Jul 02 2008

Victory In Iraq Is Close At Hand!

Published by at 10:01 am under All General Discussions,Iraq,Sadr/Mahdi Army

The Surge and Awakening that hit Iraq last year (in the face of dour predictions from Democrats that Iraq was a failure, the Surge was a failure, etc) has succeeded, victory is at hand. The Surge had many goals, nearly all of which have been met, according to a US State Department Government Report on Iraq:

Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress, according to a report by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

The embassy’s evaluation, compiled in May, contrasts sharply with other recent assessments that Iraq has failed to achieve many of the goals that the Baghdad government and President Bush said would be reached by the end of 2007. A report by the Government Accountability Office, released last week, cited little improvement in the political and economic spheres and noted continuing military problems despite a significant decline in overall violence.

The embassy judged that the only remaining shortfalls were the Baghdad government’s failure to enact and implement laws governing the oil industry and the disarmament of militia and insurgent groups, and continuing problems with the professionalism of the Iraqi police.

Emphasis mine. Maliki’s actions against the Mahdi Militia in the last two months as fixed one of the two remaining benchmarks, so we are down to only 2. And I would say Malikis efforts in the last few months took on a lot of the issues with the Police. And I recall the oil distribution plan has been developed, probably only needs to be voted on. Clearly we are within reach of all of these.

Let’s recap some history here, while we enjoy the crow the Liberal Surrendercrats are chewing on at the moment. In June of last year, when the Surge was just beginning and the Democrats had finally realized they could not surrender Iraq to al-Qaeda, the all-seeing, the all-knowing, the Svengali-like leader of the Surrendercrats in the Senate, Harry Reid had this to say:

“As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results,” the two leaders wrote.

“The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

“It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

“In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.

Boy, you don’t screw up more than that. If he was a surgeon he would be sued for malpractice. Heck, if he was a car mechanic who diagnosed our engine problems this badly he would be sued for malpractice. When, in the fall of 2007 it became clear violence levels were dropping, the Surrendercrats sung a new tune (whilst they attempted character assassination on General David “Betray Us” Petraeus). Then it was benchmarks. As late as February of 2008 the Surrendercrats were still claiming the Surge was a failure because of the lack of political progress given the progress in security. Here is the all-seeing, the all-knowing, the Svengali-like leader of the Surrendercrats in the House, Nancy Pelosi, this last February:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.”

“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”

The speaker hastened to add: “The troops have succeeded, God bless them.”

What has happened since? Well, Prime Minister Maliki took the lead in facing down and dismantling the Mahdi Militia in Basra, Sadr City and Amarah using Iraqi forces in the lead, and he also spear headed the purge of Mosul of the last remnants of al-Qaeda. With the Iraqis taking the lead role in security, and addressing all security issues be they al-Qaeda/Sunni or Shiite or Kurdish, he has built the trust of the various factions.

The Surrendercrats needed defeat. They predicted defeat. They even tried some 40+ congressional votes to mandate defeat in Iraq by pulling the funds on our efforts and sacrifices. Since they have no clue how to win wars they tried what they knew how to do from Vietnam – to lose the Iraq war. But this crop (or should that vowel be an ‘a’?) of Liberal Surrendercrats are so incompetent they couldn’t even pull off another Vietnam. These Neville Chamberlain wannabes couldn’t even paralyze the Europeans from supporting our efforts.

And now Victory in Iraq is close at hand! And the credibility of the Liberal Surrendercrats has been totally destroyed. We now simply pity them and their foolish dreams of defeat for America.

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “Victory In Iraq Is Close At Hand!”

  1. kathie says:

    I love this picture. It tells me everything I need to know about this country!

  2. conman says:


    I love how you wholeheartedly accept the State Department report citing progress and completely overlook the Government Accountability Officer report issued last week that cited little improvement in the political and economic spheres. Everyone agrees that the security situation has vastly improved, but there is hardly agreement that the political and economic situation has improved much. Everyone also agrees that the long-term stability of Iraq and our ability to get out of there sometime in the next 100 years requires political and economic improvements. Bush said that was the whole purpose of the surge to begin with. Our military leaders sure aren’t claiming victory. Our current troop levels are still higher than pre-surge levels, our military is still way over-stretched and our troops are still being killed. How can you claim victory?

    Let me tell you how the majority of Americans define victory. Victory will occur when we can remove the majority of our troops and Iraq will be stable and continue to function. Until that happens, your claims of victory are hollow.

