New York Times columnist David Brooks admits: Bush was right:
Let’s go back and consider how the world looked in the winter of 2006-2007. Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. . . . .
Expert and elite opinion swung behind the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for handing more of the problems off to the Iraqi military and wooing Iran and Syria. Republicans on Capitol Hill were quietly contemptuous of the president while Democrats were loudly so.
Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid considered the war lost. Barack Obama called for a U.S. withdrawal starting in the spring of 2007, while Senator Reid offered legislation calling for a complete U.S. pullback by March 2008.
The arguments floating around the op-ed pages and seminar rooms were overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge — a mere 20,000 additional troops would not make a difference. The U.S. presence provoked violence, rather than diminishing it. The more the U.S. did, the less the Iraqis would step up to do. Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, and it was insanity to put American troops in the middle of it.
. . . . In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. . . . .
. . . . Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.
. . . . More than a year on, the surge has produced large, if tenuous, gains. Violence is down sharply. Daily life has improved. Iraqi security forces have been given time to become a more effective fighting force. The Iraqi government is showing signs of strength and even glimmers of impartiality. Iraq has moved from being a failed state to, as Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations has put it, merely a fragile one.
The whole episode is a reminder that history is a complicated thing. The traits that lead to disaster in certain circumstances are the very ones that come in handy in others. The people who seem so smart at some moments seem incredibly foolish in others.
The cocksure war supporters learned this humbling lesson during the dark days of 2006. And now the cocksure surge opponents, drunk on their own vindication, will get to enjoy their season of humility. They have already gone through the stages of intellectual denial. First, they simply disbelieved that the surge and the Petraeus strategy was doing any good. Then they accused people who noticed progress in Iraq of duplicity and derangement. Then they acknowledged military, but not political, progress. Lately they have skipped over to the argument that Iraq is progressing so well that the U.S. forces can quickly come home.
But before long, the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right. Some brave souls might even concede that if the U.S. had withdrawn in the depths of the chaos, the world would be in worse shape today.
It is becoming obvious even to many on the left that the Iraq surge has worked.
George W. Bush was right. The Americans who elected George W. Bush as their commander in chief, or who at least gave him the benefit of the doubt in wartime, were right.
John McCain was right, too.
Barack Obama was, and still is, wrong.
Harry Reid was wrong. ("We can't win." "We've already lost.")
And this website was right.
As I wrote on December 6, 2006 (Iraq Study Group Dismisses Military Options to Win Iraq War -- in One Short Paragraph):
I cannot believe it! The alternative of increasing our military commitment in order to win the Iraq war decisively receives a grand total of one paragraph of attention in the Iraq Study Group's report. And here is the full text of that one paragraph:
Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile, America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.
This is the best the Iraq Study Group could come up with? As a college term paper, this would be pathetic. On this key point, there is not even a single source quoted on the record.
If we are going to allow our national policy to rise or fall on rejection of policy options that have received a few sentences of off-the-cuff consideration, we are in deeper trouble than I thought.
Not even discussed, as far as I can see, is the alternative of adding more military weaponry and might -- not just "troops" -- to the equation. This is the one thing we haven't really tried, as John Podhoretz pointed out yesterday in the New York Post.
What does it mean to say that no military solution will work unless Iraq finds "national reconcilliation" and has "political progress?" Iraq's problem is not lack of political progress -- it set up a government and elected representatives in a fair and open elections. Iraq's problem is that it is been attacked violently by terrorists who could not care less what the elections achieved. Iraq is being undermined not by lack of dialogue, but with IEDs and car bombs and rifles and swords. That is a terrorism problem and a military problem, and it has to be solved militarily. If America, with all of its massive military resources can't solve that military problem, how does it expect Iraq to do so by itself?
The single paragraph of the Iraq Study Group report that rejects the military option boils down to this: We have not yet committed enough resources to winning the Iraq war and to defending ourselves in general. That is why we are "stretched thin." That is why if we win in one place we can't prevent a resurgence in another. We have committed a lot or money and resources -- yes, we have -- but we have not committed what it takes to win.
Also published at this website on April 20, 2007 (Democrat Harry Reid: "This War is Lost"):
We are not losing in Iraq, Senator Reid, despite your efforts to deprive Iraq and America's troops of victory when it is almost within their grasp.
We are winning in Iraq.
This is how winning feels, in the early stages. It feels like scorching heat, freezing cold, sweat, pain, agony, injury, and loss of life. That is always how it feels in wartime before victory comes.
Did you think it would be easy?
Did you think it would be easy when you voted to authorize the Iraq war?
Did you imagine that America would win a war against vicious, determined foes without any real loss of life, without enough funding to put a dent in the budget, and without any real inconvenience to anyone?
Sometimes winning a war is easy.
More often, it is not.
A wise leader, and a wise nation, are prepared for either possibility, and do not flinch from their duty when it is hard.
The blood of every American soldier who ever died on the battlefield cries out that winning a war is not always easy.
The blood of every victim of Islamic terror cries out too. Can't you hear it, Senator Reid?
Can't you hear hundreds of thousands of victims of Islamic terror around the world -- including thousands of Americans -- crying out?
