to the problems facing the country.

My point about dealing with the Democrats is simple common sense. If we are going to stay in Iraq with the numbers of troops necessary to help train the Iraqi army, kill al-Qaeda, and protect the Sunnis, the Democrats are going to have to be aboard so that the political will for such a mission can coalesce and form around both Congressional and White House leadership. For this to happen, Bush will have to make the first move. I’m not expecting much even if Bush were to wear sackcloth and ashes and knee walk up the Capitol steps. But given the alternative - ultimate Democratic success down the road in pushing arbitrary timetables for a withdrawal of the bulk of our troops - what has the President got to lose?

Nothing I’ve written here or in my other post is very original. The political conditions in Iraq are well known if you read enough reports - both from the media and our own government. And the change in mission has been advocated by both Republicans and Democrats in and out of government. I don’t claim authorship only conversion to a point of view.

I guess the overarching point is that our divisions are killing us. Someone, somewhere has to reach out and find the common ground so that we can avoid an unmitigated disaster in Iraq. Judging by some of the comments here and elsewhere, I find it difficult to place much faith in that prospect.

ADDENDUM:

You may note that I have avoided the term “victory” when redefining the mission. Since I believe our original mission has already failed, trying to define “victory” would be an exercise in futility. Better to describe the mission as “staving off disaster.” That would be accurate.

I hate writing posts like this. Since I don’t advocate an immediate “turn tail and run” the left climbs all over me. And since I don’t say everything is going swimmingly in Iraq and that we’re on the verge of victory, the right thinks I’m a traitor.

The fact of the matter is, most commenters here and elsewhere on blogs don’t do nuance. Those few (and you know who you are) who carefully read what I write and either agree or disagree to varying degrees, I am most grateful for and therefore, I am dedicating this post to you. Your opinions are the only ones I care about anyway because most of us have made a similar journey with regards to our beliefs and insights into what is going on in Iraq.

Even those of you who started out opposed to the war and who have commented intelligently here by critiquing our strategy and tactics, have caused me to think about where I stand. And of course, those of us who supported the war, still support the mission to varying degrees, but have looked on in frustration and horror as the Bush Administration, the Pentagon, and our generals on the ground in Iraq have made mistake after mistake, blunder after blunder and brought us to where we are now - the edge of the precipice - we all have had our eyes opened and beliefs challenged by practicing a little independent thinking.

I have come to the conclusion over the last few days that, due to domestic conditions here in the US and the inability of the Iraqi government and society to deal in a timely manner with the political problems that must be solved if Iraq is to have a viable, multi-sectarian society the United States is on the verge of suffering a humiliating defeat in Iraq. A perfect storm of almost non-existent public support for our war aims coupled with US pressure on the Iraqis to shoehorn radical changes in their society, their constitution, and their politics into an unrealistic and inevitably, an impossible time frame will ultimately doom our efforts to take any military success achieved via the surge and turn it into progress on the political front.

If we had 3 or 4 years and the political will to maintain troop levels where they are now, then we would have a real chance to make the difference. But our commitment to the military aspects of the surge will be measured in months, not years. By early fall, the race for President will be in full swing and the obvious lack of political progress in Iraq will increase calls for some kind of redeployment - probably from even some Republicans. And it doesn’t appear that the insurgents nor al-Qaeda in Iraq are interested in dialing down their vicious attacks on civilians. They will continue to maximize their attacks, killing as many Iraqis per attack as possible to keep the body count high and the American press fixated on the blood. The continuing large body counts from these attacks will also give the Democrats a ready made benchmark to claim that the surge isn’t working, even if other, less publicized aspects of our strategy are showing signs of success.

This eye opening article that deals exclusively with the political situation in Iraq as it stands now not only rings true but shows how the ticking clock of American involvement may have caused us to overplay our hand in some instances while allowing some elements in Iraqi politics to exploit our vulnerability to the time factor:

U.S. military commanders say a key goal of the ongoing security offensive is to buy time for Iraq’s leaders to reach political benchmarks that can unite its fractured coalition government and persuade insurgents to stop fighting.