    Even with that being said, let’s assume that Iraq does eventually turn out that way. How can you still claim that Iraq is one of Bush’s successes? It is universally accepted that Saddam’s WMDs and terrorist links were non-existent (or best case scenerio – far less extensive and dangerous than assumed) and therefore the reason we went to war was bogus, the initial post-occupation plan was a disaster, it took Bush 2.5 years to take corrective action despite undisputable signs that our initial strategy was a failure, we lost over 4,000 Americans (and counting) and it will end up costing us 3+ trillion dollars at a time when our economy is faultering. On top of all that, we strengthened Iran by turning Iraq from an enemy Sunni state to a Shite state run by a bunch of former exiles from Iran.

  3. Terrye says:


    You know how people on the eft said that the administration refused to accept the fact that there were real problems in Iraq? People like you are refusing to accept the fact that there is real progress. That is because you want to see the US fail. You think it will help your guy win the election. Screw the Iraqis. You could care less.

    15 out of 18 benchmarks met. And while the oil law has not been codified, the resources are being shared. That is real progress. Violence is down by almost 90%. The ecomony is growing by double digits. The oil industry is coming back and is getting some real investment after decades of neglect. The sad thing is Saddam could kill a million Iraqis and the left would look the other way. This new government on the other hand will never be good enough for them.

  4. Terrye says:

    And it is not universally accepted that wmd and terrorist links were non existent. Saddam harbored and trained and gave money to terrorists. No sane person disputes that. The question is whether he personally planned attacks with AlQaida. By the same token there is no doubt at all that Saddam had hidden weapons programs. As for the stockpiles that the UN and Saddam himself said were there at one time, no one knows where they are.

    But with the left it is all or nothing. If Saddam was not in bed with Osama, then he was pure as the driven snow. If we did not find the stockpiles then Saddam was innocent and was only keeping those weapons programs around for sentimental reasons.

    nuance. you need to exercise some of that famous nuance.

  5. Terrye says:

    And if we had not gone into Iraq when we did and Saddam had rebuilt those weapons programs and started yet another war, we could have lost a lot more people. The idea that Saddam was going to change is childish and silly.

  6. conman says:


    I did acknowledge that there has been real progress in Iraq. What part of my statement that “Everyone agrees that the security situation has vastly improved” did you not understand? I’m taking issue with the US Embassy report’s conclusion that there has been significant improvements on the political and economic fronts. Read the quote AJ provided above more carefully – it says that the US Embassy report “contrasts sharply with other recent assessments that Iraq has failed to achieve many of the goals that the Baghdad government and President Bush said would be reached by the end of 2007,” including “the Government Accountability Office, released last week, cited little improvement in the political and economic spheres and noted continuing military problems despite a significant decline in overall violence.” All of the other recent government reports on this issue disagree with the US Embassy report.

    Why do you always assume that someone who disagrees with the White House’s claims of progress in Iraq wants to see the US fail? I and others heard the same response on blogs and in conversations about the White House’s claim of progress in Iraq in 2004, 2005, 2006 – there is no dispute that those who questioned Bush’s claims that everything was going great then were right, not anti-american. The majority of Americans are still skeptical today about Iraq and want to withdraw our troops – read the polls. Do they all want the US to fail?

    Your comment that the left could care less if Saddam killed millions of Iraqis is so comical I don’t know where to start. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in more Iraqis being killed and displaced than anything Saddam ever did. President Reagan gave substanial weapons and money to Saddam in the 1980s so he could fight Iran with full knowledge of how brutal a leader he was (remember the old photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand), so don’t give me this BS about the left not caring about Iraqis.

    As for the evidence of his connection with terrorist, where is all of the evidence other than on conservative blogs? Even the White House backed off the Al Qaeda connection claim. There are many countries out there that have some ties with terrorist groups – do we invade them all? Throughout our history, the US has only gone to war if its security is immediately and seriously threated. Absent strong evidence of a long-term operational relationship with Al Qaeda, there was no justification for invading and occupying Iraq. We have paid a massive price in blood and treasure regardless of how it turns out. Sorry, but I don’t think we should ever go to war based on worst-case scenerio loose connections.

    As for your claim that Saddam would have rebuilt the weapons program, there is no support for your theory. If Saddam had not been able to do so for the 12 years since the first Gulf War, what makes you think that he would have or could have done so. He certainly could not have done it in a matter of months, but Bush told us we had to invade in March of 2003 because Saddam was an immediate threat. Explain that one to me.

    You claim that the invasion was justified because Saddam “could have” started another war or attacks us. Well, Al Qaeda did attack us in 2001. And they are still on the loose with a great new sanctuary in Pakistan. Our own government is now finally admitting that the Iraq war distracted us from Afghanistan and our efforts to get Al Qaeda leadership. Sorry, I’m more worried about enemies that actually attacked us, not ones that might have or could have.