In Iraq, we are fighting terrorists who are evil enough to booby-trap children's toys with shrapnel and saw off men's heads to place them in fruit boxes around town.
And you, Senator Reid, would let them win.
In fact, you want to make sure they win -- by abandoning the battlefield.
What spineless sea of jellyfish did you float in with, that you lack the backbone to see this difficult, necessary, sacred duty through to victory?
And published here May 25, 2007 (Al-Qaeda Is Engaged in Torture in Iraq: Democrats in Congress Would Let Them Win):
What will be America's legacy in Iraq?
What are we made of?
With America's help, the Iraqi people have thrown off Saddam Hussein and his Bathist torture thugs -- only to find that other Islamic fascists violently object to their new-found freedom and want to take over where Saddam left off.
Who in the West is so callous as to shrug, hurry away, and let the murderers and torturers win? Do our humanitarian impulses run only to Darfur?
This can be the West's finest hour as a new democracy puts down roots, or it can be our worst hour as we abandon Iraq to the first storms that threaten to tear it apart.
Every now and then, history takes measure of the courage and character of a people. This is one of those times.
Abandoning Iraq to terrorist torturers who are sworn enemies of America conveys both cowardice and a lack of concern for the innocent people left behind. We are better and braver than that.
America was right to stay the course in Iraq. "Expert and elite opinion" on the left, and on what passes for the center, was wrong. The Iraq Study Group was wrong.
It bears repeating not for the sake of boasting, but because the same persons who demonstrated awful judgment a year ago and two years ago -- the Barack Obamas and Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis -- still have it within their power to undermine America's and Iraq's victory.
It was not too late to win the war in 2006 and 2007. It is not too late to late to lose it now, if we choose to throw away our victory.
Would some American politicians be so callous, so uninterested in the fate of innocent Iraqis, so unconcerned with the damage to America's safety, as to deliberately throw away victory in Iraq at this late date?
Sadly, yes. There are plenty on the left who can't see beyond the end of their own noses and their own immediate political advantage.
They will throw away victory in Iraq if they get the chance. They will try openly and they will try covertly, with tactics like the "slow bleed" strategy advocated by Congressman Jack Murtha. They will do whatever it takes to win power and lose the war.
If Bush was right, and he was, then then he deserves not only belated acknowledgment of that fact, but active support today, especially in matters of national defense. For that matter, so does John McCain.
Yes, the surge has worked to get levels of violence in Iraq to be almost as low as they were before the US invasion. So, two wrongs DO make a right.
Posted by: A. James | June 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM
If Bush was right, and he was, then then he deserves not only belated acknowledgment of that fact, but active support today, especially in matters of national defense. For that matter, so does John McCain.
You are a robot - pure and simple. Bush supports the military? By being awol? By having five deferrment Cheney at his side? And you support McSame? He had five planes shot out from under him - one or two were stolen planes, too. He only kept it quiet because of his Dad, and the embarrasment to the Navy. McSame also made propoganda films for the Vietcong - how does that support the troops? McSame ame home to an ailing wife - AND LEFT HER for a beer heiress. Hows that for commitment, huh?
Please. Your reverance for an imperial presidency is clear - very clear. The Constitution is only something the GOP glances at when it suits them. Your reverance for this imperial president will be a shame on you and our country. But the GOP always puts party above country - so that much is known.
Victory in Iraq is an illusion. An illusion to allow the oil companies to rape the country and remove its resources. You have wrapped yourself up in a garment partly made of the flag and partly made up of the bible. The flag is weeping at your lack of courage, and Jesus is weeping for you turning away from his teachings. You will have much to answer for, now and in heaven. I truly hope you discover the cure for cancer or something, because God is going to have many issues to discuss with you and your warmongering crowd.
As it seems you don't like our system of government, I suggest you move your ass to Saudi Arabia - they like kings over there. Oh, and take W with you.
Posted by: Fred | June 24, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Fred: Are you taking your medication? Psychopathology is treatable you know...
Posted by: DemocracyRules | June 24, 2008 at 01:47 PM
A. James: Yes, violence was down before the war, but there were reasons for that. What you fail to mention in your sarcastic comment is, at the very least, Saddam and Sons' torture chambers and rape rooms are gone.
Posted by: marybel | June 24, 2008 at 03:58 PM
Fred: Are you taking your medication? Psychopathology is treatable you know...
Soooo, instead of discussing the comment, you do what thoughtless nobodies do: throw shit. No thought, no words, no points of view, no arguement - nothing. Just insult. Well, since your idiot in chief has set the ME on fire, I presume you will be heading out to fight the good fight in Iraq then? Oh, You're not. Oh well, how can you cheerlead an illegal invasion and occupation without actually doing your duty? Silly me, you support Bush - AWOL bush. You support Cheney - 5 deferrment Cheney. You support McSame - who lost five planes, two of them stolen from the Navy; and he also made propoganda films for the Vietcong. yep, you are behind the proper group of people alright - all are losers, all are cowards. Yep, we got your number.