But in pressuring the Iraqis to speed up, U.S. officials are encountering a variety of hurdles: The parliament is riven by personality and sect, and some politicians are abandoning Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government. There is deep mistrust of U.S. intentions, especially among Shiites who see American efforts to bring Sunnis into the political process as an attempt to weaken the Shiites’ grip on power.

Many Iraqi politicians view the U.S. pressure as bullying that reminds them they are under occupation. And the security offensive, bolstered by additional U.S. forces, has failed to stop the violence that is widening the sectarian divide.

One of the biggest obstacle appears to be the chicken everyone believed as long ago as the immediate aftermath of the invasion who would eventually come home to roost; the Kurds and their desire for a large degree of autonomy. The Kurds have made no secret of their desire for as much independence as they can get away with, being restrained only by the US desire not to agitate Turkish feelings about the Kurds setting up a separate state. The Kurds appear willing to bide their time until the Americans are no longer a factor in Iraq. This is evident in their opposition to the oil revenue distribution law that was passed by the cabinet back in March but is languishing in Parliament as members wrangle over many of the details:

Politicians from the semiautonomous Kurdish region say measures in the law that would take undeveloped oil fields away from regional governments and have a new national oil company oversee them are unconstitutional.

“Iraq, frankly, does not have the money to invest in oil fields,” said Ashti Hawrami, the Kurdish region’s minister of natural resources. He added that the Kurds are disputing four annexes to the draft law that would dilute their ability to exploit oil in their territory. If the draft isn’t “watered down,” Kurdish regional authorities will not support it, he said.

The Kurds also don’t trust the central government to distribute oil revenue, saying it has been behind in payments in other instances. Some have suggested that a fund be set up outside Iraq to dole out that money. “We are asking for our fair share and guarantees that we will receive it,” Hawrami said.

Sunni Arabs and some secular Shiite politicians, however, stand firm that the central government must control oil production and revenue distribution. “If we want to keep the unity of Iraq, the best way is to keep the oil under the authority of the central government,” said Adnan Pachachi, a secular Sunni with the Iraqi National List party of former prime minister Ayad Allawi.

And the oil revenue law isn’t the only necessary political development that Prime Minister Maliki must address if our current strategy is to achieve the desired results:

“The Americans should take into consideration the Iraqi situation and its complications, not just their own internal politics,” said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish legislator.

Ten weeks into the security plan, even as U.S. lawmakers propose timelines for a U.S. troop withdrawal, there has been little or no progress in achieving three key political benchmarks set by the Bush administration: new laws governing the sharing of Iraq’s oil resources and allowing many former members of the banned Baath Party to return to their jobs, and amendments to Iraq’s constitution. As divisions widen, a bitter, prolonged legislative struggle is hindering prospects for political reconciliation.

“They are all up in the air,” said Ahmed Chalabi, a secular Shiite who is chairman of Iraq’s Supreme National Commission for De-Baathification. “They are certainly not going to be produced in any timetable that is acceptable within the context of the current political climate in the United States.”

Issue after issue that the Iraqis absolutely must deal with if reconciliation is to have a chance and disaster avoided is being bottled up by political forces with differing agendas and competing interests. Couple that with the mistrust, the hate, and the decades of brutality experienced by the people, and it appears to me that as bravely as our troops are performing now and will no doubt continue to perform, the fact is they are “buying time” for a government that has already decided that our commitment is coming to an end and that all those competing interests will have to make the best deals possible without the Americans.

The problem, is that it is liable to get very bloody once we depart. Michael O’Hanlon from the Brookings Institution:

[I] think [the consequences] would probably be…the civil war getting anywhere from two to ten times worse in terms of the rate of killing. I think ultimately, the Sunni Arabs would be mostly defeated, and they would essentially be ghettoized in the western part of their country without much oil, very angry at the world, and therefore even more likely to collaborate with al Qaeda. As you know, one of the hopeful things right now is that the Sunni Arabs are not collaborating as much with al Qaeda, and in some cases, fighting them out in al Anbar Province. But I think that dynamic would probably change for the worse, and you would see that region become to some extent a sanctuary for terrorism, and of course, there’d be a risk of regional war. I don’t know how to score the probabilities on that, but some risk of a greater regional war. And Iraq itself would be in mayhem probably for many years to come, looking sort of like Somalia or maybe the way Afghanistan did in the 80’s and 90’s. I think that’s the most likely outcome. You know, I’m not saying that it would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf, but there would be some chance of a regional war, and a very high chance of genocide inside Iraq.

