More Success for President Bush’s Iraq Policy
May 13th, 2008 at 05:10am Mark Noonan
It just keeps rolling in, to the dismay of leftists who presumed that they’d be able to run on defeat in Iraq:
FORWARD OPERATING BASE DELTA — Iraqi Police in Wasit Province have made significant capacity gains in recent months to improve security for the citizens of Iraq.
Their planning ability has greatly improved and their effectiveness increases daily, said Col. Peter Baker, commander of the 214th Fires Brigade.
Much of the improvement is due to the actions of Maj. Gen. Hannin al-Ameer, the provincial director of police, appointed in September.
“He is very competent,” Baker said. “He has taken a large force and made immediate and long-term improvements – not an easy task for a unit of that size.”
One significant turning point for the force happened during the late-March Shia uprising: the firing of 134 Iraqi Policemen – both troopers and officers – from IP Emergency Response Unit 4, said 1st Lt. Lynette Jefferson, a platoon leader for the 511th Military Police Company, attached to the 214th FB, of Fort Drum, N.Y., the unit responsible for training Iraqi Policemen.
“It was due to a variety of circumstances,” she said. “Some had militia ties, some weren’t coming to work and some just weren’t doing their jobs.”
“The flare-up in early March was an opportunity for [Hannin] to assess the quality of his forces,” Baker said. “It had a huge positive effect on the force.” The leadership of the unit was changed as well, not because of corruption, but to improve the unit, Jefferson said.
“The current leadership is more disciplined and training-focused,” she said. “They’re taking their jobs more seriously.”
The other thing the left wants to run on is high gas prices - in that, we’re just waiting for the inevitible collapse in oil futures, but that might not happen until after the election. Sad for the left, that their hopes for victory have always been pinned on hopes for American defeat. Too bad for the left - they bet against our military, and against our people and their ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Guess we now know why they want a nation of government-dependent parasites….easier to control.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, President Bush, Republicans, War on Terror
26 Comments
1. extramedium | May 13th, 2008 at 6:13 am
You are mistaking the success of the American military and the various Iraqi forces for the success of Bush administration Iraq policy. That policy will always be flawed, if not an outright failure, regardless of how many times you try to declare victory. The outcome is irrelevant.
Thank you for spreading the good news on the success of our military. They’ve made us proud, as always.
2. Iraq » More Success&hellip | May 13th, 2008 at 7:19 am
[…] Mark Noonan wrote an interesting post today on More Success for President Bushâs Iraq PolicyHere’s a quick excerptIt just keeps rolling in, to the dismay of leftists who presumed that they’d be able to run on defeat in Iraq:. FORWARD OPERATING BASE DELTA — Iraqi Police in Wasit Province have made significant capacity gains in recent months to … […]
3. William Teach | May 13th, 2008 at 9:11 am
So, let me get this straight, extramdium: when something goes right, it is Bush’s fault. When something is going well, Bush gets no credit?
You know there are therapy outlets for that BDS, right?
4. Bigfoot | May 13th, 2008 at 9:19 am
when something goes right, it is Bush’s fault.
WT, I think you mean when something goes wrong, it’s Bush’s fault.
Meanwhile, here’s what’s going on in Basra. That was a disastrous failure for Bush, too, you know [sarc].
5. Zach | May 13th, 2008 at 9:44 am
“The outcome is irrelevant.”
Wow. Maybe you should proof-read before you post here.
6. extramedium | May 13th, 2008 at 9:48 am
No, William. When the military does something right, the military gets the credit. When the Military does something wrong, they take the criticism. Almost all of the time, the military does it right.
But here’s the key - whether the military does it right or does it wrong, it has absolutely nothing to do with the the correctness of the administration’s policy. The military doesn’t set foreign policy or order invasions of foreign states. Along the same lines, the success of our military won’t redeem a bad policy.
Partisan smear merchants will continue to try to equate criticism of Bush’s Iraq policy as criticism of the military, but nobody is buying it anymore. People are smart enough to know from that they can praise the military and criticize the original policy in the same breath, without any contradiction.
