Friday, June 15, 2007

Who gains if we lose?

So, who do you think is right?


Next to pulling out a pistol and shooting Harry Reid in the eyeball, Sen. Lieberman does the next best thing in his "What I Saw in Iraq" featured article in today's Opinion Journal.  Here's the  opening.

I recently returned from Iraq and four other countries in the Middle East, my first trip to the region since December. In the intervening five months, almost everything about the American war effort in Baghdad has changed, with a new coalition military commander, Gen. David Petraeus; a new U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker; the introduction, at last, of new troops; and most important of all, a bold, new counterinsurgency strategy.

The question of course is--is it working? Here in Washington, advocates of retreat insist with absolute certainty that it is not, seizing upon every suicide bombing and American casualty as proof positive that the U.S. has failed in Iraq, and that it is time to get out.

"Advocates of retreat" is more refined than "surrender monkey," but equate. Of course Reid, and the democrats, long ago anted-up  their political future with a bet that we would lose the war, and President Bush would be discredited.  America wins, they lose.  Simple as that.  A few more snippets, because they're so delicious.

Consider Anbar province, Iraq's heart of darkness for most of the past four years. When I last visited Anbar in December, the U.S. military would not allow me to visit the provincial capital, Ramadi, because it was too dangerous. Anbar was one of al Qaeda's major strongholds in Iraq and the region where the majority of American casualties were occurring. A few months earlier, the Marine Corps chief of intelligence in Iraq had written off the entire province as "lost," while the Iraq Study Group described the situation there as "deteriorating."

When I returned to Anbar on this trip, however, the security environment had undergone a dramatic reversal. Attacks on U.S. troops there have dropped from an average of 30 to 35 a day a few months ago to less than one a day now, according to Col. John Charlton, commander of the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, headquartered in Ramadi. Whereas six months ago only half of Ramadi's 23 tribes were cooperating with the coalition, all have now been persuaded to join an anti-al Qaeda alliance. One of Ramadi's leading sheikhs told me: "A rifle pointed at an American soldier is a rifle pointed at an Iraqi."

Harry Reid, as a stand-in for the Democrat Congress, is pointing that rifle.  Bang.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The distaste I have for Dhimmicrats currently is visceral, and I'm afraid that would become reflective in any response to their "actions". Scare quotes on "actions", because from where I sit, their only action is carping.

However, on this issue, I have no fear for calling those rat-bastidds out. Hanky and Harry and Hillary and the rest of that clownshow should just STFU, please, and let us get on with the war.

Senator Lieberman may be a liberal, but on this issue, he is on the side of the adults.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.