(HT: Powerline)

Is it time then for a Plan B? Can the President and the Democrats lay aside their hostility toward one another and come up with some kind of a strategy that will allow us to continue to fight al-Qaeda while trying to protect the Sunnis from the worst of what surely will be an attempt by many Shias to make Iraq a “Sunni free” country? It seems to me that only our presence in Iraq would prevent Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia and even Jordan from intervening militarily to prevent a slaughter of their co-religionists. That, of course, might draw Shia Iran into the mix and it would be a Middle East free for all.

Time enough for playing the blame game later. After all, we’re still a year and a half away from the 2008 elections - plenty of time for the Democrats to remind voters who got us involved in Iraq in the first place. For now, the imperative is preventing unmitigated disaster. It may involve giving in to the Democrats and withdrawing some of our troops and redeploying some others. Is the President a big enough man to do this? Or is he more in love with his legacy and would therefore resist changing course to reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground and in the councils of government in Iraq?

I have no confidence in either the Democrats or the Administration. Both parties have played politics with the war for so long that now that we have this disaster staring us in the face, it seems ludicrous to think that they could work together in the national interest to avoid the worst of it. And perhaps the absolute best we can hope for at this point; to take our lumps while still being able to keep Iraq from falling apart and descending into chaos while preventing the blood being shed there from spreading outward to affect the rest of the Middle East.

This will not be accomplished without compromise by both parties as well as some extremely frank talk from the President to the American people about the dire straits we find ourselves as a result of the failure of his policies. Only then - and with the help of the Democrats - will it be possible to convince enough of the American people that it is absolutely vital we maintain some kind of presence in Iraq.

So the question ultimately rests with the President and, to a lesser extent with the Democrats; will politics trump the national interest? Will this stiff-necked President who has refused to admit many mistakes in the past be capable of demonstrating such largeness of character?

He has risen to the occasion in the past. He must do so again.

UPDATE

I have posted “A Clarification or Two” to this article here.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

If I were George Bush right about now, I’d wrap my arms around Harry Reid and give him a great big kiss on the cheek. And I might even consider sending Speaker Pelosi a dozen roses, thanking her for playing her part to perfection in this Democratic Party defeatist extravaganza. For in truth, the Democrats are handing the President the one thing he desperately needed in order to maintain the surge, veto the Iraq supplemental with its timetables and withdrawal stipulations, and unite the Republicans as they haven’t been since the election last November; a political club with which to beat his opponents and re-energize support for the war among his base.

It’s been a while since Bush was presented with such a gift. In previous months, the Democrats played the Iraq card with great care and skill, not getting too much out in front of the American people while maintaining support for their position by framing the debate as one of “altering course” rather than cut and run. They successfully portrayed the President as intransigent on changing strategy. And, of course, the Democrats were helped enormously by the constant drumbeat of negativity regarding the surge as a result of several high profile, horrific bombings with large civilian death tolls.

As an aside, in one of the great historical ironies of all time, the very same elements in the media and on the left that took the Pentagon to task 40 years ago for harping on enemy body counts to show progress in the Viet Nam War now confidently use body counts to show that the surge supposedly isn’t working.

C’est la vie! C’est la guerre!

There’s little doubt that Bush was on the defensive when it came to the Iraq supplemental. While his veto would have been upheld anyway, Harry Reid and his assessment that the war is already lost as well as Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to meet with the Commanding General in Iraq for a briefing has changed the dynamic of the debate over the war, giving the Administration a juicy opening with which to skewer the opposition.

Pelosi’s gaffe is mind boggling. Being able to find time to meet and drink tea with the Syrian thug President Assad but brushing off a briefing with America’s own Iraq Commander General Petraeus is a juxtaposition of priorities that is too delicious not to use. The idea that the defeatists are living a variation of the Three Wise Monkeys by “seeing no progress, hearing no progress, and speaking no progress” when it comes to Iraq reveals a nervousness about some of the news that is breaking through all the stories about car bombings and suicide attacks, which are down in number but not much in the casualties; the fact that some of the indicators regarding the violence are improving less than 3 months into the surge.

