The Iraq Situation and the Test of Leadership
June 26th, 2008 at 09:48am Mark Noonan
We need a President we can rely on to figure out what needs to be done, and then have the courage to stick with it, even if it proves unpopular at times. The situation in Iraq is giving us our strongest test of this for Obama and McCain:
The number of weekly attacks in Iraq has dropped from about 1,200 a week in June 2007 to about 200 a week now, the commander of the tactical unit responsible for command and control of operations in Iraq said June 23.
Mirroring this reduction in violence has been a 70 percent decrease in roadside-bomb attacks and an 85 percent spike in the number of weapons caches Coalition forces have found over the past year, Army Lt. Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of Multi-National Corps - Iraq, told reporters via satellite from Baghdad at a Pentagon news conference.
“I attribute most of these hard-fought gains in security to a few key factors: our Coalition forces aggressively pursuing the enemy, the improving capability of the Iraqi Security Forces, and the Iraqi people participating in the rebuilding process of Iraq,” he said.
But the general tempered his optimism, characterizing security improvements as fragile gains that coalition troops are attempting to solidify as they build the capabilities of their Iraqi counterparts.
“While the improved security is a great achievement, we clearly understand that our progress is fragile, and we continue to work to make this progress irreversible,” he said.
The general praised coalition troops for having al-Qaida “on its heels,” yet he identified the organization as the “primary threat” remaining in Iraq. The terrorist group yesterday launched an attack in Baqouba that killed at least 15 people, including several police officers, and wounded dozens of others.
“Even though we assess that they are on the run, they are still capable of launching spectacular attacks,” Austin said, noting yesterday’s bombing in the Diyala province city. “As a result, our operations in the north are focused on defeating their capability to perform these attacks.”
It must be emphasised again and again just what Obama said on the floor of the United States Senate on January 30, 2007:
The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. And the need to bring this war to an end is here.
That is why today, I’m introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007.
This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 - consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq study group that the President has so assiduously ignored.(emphasis added)
If Obama and his Democrats had been able to implement their defeatist plan, then the last US soldier would have left Iraq about 7 weeks ago…and all of the success of the surge would not have happened. In other words, if Obama had got his wish, al-Qaeda in Iraq would not be on the run but would, instead, have patiently waited for us to leave and then struck out from its safe havens in Anbar province, Basra and Sadr City to take over Iraq entirely. Instead of American victory and surging Iraqi liberty, we’d have a new Afghanistan on steriods.
And now lets contrast Obama with McCain’s statement from January 12, 2007:
We should make no mistake - the potentially catastrophic consequences of failure demand that we do all we can to prevail in Iraq. A substantial and sustained increase in U.S. forces in Baghdad and Anbar province is necessary to bring down the toxic levels of violence there.
There is much agreement that the dire situation in Iraq demands a political solution. That is true. But we must also realize what it will take to enable any political solution. It is simply impossible for meaningful political and economic activity to take place in an environment as riddled with violence as Baghdad is today. Security is the precondition for political and economic progress.
Until the government and its coalition allies can protect the population, the Iraqi people will increasingly turn to extra-governmental forces, especially Sunni and Shiite militias, for protection. Only when the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force will its authority have meaning, and only when its authority has meaning can political activity have the results we seek.
The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own - impose its rule throughout the country. They can do this by engaging in traditional counterinsurgency activities aimed at protecting the population and breaking the cycle of violence. In bringing greater security to Iraq, and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces would give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation.
McCain was 100% right, Obama was 100% wrong - its not that they had a slight difference of opinion here, good people. Obama wanted us out as quickly as possible, McCain wanted us to stay as long as necessary for us to prevail. Obama’s plan would have ensured our defeat in Iraq and risked a longer, bloodier war in the future; because McCain’s plan prevailed we’ve now got victory in Iraq and a real chance to completely change the socio-political dynamic in the Middle East. Who do you want as President in January - the man who was completely wrong, or the man who was completely right?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Kook Left, Republicans, War on Terror
28 Comments
1. Magnum Serpentine | June 26th, 2008 at 10:18 am
We need a president who will do the will of the people and get our troops out of Iraq now. Team McBush and the republics follow that old standby which is the same old, same old and wants to have a 100 year war.