Posted by: Fred | June 24, 2008 at 06:44 PM
A. James: Yes, violence was down before the war, but there were reasons for that. What you fail to mention in your sarcastic comment is, at the very least, Saddam and Sons' torture chambers and rape rooms are gone.
Posted by: marybel
Yep. And they were replaced with OUR torture and rape rooms in Gitmo and elsewhere. Do you idiots ever read? I mean really; Do you ever want to know the truth - or does the truth scare you as much as everything else seems to?
Please try and understand what is happening in your name. It matters to you and your children.
Posted by: Fred | June 24, 2008 at 06:47 PM
Old Dem talking points never die, regardless of fully documented rebuttals. Actually, the WHOLE ME strategy was brilliant, with known risks.
Since Iraq is a much better venue to fight in than primitive, mountainous Afghanistan, let's get the terrorists to fight there. Check.
Keeping Iraq's huge (and legitimate) wealth out of the hands of the AQ and its supporters is a really good idea. Check.
Stopping SH from bleeding and debasing the Iraqi people is a really good idea. Check.
And so on.
Posted by: Brian H | June 25, 2008 at 03:47 AM
Gina
Thank You it is never easy to stand against the tide.
stay standing
God Bless You and Yours
Amen
Part of the American Tribe
Catherine
PS
Still hunting Squirels
Posted by: Catherine | June 25, 2008 at 09:58 AM
Dear Fred:
I asked you if you were taking your medication. This was tongue in cheek, but it’s relevant. As a whole, approximately 25% of the population suffers from a serious psychopathology of some kind. The prevalence of psychopathology is higher in leftists than the general population. This is well documented, and has been replicated in many ways. Of course these studies are not well-reported in the MSM, but many political scientists know about them. Furthermore, there is a dose-response effect, such that the more extremist the person is, the more likely they will have a psychopathology.
Very often these psychopathologies are some type of thought disorder. For example paranoia is common. Let me show you what I mean, using your own words:
___________________________
“If Bush was right, and he was, then he deserves not only belated acknowledgment of that fact, but active support today, especially in matters of national defense. For that matter, so does John McCain.”– From Gina Cobb
You are a robot - pure and simple.
[Ad hominem attack, irrelevant to the argument, and evidence of gratuitous aggression. There is a a possible rage disorder present]
Bush supports the military? By being awol? By having five deferrment Cheney at his side? And you support McSame? He had five planes shot out from under him - one or two were stolen planes, too. He only kept it quiet because of his Dad, and the embarrasment to the Navy. McSame also made propoganda films for the Vietcong - how does that support the troops? McSame ame home to an ailing wife - AND LEFT HER for a beer heiress. Hows that for commitment, huh?
[Same as above, ad hominem attacks, irrelevant to the argument, and evidence of gratuitous aggression. A rage disorder may be present.
Derailment is present. That is, while each of your comments can be disproved with evidence, your comments are actually irrelevant to your argument. Consciously or not, you have derailed the discussion from factual matters regarding US military and diplomatic strategies into a personal attack on various personalities.]
Please. Your reverance for an imperial presidency is clear - very clear. The Constitution is only something the GOP glances at when it suits them. Your reverance for this imperial president will be a shame on you and our country. But the GOP always puts party above country - so that much is known.
[Derailment again. Your comments are not relevant to Gina’s post.]
Victory in Iraq is an illusion. An illusion to allow the oil companies to rape the country and remove its resources. You have wrapped yourself up in a garment partly made of the flag and partly made up of the bible. The flag is weeping at your lack of courage, and Jesus is weeping for you turning away from his teachings. You will have much to answer for, now and in heaven. I truly hope you discover the cure for cancer or something, because God is going to have many issues to discuss with you and your warmongering crowd.
[There is paranoid thinking here. Paranoid personality disorder is characterized by delusions of reference. Everything that goes on is somehow thought to relate to the person. For example, Fred seems to think that claims of victory in Iraq seems to be designed to confuse him personally. When delusions of reference are present, the person has difficulty thrusting others, because everyone seems to be trying to confuse him. The person is overwhelmed each day my thousands of observed events, all which seem to relate to him.
For example when a paranoid sees a branch fall from a tree, he is certain someone or something must have done it on purpose, in reference to him personally It’s impossible to sort everything all out, and massive distrust and paranoia builds up. The person also usually builds conspiracy theories.
As it seems you don't like our system of government, I suggest you move your ass to Saudi Arabia - they like kings over there. Oh, and take W with you.
[Projection is common in may psychopathologies. At some point, others may have said to the person “love America or leave it.” The person now projects the same accusation toward others.]
[So there you have it Fred. I have two suggestions. (1) Seek treatment. Thought disorders, including derailment, paranoia, constant fear of conspiracies, and delusions of reference are very treatable now. Rage disorders are also very treatable. When treatment is successful, others may not even notice the problem, because the symptoms are so well under control. (2) For your own health, don’t post comments here. Post comments on left-wing websites, where at least some people will agree with you. People on Gina Cobb are not likely to agree with you, which will only exacerbate your rage disorder. Continual rage is bad for your health.]
Posted by: DemocracyRules | June 25, 2008 at 12:31 PM