In truth, the Democrats and the left have already left the surge for dead. No matter what news comes out of Iraq, the Democrats will spin it to prove that the strategy is not working. Unfortunately, this will be relatively easy to do since the insurgents and terrorists are very obliging in working hand in hand with the defeatists in Congress to undermine the President’s strategy by getting as big a bang for their buck with each brutal attack on innocent civilians as they can.

Of course, other elements of the new strategy not totally dependent on the military are showing signs of success. The reconstruction teams whose numbers have doubled and who have already begun working with tribal leaders to turn the tide in Anbar Province have met with many small but significant successes. This is reflected in a growing realization by Sunnis that they are likely to get a better political deal if the Americans stay rather than if our troops are withdrawn, leaving them in the lurch:

Meanwhile, opponents of the Iraqi operations back in the United States are getting nervous about the success of the security operations in Baghdad and its suburbs. The fact that nearly all the Sunni Arab tribes have joined the government is seen as a political disaster by many U.S. politicians who have declared Iraq a failed venture for the United States. It’s a bizarre situation, and long has been. You only have to visit web sites frequented by Iraqis or American troops, to see that what is reported in most of the media about Iraq is invented, or distorted beyond all reason into an alternate reality.

This “alternate reality” lived in by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is aided and abetted by a compliant news media who appears to be too lazy to balance coverage of bloody body counts with other aspects of the surge that show some signs of progress. The Iraqi army appears to be making significant strides in helping to police Baghdad. And there is a slow process underway to purge many police units of some of the worst elements who enable the sectarian death squads to carry out their murderous rampages or who are killers themselves.

Taken as a whole, some aspects of the surge are working better than others. But even the most caustic observer - and I include myself in that company - would have to agree that there are definite signs that we are not “losing” the war and may, in fact, be nearer to a modest success than anyone realizes.

Much will depend on the actions of Prime Minister Maliki and his government. How committed are they to a truly multi-sectarian, multi-ethnic Iraq? Can they resist the influence of Iranian backed militias and political parties? Will the Shias ever agree to share power with the Sunnis?

These are questions that will not be answered by any actions taken by the US military. But how Maliki deals with them will determine whether or not our strategy is successful.

All of that lies in the future. For now, Harry Reid has a problem. His defeatist words are still ricocheting around the internet and cable news, refusing to disappear down the usual rabbit hole where Democratic faux pas are quietly sent by the media. Instead, those words have energized the pro-war crowd and angered many of the troops. Is it any wonder? When the news organ of the enemy - al-Jazeera - makes your defeatist words headline material, one wonders what else might define the crime of “giving aid and comfort to the enemy?”

But Reid and the Democrats don’t seem to care at this point. Since they have never seen the Iraq War as anything except a political weapon to be used against the President and the Republicans, their cold calculations with regards to handing President Bush and by extension, the United States a defeat don’t need to be buttressed by any kind of nonsense about “supporting the troops.” Their platitudes about caring about our men and women under arms rings rather hollow when the second most powerful Democrat in Washington tells them they’re a bunch of losers - that all their efforts, the blood they’ve spilled, the sacrifices they’ve made, have been in vain.

This won’t be a turning point in the war. But like Admiral Farragut capturing Mobile Bay when the Civil War was at its absolute nadir in August of 1864, Reid’s words have actually heartened the President’s remaining supporters in that they have given them a political opening to portray the Democrats as exactly what they pretend not to be; a party that would rather lose a war than acknowledge any progress toward success in Iraq.

Thanks for the leg up, Harry. We sure needed it.

Harry Reid opened his mouth yesterday and out came the words that Democrats have striven mightily these last months to suppress, biting their tongues until after the election so that the American people would be fooled in thinking that they actually gave a damn about Iraq as anything other than a political weapon to use against their opponents:

The war in Iraq “is lost” and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.
“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,” Reid told journalists.

Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.

“I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear … I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically.”