Lets get our troops out and listen to the will of the citizens.
2. Zach | June 26th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Exactly what do You know about the situation on Iraq Magnum?
Are you a military officer? Do you have any sort of first-hand experience as to what is really going on in Iraq?
You dont and neither do I.
I rely on the consensus of the commanders on the ground actually doing the fighting and planning of this war. I rely on our leaders to do that.
You may have a point with “the will of the people” and all that. In most cases I would agree with this arguement. But not when it comes to issues of war and/or national secuity.
I dont know dick about Iraq except for 2 friends of mine that served mulitple tours between Iraq and Afganistan, and 1 family member that served mulitple tours in Afganistan. Even there personal experinces can’t give me the complete look at the war fronts in either of those two countries.
3. neocon | June 26th, 2008 at 10:40 am
The following is another international problem the Democrats were wrong about.
We just can’t afford to have leaders in Washington that listen to people like of Magnum. He, and people of his ilk are the ones responsible for blood and chaos around the globe because of their inability to acknowledge, and their reluctance to confront evil.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Thursday he will lift key trade sanctions against North Korea and remove it from the U.S. terrorism blacklist, a remarkable turnaround in policy toward the communist regime he once branded as part of an “axis of evil.”
4. Bigfoot | June 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Team McBush and the republics follow that old standby which is the same old, same old and wants to have a 100 year war.
Speaking of “same old, same old”, this is the same old tired distortion from the left, that McCain wants a 100 year war, when he merely says that we could have a 100 year presence in Iraq, along the same lines as we have in Germany, Japan, etc., as long as our troops are NOT in danger. Come to think of it, that term “McBush” is also getting old.
And the need to bring this war to an end is here.
Obama seems to think that removing US troops means that the war comes to an end. If so, he is horridly ignorant of history. US troops were removed from Vietnam in 1973, due to the ceasefire agreed to in Paris. But the war in Vietnam did not end with the withdrawal of American troops. Instead, the ceasefire broke down, and after Congress voted and end to aid to South Vietnam, the North re-invaded and finally did end the war - on their terms. More recently, American troops were pulled out of Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Neither place saw an end to war and violence after these withdrawals. Both have been crawling with terrorists and rife with violence ever since.
Instead of a unilateral withdrawal, let’s continue the progress we’ve made, hand over the security of the remaining provinces to Iraqi government forces, and then bring our troops home - as winners.
5. Retired Spook | June 26th, 2008 at 10:53 am
MS, I may be wrong on this because I haven’t read it in a while, but I don’t believe the Presidential oath of office contains the words “I pledge to do the will of the people.” You may want to check that out.
6. dickvee | June 26th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Good posts. Major slapdowns of the snake’s pacifist rantings. Now he can go and play with the pink undie ladies and bemoan the fact he can’t have an abortion. Pathetic libs.
7. CanadianObserver | June 26th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Are you waiting for a 100% reduction in violence before you pack up your bags and head for home?
If not, what will it take for U.S. occupation forces to call it a victory and leave, or is this another one of those permanent arrangements that y’all love to embrace.
8. Danish Artist | June 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Magnum Stupidity,
We are not governed by a pure Democracy. The founding fathers never set up a Democracy. There is no reference to Democracy in the US or States’ Constitutions.
We are governed by a Republic. Get over it.
The will of the people is determined at election time and not at every piece of legislation that is created. The will of the people play some role but is not absolute.
No go read the Constitution again. Read the differences between Democracy and Republic.
STOP LISTENING TO YOUR HANDLERS AND LIBERAL TALKING POINTS.
We are tired of your same old same old.
How’s that proof coming that several members have asked for on several subjects?
9. CanadianObserver | June 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
8. Danish Artist | June 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Great, then perhaps you can listen to your founding fathers, stay a republic, and stop trying to force ‘democracy’ on others.
Oh yeah, perhaps you could also refrain from calling your country the greatest ‘democratic’ nation the world has ever seen.
10. bull | June 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
the president can only do what the congress allows him to.
so if it truly is “the will of the people” than why haven’t the dems, who are in charge now, able to do “the will of the people”. my guess is that they know the importance remaining in iraq, but can say the difference to get votes.
so you libs get bashed in the head again by your precious representatives, yet continue to vote for them. sounds like you’re all in a very abusive relationship. or, just incredibly stupid.
