Monday, September 10, 2007

What's The Story On The Surge?

I guess this week, we will find out.

But, no matter what anyone thinks, there's a truth to this. This person will say this and that person will say that. But somewhere in the cloudy midst of all this, there is a well-defined truth and it's doubtful if we will ever know in time to know what to do next.

Why do I say this?

Because, what one thinks now is based on what one has already heard.

If we read and give credence to John Kerry's latest entry at HuffPo, we will think that we have failed miserably. (The world has caved in, our complete handling of the war has been full of failures, and other things that make up the litany of complaints he leveled during the 2004 election.)

The escalation failed to do the one and only thing it was supposed to do. The entire Iraq policy of George W. Bush has failed since the fall of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad. No amount of parsing or spinning can change those simple facts: the escalation is and was the wrong answer.


Note the tone from the beginning, note the choice of words. Then, note how he opens the first sentence of the next paragraph:

I chaired a hearing on the GAO Report yesterday,.......


Wrong war, wrong time, wrong this, wrong that, wrong, blah blah blah. I, me, me, I, blah blah blah blah. I am sorry folks, but this is the argument?

On the other hand, many former critics of the war have recently seen a shift and have been reporting it. Two thinkers from the liberal leaning Brookings Institute, recently penned a cautious, but positive evaluation. Katie Couric's recent report said their had been real progress. And now, we have Max Boot saying the surge is working in his latest piece, from the LA Times.

So, if a person is pre-disposed to be critical of the war, for political reasons, he/she will most certainly be inclined to swallow Sen. Kerry's assessment. If one is a staunch war supporter, they will be inclined to disagree and believe that the war is going just fine.

But to those of us that know that spin comes from all sides and are pragmatic in our assessments, we know that the Administration and Congress are not the ones that should be micro-managing this war, in the first place. The military commanders should be. And most American people agree with my view, as is reflected in
this latest NYT/CBS poll.

But for weeks now, certain attention-seeking (but yet still irrelevant) elected officials have been trying to cast a cloud over the report that Gen. Petraeus is about to present. Most of them have not been to Iraq since the surge began. But somehow, we are supposed to believe them, over and above the man that has been in country and responsible for overseeing the operation. It cannot get more arrogant than that.

If there were in existence, a Congressional Arrogance Index, John Kerry and his like-minded cause-subverters would indeed score high. And most people that have the free-will to think for themselves, can see it.

I seriously doubt the report will show amazing and stellar success, as much as I doubt it will show a dismal failure. To make either of these claims, ahead of the actual report, shows how incredibly irresponsible the claim-maker is. I, like many others, just want the truth and damn the politics. Like many others, I have been willing to wait for the report, before I decide where I stand on this gravely important issue.

7 comments:

Greg said...

There is no debate - only the illusion thereof. The party faithful have made up their mind already. The left was criticising it before it came out, while the right trumpeted obscene claims of success over a month ago.

The real question should be whether the progress we've seen can be sustained, and whether it is worth the cost in money and more lives. I tend to think it is on both counts; and that we don't have much choice anyway. What's the option? Pull out the troops immmediately as they dodge bullets trying to reach the Kuwaiti border; while bin Laden releases a video tape proclaiming victory? Reduce our presence in former al Qaeda strongholds, leaving a small (and very vulnerable) group of troop trainers? Or continue with the surge, hoping that improving security will foster more political reconciliation?

LASunsett said...

If at some point, we do decide that it isn't working and feel the need to pull out, I would say that doing it quietly (without announcing it) would be the best way to go.

Should we see the need to do this, we should not set timetables and broadcast them for all to hear, which includes the enemy. We should do it behind closed doors. We should not do any of this just because the squeaky wheels in Congress are calling for it.

Look, this may not work. I am not too blind that I cannot accept the fact that democracy may not be successful in a nation that has been under the thumb of the second coming of Stalin. If we determine that this is the case, bowing out in a safe manner that minimizes both loss of life to our troops and the propaganda value to those that hate us.

To this day, I do not fault the President for removing Saddam, WMDs or not. It needed to be done and should have been, many years ago. But, honestly, the plan to win this thing was very poorly thought out and did not take many things into account.

On this one rare occasion, I will agree with one of the Left's coined phrases that comes from the mind-programmers in the MoveOn.Org circles: The President did rush to war. This should have been planned better and implemented after the situation in Afghanistan had been better resolved. But it's too late to cry over spilled milk.

Greg said...

Quote of the day, from Sen. Feinstein: "General Petraeus is there to succeed. I don't think he's an independent evaluator."

In other words, let's bring in someone who wants to fail. Or someone who doesn't give a crap.

Oy vay.

A.C. McCloud said...

To this day, I do not fault the President for removing Saddam, WMDs or not. It needed to be done and should have been, many years ago. But, honestly, the plan to win this thing was very poorly thought out and did not take many things into account.

Well said, sir. Add to that Bush has been rather inflexible, so worried the situation would snowball politically, which it did anyway.

But the left simply has to extract themselves from the same corner with UBL. How can we elect national leadership who say we need to withdraw from Iraq now in order to better fight AQ, when AQ is still in Iraq? Afghanistan can't be far behind, then we're back to square one. Guess they can blame everything on Bush at that point but that and a buck will get us a cup of joe. It's about America, not parties.

As you can gather, I'm very distressed at the way things are going right now. A house divided will fall.

LASunsett said...

Greg,

//Oy vay.//

Ditto.

LASunsett said...

AC,

//But the left simply has to extract themselves from the same corner with UBL.//

Don't hold your breath. A lot of this stems from the bitterness from the 2000 election. Much of it, I place squarely on the shoulders of Al Gore for not acting like an adult and being man enough to realize that he lost the election. he has been more than pleased to allow this hatred to fester by allowing proxies to do the dirty work for him. (See: George Soros)

I know they say he won the popular vote, and he did, there's no denying it. But, by law, it's the electoral vote that elects the President. Like it or not, they have to understand that it wasn't the GOP's law, wasn't Bush's law, wasn't the Supreme Court's law, it was United States' law.

Because of this bitterness, they have made every effort they can think of to subvert every cause that Pres. Bush has undertaken. And they have done so at the expense of the troops that are dodging bullets.

To some degree, I can understand their anger. But anger should not be given an audience forever. Anger, if left unchecked, will lead to bitterness, bitterness will lead to hatred.

That's where they are at right now. Just touring the leftist blogs will tell a person all he/she needs to know. The hatred is so thick, you can cut it with a knife.

In short, they hate George Bush so much that they have been willing to align themselves with the thinking of UBL. There are a few that believe that war is wrong and wouldn't support any war, for any reason. I can respect that. But I cam quite convinced that the majority of these people are playing politics to make sure that Bush has as rough of a time, as possible. Payback is their goal, for something that happened 7 years ago. Despicable sell-outs, they are.

But, you already know this, don't you? ;)

A.C. McCloud said...

In short, they hate George Bush so much that they have been willing to align themselves with the thinking of UBL. There are a few that believe that war is wrong and wouldn't support any war, for any reason. I can respect that. But I cam quite convinced that the majority of these people are playing politics to make sure that Bush has as rough of a time, as possible. Payback is their goal, for something that happened 7 years ago. Despicable sell-outs, they are.

But, you already know this, don't you? ;)


Actually I had almost forgotten Bush vs Gore. Guess I would have been ticked off if the shoes were reversed, but not to the point of rewriting history and wishing defeat on the country. What's happening is outrageous.