Congress is seeking to tie funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable to withdraw US troops from Iraq next year, but Bush has vowed to veto any such bill and no breakthrough was reported from the White House talks.

Reid is not an “odd guy out” for the Democratic party. He is the leader in the Senate and speaks for legions of Democratic lawmakers who subsumed their defeatism just long enough during the campaign last fall in order to keep the truth from the American people; that despite their pledge to “change course” in Iraq (and by intimation, bring the war to a successful conclusion), they had no intention of attempting to help the Iraqi government fight off the numerous enemies that seek their destruction but rather hand George Bush and America a humiliating military defeat.

Let me say up front that it is ridiculous for anyone to make a judgement about the success or failure of “the surge” at this point. That’s because 1) all troops earmarked for deployment have not arrived; 2) other factors relating to the new strategy such as the increased number of reconstruction teams have not been realized as yet; and 3) it will be largely up to the Iraqi government and the political steps it takes to confront its shortcomings and reach out to various factions to discern whether or not our military efforts have born fruit.

That last is critical. All our military can do is create the conditions necessary for political reconciliation. Even our battles against the Sadrites and other militias will, in the long run, not be as significant to the success or failure of the mission as what Prime Minister Maliki has begun to do to heal the country.

And the steps he has taken so far have been tiny and mostly ineffective. The best news seems to be coming from Anbar province where cooperation is at an all time high with tribal leaders in fighting al-Qaeda and tamping down the insurgency through reconstruction efforts. I think it can cautiously be said that we are on the right track in that troublesome area and that the future has brightened considerably.

But in other areas, the news is not so good. Maliki has done precious little to reach out to Sunnis and bring them into his government. The endless negotiations going on between leading Sunni politicians and the major Shia political parties to bring about a more representative Iraqi government are beginning to look like a sham. Even the moderate cleric Ayatollah al-Sistani has begun to distance himself from these talks, seeing quite rightly a loss of Shia power at the federal level if they succeed. And the wily parliamentary leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim who heads up the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) continues his stalling tactics on not only government reorganization but on the vital bill that would divvy up oil revenue in the future. That legislation was passed by the cabinet months ago but has yet to see the light of day in the legislature thanks to al-Hakim’s maneuvering.

Despite these problems, there is still time for Maliki to offer bold leadership that will start the Iraqis on the road to political recovery and allow for at least some of our troops to come home - on our own terms. Not terms dictated by the Democrats who have developed an unerring sense of what al-Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq want them to do by eagerly highlighting the terrorists attempts to undermine confidence in our new strategy via horrendous attacks on civilians.

The enemy knows full well who their allies in this country are and what it takes to get them to spout their talking points for them. In fact, in one of the great historical ironies of all time, the left - who viciously criticized the US government and the military 40 years ago for basing their rosy pronouncements on the war largely as a result of encouraging numbers of enemy dead (body counts) now are using the very same tactic of civilian body counts as a yardstick for determining that the surge is a failure.

This would be despicable enough. But the real immoral cowardice by the Democrats in not calling for a total cutoff of war funds and an immediate withdrawal of troops now that they have come out and said the war is “lost” is unconscionable.

How can you possibly justify continuing to vote for a war that you believe is hopelessly lost? Our young men are dying in numbers not seen since the first weeks of the war and the Democrats are cowering in the corner, afraid of their own political shadow. The only option open to the Democrats if they truly believe the war is “lost” is to scrap the deal on the emergency supplemental and only vote for funds that would withdraw American troops from combat. It is a mystery why they are hesitating in this regard. The most recent Gallup poll shows that nearly 70% of Americans agree with Harry Reid - that the surge is a failure. How much more political cover do you need? When are you people going to grow a set and stand up for your principles rather than try more trickery and back door shenanigans?

To use the excuse that the Republicans will “blame” the Democrats for the lost war is unbelievable. If you really believe the war is lost our boys are dying for nothing and you’re concerned with your own political hides? For shame, I say! Besides, that excuse works only if you believe the American people are stupid and will have forgotten the last four years of mistake after mistake made by the Administration in Iraq. This is not likely which means your fear of voter retribution only makes you look more spineless.

