Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack—two senior Brookings analysts who have “harshly criticized” the Bush administration’s “miserable handling of Iraq”—recently returned from that country. In their words:
“. . . we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily ‘victory’ but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”
“The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.”
“The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility.’
Wow. “you have no credibility” is right out of the Playground Trash Talk Manual of Style.
What about the credibility of those who continually say the war is lost?
Who has more credibility now? The people who say it is a long struggle and that we have to stick this out or the people who say it is lost, we have to redeploy to Okinawa, that set timetable and then advance them because they fear the timetable might be met.
What about the credibility of the surrender democrats, and the mainstream media that have been selling the democrats destructive line for four years?
When history looks back on these times it is likely it will say that the democrats and mainstream media have done more to destroy the United States than any other domestic groups ever.
This is not merely a do-nothing democratic congress—it is an aggressive , destructive, vindictive do nothing democratic congress.
Their actions encourage our enemies, and they just don’t seem to care.
Rich, you are way ahead of yourself. A glimmer of hope does not suddenly justify this terrible mess. And a glimmer of hope is the very least that could be expected with the deployment of tens of thousands of additional soldiers. Yet this glimmer and other glimmers won’t be enough to keep America in Iraq at its current levels past the next presidential election. The war will grind on through 2008, the public’s support will continue to erode and the next president will win the election based on a platform that ensures the unwinding of this adventure.
Kitsune, you may be correct.
But that is what makes a horse race. We will see.
Do you disagree with the statement that the democrats are encouraging our enemies? And that they do not care that they are doing this.
Do you disagree that the democratic congress is not only a do nothing congress, but also aggressive, destructive and vindictive?
I believe that when Congress (dem or otherwise) sends out signals that they believe the war is essentially lost and that it is time for the troops to come home, that certainly could be encouraging to some of America’s enemies. However, nothing could trump the encouragement given to Al Quaeda with the thinning of troops in Afghanistan, the support for Pakistan which tolerates Al Queada operating within the country, the occupation of an Arab nation and the security vacuum which now allows them to operate so widely in Iraq. Not to mention that the occupation of Iraq also encourages the radicalization of Muslims not even living in Iraq. As I have noted here before, almost everything done in the name of the “War on Terror” has actually furthered the goals and interests of the terrorists. As for Congress being destructive…do you mean more destructive than the disastrous invasion of Iraq that has allowed the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people? Not sure….
So are you asserting that more innocent people are being killed in Iraq post-Saddam than would be killed in Iraq if Saddam’s rule continued? (This should be the question, shouldn’t it?)
You would have to rely on the discredited Lancet report to say that. Do you really think that was serious scholarship? Most do not think it was serious.
It is just as likely that regime change has prevented the deaths of at least one hundred thousand innocent persons per year at the hands of Saddam and his sons since 2003. Why? Even AQI is not as efficient at killing innocent persons as Saddam was. Bureaucratic terror is just a more efficient killer than truck bombs and IEDs.
As for the rest, it seems to be the remembrance of things past democratic line. I hope you keep an open mind and read posts that may not fit your narrative from Michael Yon, Bill Roggio at the Fourth Rail, and the transcripts of the press briefings from our military leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan (or even John Burns at the New York Times.) They tell a very different story – one that looks to what is happening today. (Remember the democratic congress is continuing its destructive behavior today.)
As to the particulars:
The whole point of the surge is to fill the “security vacuum” (your term – whack-a-mole is the term used by others to describe the old practice and that was not a “vacuum”) , as current reports indicate it might actually be doing. Do you want the surge to stop?
Could stopping the surge unleash a full blown civil war in Iraq? Why does the Secretary General of the UN warn against the premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq? Could it be that the US forces are a positive influence in Iraq?
On Afghanistan, this years offensive by the Taliban has not materialized. Could the effectiveness of the ISAF have anything to do with this?
On Pakistan, do you want to put more on the plate? Would you make a troubled ally into an avowed enemy? Do you want a nuclear armed Pakistan as an enemy? Pakistan is a serious issue and should be kept on our side as much as is possible.
And then what about Iran? What is the solution there? Would losing Iraq have a positive or negative effect on our relations with Iran?
The hinge of history is swinging, and in my humble opinion you are behind the times.
It is a humble opinion, so thanks for the thoughtful response.
I think the oped in the Times cited here is a farce. And has been used by Dick Cheney to justify far too much.
I’d have to agree with Steven Clemons on this one:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002256.php