11. Zooey | June 26th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
The will of the people be damned! The Preznit has stated over and over, we’re in a war on Eurasi…er…Terra!
12. LiberalNitemare | June 26th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
MS uses “the will of the people” to prop up his argument and he is wrong.
In this country, there is no better weather vane to indicate the will of the people than the Democratic members of congress.
Those same democratic members of congress have systematically failed to do anything signifigant about our presence in Iraq, with the the single exception of voting to authorize that presence in the first place.
If defeat in Iraq really was the “will of the people” you can bet same that those same democrats would grow the testicles required to stand up and vote, instead of wasting thier time and our money on resolutions and grand standing.
13. The New Conservative | June 26th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
The dems would go back to the policy of running at the first sight of blood. Simliar to Lebanon and Somilla. The very incidents that led to Osama Bin Laden believing that the U.S. was a Paper Tiger. President Bush has proved him wrong, but what about the next four years?
So do you think Bush will get any credit for handling the North Korean Nuclear Crisis diplomaticly. I doubt it.
http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
14. OhioOrrin | June 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
CO - to be precise, we’re “forcing” a Republic on Iraq due to their FEDERAL govt.
and another thing, I’m not sure what “greatest” may mean (same as wealthy, beautiful, etc), but please name another “greatest democracy” the world has ever seen.
15. CanadianObserver | June 26th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
but please name another “greatest democracy” the world has ever seen.
14. OhioOrrin | June 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Don’t know if it was the greatest or not, but my Greek friends are quick to remind me that their homeland in ancient times was no slouch in that area; Athens being the birthplace of democracy and all.
16. dedosinuna | June 26th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“Instead of American victory and surging Iraqi liberty, we’d have a new Afghanistan on steriods.”
So if you’re saying we have “American victory”, then why can’t we come home? At a cost of $12 billion per month of our tax dollars, is it worth continuing this expenditure if we have already achieved victory - especially when we so despereately need this money at home to prop up our own sagging economy, fix our decrepit infrastructure, and spurn on the development new energy technologies?
And with the continued sacrifice of our soldiers (26 of them have been killed this month in Iraq, btw), is it worth having them stay there in harms way if we already have achieved victory? Your only answer to this question always seems to be “well, they volunteered!”.
What is your definition of this “American victory” anyway? Does victory consist of an independent Iraq that can fend for herself? If it does, then I would say that is setting the bar extremely low. You mean to tell me we will have spent $2-3 trillion after this is all done, have lost over 4,000 US troops, and got perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed… all for the goal of merely creating an Iraq that can defend itself? And if we still need to stay in Iraq defending the country in place of Iraqis doing so themselves, then doesn’t that say that we have failed to achieve even this extremely low goal?
If the definition of victory is a lessening of the violence in Iraq, then that has happened already. You seem to be caught up in a Catch-22 here. If the violence decreases, then Americans naturally wonder when we can stop pouring our blood and money into this fiasco and come home. If the violence increases, well so much for “victory”.
It seems that the only thing that matters to you , Mark, is who was “right” about the surge, not who was right about our reckless plunge into war in the first place. That’s like saying you deserves credit for tossing life preservers to the survivors after encouraging the captain of the Titanic to plow full speed ahead into the iceberg.
Bush’s stated goal of the surge was to rather belatedly buy time for political reconciliation among the Iraqis. Well, that reconciliation hasn’t occurred, so how can you say that the surge has led to “victory” if it hasn’t achieved its main stated purpose?
And here’s the larger point that you and Mr McCain utterly fail to grasp: no matter what happens now in Iraq, the venture as a whole was not worth it. That is the clear judgment of the American people. In every single poll taken since the beginning of 2007, a very clear majority have said that the war was not worth fighting. If tomorrow Iraq were to become a bright shining playground, with a model democracy, a fully functioning government, and a contented people who love America, the war will not have been worth it. And in fact Iraq is of course anything but a stable, peaceful, prosperous country… even after 5 years of war, hundreds of billions spent, all those lives lost, opportunity lost, security lost, and American power and respect squandered.
