Apr 15 2007
Turning The Corner In Iraq
Americans deserve all the pertient information available on the progress of our efforts in Iraq. And that means the US liberal news media should not become a propanda effort filtering out information they do not want to see or hear. Like the fact things are changing dramatically in Iraq in our favor:
A year ago, Ramadi’s police force had virtually been wiped out by a potent insurgency that destroyed every police station, leaving only a couple of dozen officers on the job and a lawless city with nowhere to turn for help.
Now, guerrilla fighters have begun to disappear, schools and shops have reopened, and civilians have begun walking previously deserted streets.
The reason: thousands of police — some believed to be former insurgents and most loyal to local sheiks — have begun pouring into this once-lawless Euphrates River city.
“I wouldn’t tell you that this place is safe, but I will tell you that it’s stable,” U.S. Col. Miciotto Johnson said of the district of Tameem, where one of Ramadi’s nine police stations opened in January. “We still may have sporadic gunfire here and there, but we’re definitely not having the RPG and IED attacks that we had before.”
The trend lines are clear – the US effort and the latest shift in policy with The Surge (which is still being formed and therefore cannot be the sole source of these events in Ramadi and Anbar Province) are pointing towards a strong opportunity for success in Iraq. Why is this happening? Al Qaeda’s blood lust has alienated the locals, as I predicted it would:
In August, according to American commanders, al-Qaida operatives beheaded another sheik who refused support and safe passage through his territory in northwest Ramadi. Tribal leaders became infuriated when the militants refused to hand over the sheik’s corpse for four days. According to Islamic custom, a body must be buried within 24 hours.
Turning toward an alliance with the Americans, the sheiks then banded together under an umbrella movement called “The Awakening,” and called on their supporters to join the police.
This time, Americans offered protection, and the sheiks kept their word.
Today, about 4,500 police patrol most parts of Ramadi and nine permanent police stations have been set up, along with many substations, usually manned jointly with American and Iraqi troops. Police officers stand on wrecked street corners, hunkered behind walls of green sandbags. Some, fearful of insurgents, hide their faces with black ski masks.
And yes, success would destroy the reputations of all those who suffer from Premature Surrender Syndrome. But the reputation of the liberals is not a priority in the war on al Qaeda. The fact is by this summer so much will have changed America will begin to wonder why they were not told earlier of these changes, and what was the motivation behind those whose responsibility it is to inform America, and why the Democrats could not see these changes while they were supposedly “leading” the country.
Success in Iraq is possibly coming, and along with it the final destruction of liberalism and the liberal media. To screw up a success with premature calls for defeat is the ultimate sin for a country used to winning.
Baloney.
And double baloney.
When Bush finally admits he knows absolutely nothing about military affairs – perhaps then we can bring our troops out of a no-win civil war.
Do read page 4 of this A Broader Conceptualization of Islam and Terrorism, published in Joint Force Quarterly, a publication for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, i.e., for the top military man in the U.S.
Apparently, martin / soothie-copperhead has been brainwashed by the Jihads into thinking we can never win this war.
Half of the brigades are there so once we win in Baghdad, then we’ll see the decline in civilian casualties in all of Iraq.
soothie-copperhead naturally does not understand the Herman Option.
Soothsayer, baloney!
You are repeating a twisted report. Yes, casualties in Baghdad are down and yes, casualties outside of Baghdad are up but overall casualties are down significantly. I mean something on the order of 40% overall across Iraq.
Here is where the twisting comes in:
Prior to the “surge” nearly all casualties were in Baghdad. Outside of Anbar there were practically none. So a 49% increase in casualties outside of Baghdad is a very small number compared to the 40% reduction inside Baghdad. For example, say there were 1000 inside Baghdad and 100 outside. A 40% reduction in Baghdad would mean 400 less casualties. A 49% increase outside Baghdad would mean 49 more … for a net decrease of 351 casualties.
What the media is doing here is grasping at straws to in any way they possibly can make good news appear to be not so good news. They are operating on the premise that most people are stupid and aren’t going to check into the situation. An uninformed average person reading reports like those might come to the conclusion that overall things are not better or are getting worse. They are banking on the fact that 50% of the population is below the median intelligence level and you have apparently bought into that hook, line, and sinker.
As of the first 14 days of April there have been 458 civilian deaths in Iraq reported in all media. That is the lowest number of deaths for the first 14 days of the month since July 2006.
The media and the terrorists have developed a symbiotic relationship in which they feed off each other.
The terrorists know they can not take or hold territory, all they can do is create chaos and fear through intimidation. That requires the media to get the message out. So the more spectacular the explosion, the more damage it does in terms of propaganda. However, that does not really tell us all that is going on. More and more Iraqis want to live a normal life. The Sunni are not going to give up their hegemony without a fight and AlQaida will expect their allegiance in return. But that allegiance is slipping away.
soothie, the truth is you don’t care about the Iraqis, you are just partisan. I remember back in 98 when the Clinton administration indictment against Osama for the African embassy bombings, included information about an AlQaida/Saddam link. Now it is like that never happened. Now the fact that Saddam gave 300 thousand dollars to Zawhiri is not considered a sign of “operational” ties. No, the goal posts just keep getting moved.
Now the fact that there are improvements in Iraq mean nothing, there will have to be a complete absence of terrorist activity or insurgent attacks before the left will admit there is an improvement. But then again, the left does not have the slightest desire to see that happen. So what do you care how many people get killed?
The media can’t argue any longer that there isn’t progress so they are now in the process of switching into “yeah, but” mode. “Yeah, but the progress isn’t enough” or “yeah, but the progress …”
If the progress continues and they have to find increasingly feeble examples of bad news, they will simply go silent. They will *never* report success even in the face of it.
This is your definition of progress?
While I can appreciate your perseverance, the simple fact is you are now ignoring events on the ground lest your support for The Surge be revealed for the mistake it was.
The Shia are pulling out and the government is collapsing. The “experiment in democracy” failed – and it was not the fault of the US – it was the inherent conflicts between Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Which is exactly why G.H.W. Bush did NOT push on to Baghdad.
And Soothsayer proves the point made by the other posters.
Sounds like Truman all over again, huh? With people like soothie-copperheads attacking Truman for making a decision to drop those two atomic bombs.
soothie-copperheads continue to forget the Herman Option / Galula’s approach.
Excuse me Lurker – are you now advocating nuclear weapons in Iraq – cause otherwise what the bleep are you talking about?
Comparing Truman to Bush is like comparing Seabiscuit to some nag on its way to the glue factory.