7. Danish Artist | May 13th, 2008 at 10:19 am
wow, extra, I see you have no clue about the chain of command.
Concerning Iraq, Bush establishes the policy and the military executes it. The military follows the orders of the commander in chief, that is the chain of command. No one liberal was worried about the so-called “disconnect” in Bosnia. They heaped praise and credit to then commander in chief.
Wow, I can see the disconnect!
Uh, the disconnect is between the 3rd and 4th vertebra in your neck.
8. extramedium | May 13th, 2008 at 10:26 am
“Concerning Iraq, Bush establishes the policy and the military executes it”
That’s just what I said. What’s unclear to you here?
Were those liberals praising the policy, the military’s performance, or both in Bosnia?
9. Danish Artist | May 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am
extra, you cannot disconnect policy with the execution of that policy.
“correctness” of policy is a matter of opinion, while success can be quantified, opinions cannot.
nice try.
“Partisan smear merchants will continue to try to equate criticism of Bush’s Iraq policy as criticism of the military, but nobody is buying it anymore.”
Oh, you mean about the policy criticisms of Murtha, Kerry, Reid, etc. etc. etc. Kerry and Murtha equates the soliers to those in Vietnam based on the similar policy they claim that Bush had imposed.
Again, nice try.
10. extramedium | May 13th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Danish Artist - neither of your examples makes any sense.
You can of course disconnect policy with the execution of that policy. A bad policy can be extremely well executed and vice versa. It has nothing to do with fact or opinion. Did you ever disagree with a military policy and if so, was it a bad policy because the military performed poorly.
Regarding questioning or criticism of particular troop incidents such as Abu Ghraib or Haditha, that’s fair game. The military isn’t perfect. Just because some of those leveling the criticism might also be critical of the policy does not mean they can’t be considered separately.
11. js | May 13th, 2008 at 11:21 am
its kinda like blaming bush for 9-11…like so many lib’s do….but the truth is…9-11 would have happened no matter who was president…it was caused by the previous policies of clintons administration…so is iraq…because billy let saddam wrangle with the UN for his entire administration and would not end it…leaving the US Military involved in a hostile environment instead of finishing up the Gulf war and getting our boys back home….
the policy to topple Saddams regime was not a bad policy…it was endorsed by a massive majority of congress….they tried to say the bush admin lied to them, but that was just rumor…no lies were ever proven…and bush has been cleared by the 9-11 commission…so to claim it solely as bush policy is hogwash…and to insinuate that anyone could have anticipated the amount of aid iran is putting through to the iraq insurgency is nothing more than hot air…our troops are doing great…our president has the balls to step up to the plate and do his job…and the backbitters and the gissip mongoring rumor spreading leaches will always try to manipulate the truth into something it is not….which is what is going on here…a leach is playing petty games with the truth….just the way it is…..
12. Danish Artist | May 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“Regarding questioning or criticism of particular troop incidents such as Abu Ghraib or Haditha, that’s fair game.”
RIGHT!!!! Actions of soldiers are blamed on policy! According to you libs, it was bad policy that caused Haditha and Abu Ghraib, result blame Bush, blame policy and then the soldiers. You libs did not disconnect the two.
The soldiers achieve success through implementation of a change in policy and liberals change their tune to credit soldiers only, and not policy.
“I can support the troops and not the war (policy)”. The soldiers implement the policy. Success can be quantified (measured for you slow-witted individuals) and “correctness” of that policy is not. “Is that policy correct”, is solely based on opinion and nothing measurable.
As I said, the disconnect is between your 3rd and 4th vertebra.
Nice try again.
13. NeoClown | May 13th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I tried a heaping bowl full of Iraq this morning.
It was delicious.
Does it come with chocolate chips?
14. extramedium | May 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Danish Artist - you can begin to call other people slow witted when you learn how to make arguments which make sense. I hear nonsense and childish name calling. Debating with you is a waste of time.
15. majoriot | May 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Sad for the Right.
5 years in, and this is your success story?