If the American people judge that this war was not worth fighting - no matter what the eventual outcome now - then what right does the President seek and Mr McCain seek to continue this war indefinitely? And if a majority of Iraqis do not want us in Iraq, then why should you ask the American people to continue to shoulder this sacrifice?
Some wars are in fact worth the loss and sacrifice. But not this one.
17. Zooey | June 26th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Hey anybody that can sing “bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran” in the right key has my vote!
Damn the intelligen…no, damn the will of the peop…no…
I have to keep remembering, we are not at war with Iraq. We are staging the battle against terror there.
A war against terror. Iraq just got the short straw.
I’m sure they realize that as they drown in a sea of blood, they’re the chosen to die in the great battle against…
Terror.
Better them then us right?
Poor bastards.
18. JustAnotherTaxpayer | June 26th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Deleted - off topic.
19. FmrMarine | June 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
co;
NOBODY cares a wit what YOU think.
Stay in, and worry about, your french/canadian marxist little piss ant utopia.
It’s like a 3rd grader telling NFL Champions- how to play football….get over your self, you live in our shadow, if you dont like MOVE.
Our MIGHTY military CRUSHED Iraq in a couple of weeks. If let go, there would have been NO “insurgency” we are held back by the cowards formerly known as democRATS!
20. FmrMarine | June 26th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
jat;
>>>The DOWS down 350 to levels not seen since 2006. Everyones panicking,>>>
HMMMMM….do I hear democRAT controlled congress?????
The LOWEST rating EVERRRRRRRR!!!
In a mere 2 years…CRUSHED a roaring economy, collapsed the housing market,
provided inflation for us, unemployment UP.
WOW these “guys”???? ARE GOOD HUH?
21. FmrMarine | June 26th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
oh yeah
OIL UP 225% NIIIICE !
22. ViralNexus | June 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I think Marine may have finally lost it. RIP little buddy. By the way, anybody want to bring up the fact that we have just given out several NO BID contracts to US oil companies for support services in Iraq. Ya, they allow for these companies to help with supply calculations and exploration which isn’t so notorious right? Unless you include the fact that they are given preference in the next contracts which will involve oil extraction and processing. Its a good thing oil was never the objective in the first place. Thank God for that.
23. neocon | June 26th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
The current energy crisis originated in the 70’s and since then neither party has done anything to resolve our dependence on foreign oil. In fact most recently it was the Dem leadership:
“Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices…join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.” – Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, April 19, 2006
Evidently that plan didn’t work.
Hopefully this current debacle is a wake up call to begin domestic exploration and drilling and to seriously begin the transition to more sustainable energy sources.
24. js | June 27th, 2008 at 12:16 am
“Evidently that plan didn’t work. ”
They never disclosed a plan. It was just another lie. Just like the promise they made to withdraw funding for Iraq and withdraw our troops.
as long as her daughters boyfriends have jobs…pelosi could care less….you can telll….she doesnt even know what the price of fuel is….
25. Mark Noonan | June 27th, 2008 at 1:25 am
dedo,
You’ve got the talking points down - but, you know, those talking points are from early 2007, when Obama was advocating withdrawal…the point of this thread is that that concept was wrong, and is now proved wrong by the facts on the ground.
26. Smelly Cat | June 27th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Obama’s Government Record Raises Questions On His Tested Abilities
Given what you know about Barack Obama why is anyone comfortable with having him driving us into our future?
He is a tax and spend liberal.
He supports affirmative action in colleges and government.
He has been identified as having the most liberal Senate voting record.
He believes in global warming.
He wants to pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq despite Pentagon advice to the contrary.
He voted for biofuel without thinking long-term, which has raised futures markets and therefore food prices worldwide.
He is on record as willing to raise your taxes.
He bought land & a home from his friend Tom Rezko who’s under investigation for demanding kickbacks from companies wanting to do government business in IL.
He is against sending 12,000,000 illegal aliens home and wants to reward them with a path to citizenship.
He wants to push for a Jimmy Carter style windfall oil tax that is guaranteed, as in the past, to reduce US production and exploration.
Barack Obama is unsafe at any speed.
27. bitchslap | June 27th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Mark,
Do you support the beginning of removing the majority of US troops from Iraq today? If no, why not?
28. JustAnotherTaxpayer | June 27th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Deleted - off topic.