There is nothing inherently unpatriotic in believing that we’ve lost in Iraq. But by refusing to act on this belief, the Democrats have revealed themselves to be traitors to their own conscience. For this, I hope there are plenty of primary challenges directed against the jellyfish who refuse to act on their belief that our men are dying for nothing and that it is more important to try and fool the American people than take a stand for what they think is America’s vital interest in leaving Iraq before the job is done.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has published a dozen or so emails from the troops who take issue with Senator Reid’s characterization of the war being “lost.”

At least Matt Stoller says I do.

I just paid my taxes, and I have to say, I always take pride when I do so. I don’t like having less money to spend, of course, and the complexity of the process is really upsetting. But I am proud to pay for democracy, and I feel when I do send money to the DC Treasurer and the US Treasury that that is what I am doing. The right-wing likes to pretend as if taxes are a burden instead of the price of democracy. And I suppose, if you hate democracy, as the right-wing does, then taxes are the price for paying for something you really don’t want. Personally, I find banking fees, high cable and internet charges, health care costs, and credit card hidden charges much more abrasive than taxes, because with those I’m just being ripped off to pay for someone’s summer home.

Patriotism is about recognizing that we are all connected in a fundamental moral and physical sense, that the war in Iraq is our war, that poverty in New Orleans is our poverty, that public funding to cure cancer comes from each of us and not just the scientists who have made it theirs. The tax burden we face is a very small price to pay for the privilege of taking responsibility for our own freedom and our own society. And the hatred of taxes on the right comes from a hatred for this responsibility. It’s childish and immoral and unAmerican.

First of all, does anyone else get the creeps reading Mr. Stoller’s paean to our IRS overlords? I’m very happy he appreciates living in a democracy. So do I. But the taxes he so happily and proudly parts with are collected by perhaps the most undemocratic, oppressive, out of control, nightmare of a bureaucracy our republic has ever known.

Tens of thousands of citizens have fallen under the wheels of the IRS juggernaut only to have their lives ruined, their assets seized, their freedom threatened - all because either the citizen made an honest mistake or, more likely, the IRS itself erred and refused to acknowledge it.

When liberals like Stoller make noises of satisfaction like an infant who has just soiled their diaper just because they obeyed the law one wonders what lefties like our Matt do when they come to a complete stop at a stop sign. The celebrations must go on far into the night.

As far as Mr. Stoller’s laughable “analysis” of right wing attitudes toward taxes and taxation, Paul at Powerline performs the necessary lobotomy:

According to Stoller, “the right-wing likes to pretend as if taxes are a burden instead of the price of democracy.” But while some taxation is the price of democracy (or virtually any other form of government) excessive taxation is, by definition, an undue burden. Excessive taxation is also harmful to our society, unless one believes that there’s no level of taxation that would throw our economy into a downward spiral and/or take too much control of spending decisions out of the hands of citizens.

Stoller then takes his faulty construct one step further, stating “if you hate democracy, as the right-wing does, then taxes are the price for paying for something you really don’t want.” The intellectual dishonesty of this statement is apparent. Conservatives argue for all sorts of things when it comes to taxes: lower marginal tax rates, lower capital gains taxes (or none), a flat tax, the replacement of the federal income tax with a national sales tax, etc. But I know of no conservative who argues for no taxation. Nor can Stoller show any relationship between current levels of taxation and democracy. We’d be no less democratic if our representatives voted to cut our tax rates in half or institute a flat tax. Thus, it’s hardly anti-democratic for conservatives to advocate such measures or to regret, especially on “tax day,” that they have not been adopted.

And herein lies a major difference between left and right regarding the nature of government; the left believes government is a living entity to be nurtured, pampered, even praised. The right believes, as the Founders did, that government is a utility that needs to be managed. (Would that it could be run as well as the phone company.)

Of course, it is hubristic to believe that anyone can manage a beast that consumes $3 trillion a year. Neither can the monster be reasoned with. The United States government in this, the 21st century, overseeing as it does the largest industrial democracy in the world, is the closest thing to a force of nature ever created by man. It can be managed in only the grossest sense - as a piano tuner might attempt to do his job wearing boxing gloves. He can pound the upper register of the instrument and cut spending, always leaving some needy people who fall through the cracks. Or, he can pound the lower register of the piano and increase spending, thus assuring that some who don’t deserve federal largess receive the benefit anyway.