16. OhioOrrin | May 13th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
also success for W’s N Korean policy -
“The United States has said documents it has received from North Korea are an “important first step” towards full disclosure of the country’s nuclear activities.
A US envoy arrived in South Korea on Saturday with seven cardboard boxes containing 18,000 pages of information on a weapons-grade plutonium programme dating back to 1986.”
then this good news -
“Since November, US experts have been on the ground at Yongbyon overseeing disablement of the reactor.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A569CC09-A77B-427A-8C65-96D2EC92DA4E.htm
17. Danish Artist | May 13th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
extra,
when you start comparing apples to apples then we can have a debate.
If it does not make sense to you then you are in over your head. You are trying to gauge success on “policy correctness”, which is a matter of opinion and not any quantifiable measurement.
To you bad (which is a matter of opinion) policy can be successfully implemented. The success is based on a plan (measured quantity), based on policy. You cannot disconnect the two. Policy is the ultimate goal and if that goal is achieved it is successful.
Obviously, you are in over your head, and no matter how many times you say, otherwise.
18. Just Another Taxpayer | May 13th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Mr. Noonan,
1 Petroleum prices just hit $126.98 on reports that Iran would unilateraly cut production to keep prices up. They can do it. They can do more, if Iran acts in concert with Venezuela, and there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t, given their shared animosity toward us,
2 Under that circumstance, it wouldn’t matter what we drilled, as long as Asia will buy whatever the Petroleum producers have to offer.
3Here’s the subtlety you have to contend with:Asia buys oil mostly for industrial use, to drive their factories. It’s an investment used to add value to other products. It’s used to make money. Here, oil, except for energy generation, is is used mostly as a consumer product in our cars and homes. It’s not an investment that adds value to anything.
4Given our petroleum dependent consumer economy, I believe the Iranian/ Venezuelan oil axis, can make the price per barrel such that the US economy will remain in recession for some time(Yes recession!! When the worlds wealthiest investor says we are, I take his word. When nearly all of us have lost equity to the tune of 100k, and the banks according to Moodys, own more than 50% of our homes for the first time since since 1945, that’s a recession.)while Asia and Europe go on without us. Maybe not performing as well, but not nearly as bad off as we are.
5 Indeed, OPEC nations may use Iran and Venezuela the way China uses North Korea. They could stamp them out of existence tommorow. But then you wouldn’t have that convenient distraction which keeps us borrowing money from the Chinese for the military might we won’t pay for our selves. The Chinese get their money, the Kim gets to starve millions of his people while selling his bomb making technologies to the highest bidder, and Bush gets to make speeches from aircraft carriers.
6The other OPEC nations may secretly be gleefully wringing their hands together at the prospect of higher prices without having to take responsibility for them while watching Bush beg them for what he can’t even ask from the Iraqis.
7The problem here is NOT!!!!! military, or even political. It’s ECONOMIC!!!! and we are not prepared for this competition at all. You can’t bomb anybody for our failure to prepare for a post petroleum world, where a diversity of energy sources are routinely relied upon rather than a single source.
8With Iraq making money hand over fist on a lower petroleum production than in the days of Saddam, it is unconsionable for President Bush to beg the Saudis for increased oil production while acting as if Iraq can’t help us at all, after the hundreds of billions we’ve spent, and the thousands of lives that have been sacrificed for their sake with no end in sight.
9This is why Iraq is a failure in the eyes of the American people. Whether or not you believe me is of little concern to my neighbor across the street who has trouble selling his house. As far as I know he’s still in the service.
10He doesnt need praise for his service to his country. He needs to keep his home. How is our staying in iraq going to help him do that?
I’m sure he’s eagerly awaiting your answer.
19. FmrMarine | May 13th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
jat
>>>This is why Iraq is a failure in the eyes of the American people. Whether or not you believe me is of little concern to my neighbor across the street who has trouble selling his house.<<<
What a pantload of CRAP!
so it is Bushes fault your neighbor cant sell his house?