    As for your claim that the new Iraqi government is never good enough for the left, I suggest you read up on the Iraqi leadership. Virtually all of them are former exiles from Iran or Syria with close ties to the Iranians. Why does that not concern you? Why shouldn’t Americans demand more from a group that benefitted hugely from the sacrifices of American soldiers and taxpayers? Why are you so critical of Congress’ inability to get things done but you will look the other way when the Iraqi parliment can’t do what it needs to do in order to ensure its own long-term security and welfare?

    I think you are the one that is viewing Iraq through a partisan lens. You refuse to look at the situation critically because you want to be able to say that “surrendercrats were wrong” and Bush/McCain were right.

  7. piniella says:

    People like you are refusing to accept the fact that there is real progress. That is because you want to see the US fail.

    No, it’s because we’ve been lied to so often by so many in the criminal Bush regime. Here’s one great example:

    May 30, 2005 “The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the onsurgency.” —Dick Cheney

  8. Frogg says:

    Must be something good going on in Iraq, when even the liberal German magazine, Der Speigel, reports:

    Optimism Grows in Iraq as Daily Life Improves


    …….the number of optimists is growing, and the administration of US President George W. Bush no longer has a monopoly on confidence. After years of resistance, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have now announced that they will be sending ambassadors to Baghdad. Thanks to the high oil price, the economy in Iraq, which produces 2.5 million barrels a day, is also improving. The government has now been able to give its civil servants a generous pay increase, and it also expects to cut the price of gasoline, currently at €0.60 a liter ($3.52 a gallon), in half. Fittingly enough, German automotive giant Daimler plans to open an office in Baghdad and build trucks there in the future — 18 years after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of neighboring Kuwait.

    King Abdullah II of Jordan, who was opposed to the US invasion and then voiced his fears of a “Shiite Crescent” developing in Iraq, recently said something astonishing in an interview with the US magazine Newsweek: “I am actually optimistic for the first time on Iraq. It’s the first time that I have felt that Iraqis have, as much as they can, bound themselves together into a unity.”

  9. Frogg says:

    The best evidence of political progress in Iraq


    The best evidence of the extent to which political progress has been made in Iraq is found in another story that also appears on page 8 of the Post — the fact that Iraq’s main Sunni Muslim political bloc is on the verge of rejoining the Shiite-led government after a boycott of almost a year. If this bloc, known as the Tawafaq Front, does join the government, that itself will represent progress. Perhaps more importantly, the bloc would not be ending its boycott in the absence of major progress.

    The bloc withdrew from the Iraqi government last August over demands for constitutional change and the release of Sunni detainees from Iraq’s prisons. Now, according to the Post, its leaders say the government has done enough to satisfy their core conditions. In particular, they cite the passing of the amnesty law and the government’s efforts to crack down on Shiite militias.

    A spokesperson for the Sunni bloc said: “We feel that a great deal of [the conditions] have been fulfilled.” Considering the stakes for Iraq’s leading Sunnis and their close proximity to the situation on the ground, this assessment seems persuasive, and far more probative than any assessment by the GAO.


  10. Frogg says:

    This is pretty cool, also!


    Iraqi Shi’ites to Iran: Stop interfering

    The signatures of more than two million Iraqi Shi’ites, demanding that Iran cease its interference in Iraq, were presented on Saturday during a convention in Ashraf, northeast of Baghdad, the London-based daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat reported.


    And, this……

    Awesome: Iraqi Shiite TV network runs PSA blaming Iran for violence


    As intriguing as the clip itself is who’s airing it: Al-Furat, which belongs to ISCI, a.k.a. SCIRI, the Sadrists’ rivals for Shiite supremacy and formerly Iran’s proxy of choice inside Iraq. They’ve drifted away from Tehran and towards the U.S. over the past year, but until seeing this I assumed they had good relations with both sides. Now I don’t know what to think. It could be, I guess, that they’re simply miffed at Iran for favoring Sadr and are out for revenge, but even if that’s all there is to it, there must be some potent anti-Iranian sentiment circulating among Iraqi Shiites these days to make a spot like this worth running.


  11. Frogg says:

    Why We Went to War in Iraq

    July 3, 2008; Page A11

    A lot of poor commentary has framed the Iraq war as a conflict of “choice” rather than of “necessity.” In fact, President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary.

    President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. In the first months of the Bush presidency, officials debated what to do next.

    As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq, it was clear to me at the time that, had there been a realistic alternative to war to counter the threat from Saddam, Mr. Bush would have chosen it