A simplistic allegory to be sure, but I hope instructive. What escapes those of us on the right and on the left is the fact that fine tuning the instrument of government is an impossibility. There are 300 million of us in this country and each of us, in some way large and small, depends on the beast for something. Good roads for safety and convenience. Policeman to protect us. Firemen to save us. Soldiers to fight for us. And legions and legions of bureaucrats to keep the paperwork from overwhelming all of us.

Necessary? Mostly. Hard to argue (although The Cato Institute tries gamely) that the country doesn’t need an Environmental Protection Agency or an OSHA. But when lefties like Stoller wax poetic about government, it is an unseemly demonstration of attachment to what for all intents and purposes is an entity that should be viewed as if not an enemy then certainly an opponent of individual liberty. Keeping that fact uppermost in one’s mind does not make one “unamerican” or “unpatriotic.”

Paying taxes, obeying the law, contributing to society should be as utilitarian a function as using the toilet. Why it has elicited such gushiness from Stoller can only mean that he must spend a lot of time in the bathroom.

An attack at Virginia Tech University has killed at least 32 students including the gunman who apparently took his own life.

Rather than deal with the details at this point, I’d simply urge you to visit Hot Air, Michelle’s site, or PJ Media. Allah will have the latest video (as well as updates from various sources) and Michelle, if she follows form, will have MSM-blog react. PJ Media will also round up blog and press reaction.

I first heard about this story after I awoke from a nap around noon central time. The shock I felt upon hearing the number of dead (22 at the time) has been matched only 2 or three times in my life. The death of John Lennon and 9/11 are the only other times I can recall where my mind was unable to grasp the enormity of what had happened. At times like that, you tend to focus on the strangest things. I tried to recall what the school colors of VTU were and what their mascot looked like - anything but deal with the reality that now 32 sets of parents are going to receive the worst call of their lives telling them that their flesh and blood has been senselessly and brutally gunned down while living and learning in a protected enclave that is supposed to keep the outside world at bay.

Even at this early stage where details are sketchy and rumors are rampant, it appears that the gunman engaged in two separate shootings about 2 hours apart. Experts on CNN have speculated that if the murderer was after a specific target and missed them at the dorm, he would have known the target’s schedule and showed up later where he knew he/she would be in class. At the moment, it has been confirmed that the doors to the classroom building were chained shut - a clear indication that the shooter was out to make a name for himself and was determined to make as many of his classmates feel his pain as he had rounds for his guns.

In a perfect world, gun control laws would have kept the weapons out of the shooter’s hands. Also in a perfect world, one of his potential victims would have been armed and cut short his quest for glory. Despite the fact we don’t live in a perfect world and there’s no sign of one emerging any time soon, we can count on the idiots in Congress and the media to start the political posturing, dying to make speeches and write columns telling us about how wrong the opposition is and how this shooting proves this or that about America, or Americans with guns, or violence in America, or how our schools are screwed up, or even blame the victims for not dodging the bullet that killed them.

What this shooting proves is that there are many who will use horrible tragedy to make political hay. And once - just once - I’d like to see those people taken down as severely as the disturbed young man whose random rampage of sick violence snuffed out many a promising life and brought unspeakable tragedy into so many American homes this day.

In keeping with their party motto “The only good government is the biggest damn government we can shove down people’s throats,” the Democrats are seriously contemplating saddling future Presidents with a “Department of Peace and Nonviolence.”

I’m not sure whether to laugh at the stupidity, weep at the shameless pandering, or tear my hair out thinking about what our enemies might make of such an idiotic idea.

When one considers that the third cabinet level executive department created by the very first Congress meeting in 1789 was the War Department, the possibilities for ironic juxtaposition are staggering. But leaving aside the latent historical analogies, other questions might be raised about the efficacy of creating an executive department that the executive not only hasn’t asked for but would almost certainly conflict with the operations of other executive level departments.