BWWWWAAAA HA HA HA
1. OPEC has NOT raised production since 1978 but the world demand has more that tripled.
2. The CHINESE are drilling in the gulf
3. Congress will not allow us to drill in…Anwar, the continental shelf, large portions of the gulf.
4. NO new refineries in 35 years.
5. NO new or future nuclear power plants.
Idiots buying SUB PRIME mtgs.
ATTENTION ATTENTION……….
Solar flares reported linked to BUSH…GOD reported to be angry!!
20. neocon | May 13th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Just Another lemming,
I’ll bet your fun to party with. You didn’t even mention our two largest oil providers in Canada and Mexico. What will they do to us that’s got you scared?
Had we drilled in ANWR 12 years ago, when we were discussing this same issue, we’d have that oil by now and wouldn’t be in such a qaundry.
China is using that petroleum to fuel their factories and accelerate global warming. What enforceable restrictions would you like to impose upon China for that egregious violation?
Familiarize yourself with the leading economic indicators, the aggregate percentage of mortgages in default and the government taxation on oil.
21. js | May 13th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
it would be wild to see what happens in there were a total ban on oil from venezuela in the usa…not many refineries are able to refine it….except those in the citgo US chain…and the whole iran deal…if they want to take economic steps against us…..as an overt act to damage our economy…it is an act of war…we should blockade thier sea ports and bomb thier pipelines….see how much influence they have then….
see…in the long run…it doesnt change anything…if we dont…the price of oil goes up….if we do…the price of oil goes up…the difference is if we just stand there and take the beating…or if we fight back….
just how far can this tree bend….
22. Just Another Taxpayer | May 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Fmr Marine,
Why should OPEC increase production? What obligation do they have to us, or lever do we have to work on them?
There job is to make money, not make life easy for you. Just as it is the oil companies job to make money for themselves. US oil production prices will follow the world market. As Asias apettite increases, prices will go up. That’s it.
The Chinese are drilling in the gulf?
What Gulf?
Refinery capacity here is running in the mid 80’s right now. We don’t need another refinery.
There’s no shortage. Part of the problem is the weaker dollar. Europes prime rate is 4%, the dollar sits at 2. When they talk about the dollar rallying when oil comes down from its record
126.98 to 125 per barrel, that’s nothing to cheer about.
Nuclear power plants are expensive, and, you may be willing to accept having one in your back yard, but most people aren’t willing to accept the loss in property values the presence of any large generation plant brings. Then there’s the problem of where to store spent fuel.
And it’s not just the idiots buying subprime mortgages. They only cause problems for themselves. It’s the idiots SELLING! them. The idiots who are supposed to know who is and is not good risk for a particular kind of loan.
Idiocy is a no doc, nothing down, ARM, which were granted quite frequently at the direction of
Angelo Mozilo, founder and former CEO of Countrywide Financial. These people are Bush allies as Mozilo demonstrated when questioned about his 103 million dollar salary in 2006.”This is a conspiracy in which boards are under enormous pressure from the left wing anti buisiness press and the envious leaders of Unions.”
But don’t worry, after Countrywide lost 19.7 billion dollars in market value, Mozilo left with a few million more in change.
As far as Iraq goes, if he is left begging the Saudis because he can demand nothing fom the Iraqis, then his policy in Iraq is failure.
Stock market’ll break 13,000 todayon news that inflation was only at 2%, less than anticipated. Isn’t that wonderful. Whatever you lose in equity, you can make up on the market.
Although gas at a record 3.75, and many places near or at 4.00, and another forclosure record set in April, it might bring the market back a little closer to reality.
Have a nice day!!
23. Just Another Taxpayer | May 14th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Neocon,
I’m glad we’re friends with our NAFTA partners, and if they were our sole oil suppliers,
we’d still be paying the going market rate for oil.
If we drilled ANWAR, we’d be paying the going market rate. The people who supply it have an obligation to themselves first, whether they’re US companies, or foreign countries. Expanding production in the face of increasing industrial demand on top of increasing consumer demand in Asia is impossible without the price going up. Especially, oil purchased with a weak dollar whose prime rate is half that of the Euro.
I said nothing about Global Warming(Although McCain has much to the consternation of the Evengelical Petroleants.)
in my post. However, there is an opportunity here to regain our industrial might.
Become a producer of alternative enrgy systems, not to supplant oil, but to be used with it, as a market tool to keep down the cost of energy,(Rather than the cost of oil.) and the pollutants that go with it. The world will not stand still while you whine about the cost of oil. But and Venezua will continue to benefit from our continued dependence on it.
As far as leading indicators go, I think said it best at a press conference when he said, trying to avoid the R word, that it doesn’t matter what you call it people are hurting.
Agreed
As far as partying goes, I was a member of a team of dancers performing air guitar to classic heavy metal. We put on 5 shows Friday thruough Sunday in a local theatre. Packed houses all of them. Ten thousand saw us rock out.
It was great.
Party on dude.
24. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
19. FmrMarine | May 13th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
By the by that thing you beat on in front of you that is connected to the WWW is called a computer and you can use it to get accurate information called facts . . .
1) The very next year, 1979, OPEC which produces only 40% of Terra’s petroleum did indeed raise production from 29MM bbl to 30MM bbl.
2) And so do many other nations that are invited by nation who have proven offshore reserves.
3) ANWR wouldn’t help the global demand is too great for that bit to decrease Chinese and Indian petro-hunger. An for the record you had the Congress and the President locked in for six years why not pass the bill opening up ANWR then?
4) I would take that up with the oil companies who know that Congress will not pick up half the cost. Do you have any idea what new refineries cost?
5) I take you back to the Bush+Congress=ALL GOP scenario from 2001 to 2007. They could have fixed this too.
25. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 14th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
20. neocon | May 13th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Good to see you my old and dear friend.
Drilling in ANWR would add 1.4 MM bbl per day to the 21.5 MM required by the United States to survive. This would effectively cut the price of crude from 126/bbl to 119 and petrol from $3,72/gallon to 3,53. And that’s if demand remained static in perpetuo. And as far as China and Global Warming [A thing I think has more to do with Terra’s own cycles than anything humans could do to her] nothing until the US signs Kyoto which is as likely to happen as joining the ICC treaty. So you are stuck mate between debt to a Chinese economy growing at a double digit pace and the lights going out when OPEC swaps to the €. The again you might start to realize that your lifestyles cannot be extended as far into the future as you imagine.
26. Just Another Taxpayer | May 15th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Fmr Marine,
You still haven’t answered my question:What obligation do OPEC nations have to us and what lever do have to work on them?
Bush has quietly floated the idea of canceling weapons shipments to the Saudis if they don’t put pressure on OPEC to increase production. That’s it. That’s all Bush has. The Saudis can buy their weapons from the Russians, or the Chinese who’ll be glad to do buisiness with them.
Demand hasn’t diminished at current prices so why should the Saudis or anyother OPEC nation, or US oil company start charging less for oil than the market can bear.
WHY?
The solution here is not to try bringing down the price of oil. There simply isn’t enough to meet the demands of China and India, Europe and the US at $90 a barrel.
The solution is to bring down the price of energy by diversifying our enrgy sources. Significantly expanding nuclear power isn’t an option in this context.
The costs are prohibitive even for a reactor site in the remotest of locations, and we have no way to store spent fuel. We get half our fuel for existing reactors from the Russians old nukes, and though new Uranium claims are popping up all over the Southwest, how worthwhile many of these claims turn out remains to be seen.
But there are plenty of other promising alternatives, which the Chinese, and Indians, who are far more environmentally conscious than their industrial might would indicate, would like to get a hold of. They know they’re literally choking on fumes from fossil fuels in their great cities. However, instead of using our good old American know how to find ways to bring these alternatives into production to make ourselves filthy rich, re-establish real economic world leadership, you posess an irrational attachment to a petroleum dependent world.
Why? Which brings us to the next question you haven’t answered: If a Petroleum dependent world is that important to you, and Bush policy has been a regular Marshall Plan for Iraq, why can’t he demand the Iraqis pay more of a share for the work I’m paying for with my tax dollars, and some of my countrymen are paying for with their lives?