What in the name of all that is good and holy would a President do with such a department? It sounds wonderful - peace, love, sit-ins, smoking joints the size of a Cuban Habano, while playing slap and tickle with the hippie chick sitting next to you in the dark. But as a practical matter, don’t we already have such a department? What do all those people going to work every day at Foggy Bottom do for a living? Isn’t it their job already to promote peace and find non violent ways to resolve crisis?

Ooops! My bad. For the Dems, the first rule of good government is “Why have one Department when you can have two doing exactly the same thing at twice the cost?” (HT: Contact)

Actually, I like Jim Hoft’s idea of making Mother Sheehan the very first Secretary for Peace and Nonviolence. She’d have New Orleans unoccupied in a jiffy not to mention freeing Palestine from the Zionist oppressors before you can say “Holocaust anyone?”

And while we’re at it, might I suggest a few other executive level departments the Dems might want to contemplate adding:

DEPARTMENT OF THINGS THAT WERE FORMERLY CONSIDERED SEXUAL PERVERSIONS.

The problem is that in these rather libertine days, there is nothing that can truly be considered “sexually perverted” - except perhaps those of us unimaginative and downright old fashioned enough to be monogamous heterosexuals who like screwing in the missionary position once and a while (with many variations, naturally) and who like our porn straight up and bloodless.

A shrinking minority to be sure…

DEPARTMENT OF APOLOGIES

Not to be confused with the “Department of Groveling,” I have a feeling this Department will receive a lot of prominence if the Democrats make it to the White House in ‘08. Not only will liberals be running around the planet genuflecting to the thugs, the tyrants, and the ne’er do wells who we have offended the last 8 years by standing up to their perfidious designs on the civilized world, but just think of all the opportunities for apologies here at home! My God, they’d be lined up at the Secretary’s door, agitating for “reparations” and all sorts of goodies, including making every white male in the United States participate in a “Day of Reconciliation, Contrition, and Feces Flinging” so that all groups oppressed by white males can get their rocks off.

DEPARTMENT OF GROVELING

See above, except this cabinet department would be exclusively devoted to foreign affairs. One good thing is that this particular department would come relatively cheap. Knee pads and a generous supply of chapstick to deal with all the ass kissing of the likes of Ahmadinejad, Assad, Kim, and your odd African potentate or two would be all that’s necessary to make the department a stunning success.

Good to see the Dems already have a head start in forming this department what with the Speaker already planting her lips quite firmly on the thug Assad’s derriere and now getting ready to smooch Ahmadinejad’s radical rear.

Maybe she’s angling for the job…

DEPARTMENT OF HOLLYWOOD ADVISORS

What better way to reward the Dems friends in Tinseltown than with their very own cabinet level department where rather than pretending to be taken seriously, they actually would be listened to by people at the highest levels of government.

I wonder if Angelina Jolie would be willing to serve?

DEPARTMENT OF FREE SPEECH

Al Sharpton for Secretary!

Actually, you and I both know speech would be “free” as long as we didn’t offend - knowingly or unknowingly - the list of 1247 groups, sub groups, races, religions, ethnicities, mentally challenged, weight challenged, sex challenged, those who are afraid of challenges, and sundry other oppressed, put upon, minorities who together make up about 90% of the country.

Feel free to add to this list in the comments. One thing for sure; if the Democrats get their way, Presidents in the future are going to have to hire out the Ballroom at the downtown Sheraton just to hold cabinet meetings.

UPDATE

Dymphna has an overview of the bill’s particulars. It’s worse than I thought. Not only would this cabinet Secretary be able to stick their nose into military planning, State Department negotiations, and our UN policy, but also domestic violence as well as counter terror initiatives and FBI investigations:

For those looking for a distillation, imagine a governmental agency responsible for advising on non-confrontational foreign policy options, establishing and enforcing new gun control measures, designing school curriculum, establishing and enforcing new legislation governing “hate crimes” and violence against animals, and my favorite, establishing a “Peace Academy,” a four-year institution of higher learning modeled on our service academies. (Wait, doesn’t the Ivy League already have like six of those?)

If this isn’t the silliest, stupidest, most asinine idea ever presented to the Congress of the United States, I don’t know what is.