The Surge Is Working… As Democrats Push Defeat
Mohammed and Omar (from Iraq The Model) report at the OpinionJournal that the signs of progress, while slow, are clearly visible now in Baghdad.
The new strategy to secure Baghdad has been dubbed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as “Operation Imposing the Law.” After weeks of waiting and anxiety it is finally under way, and early signs are encouraging.
One difference between this and earlier–failed–attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work. Another important point is the insistence of the Iraqi government that political factions not interfere with the progress of military action. The commanders and the prime minister have made it clear that no one will be above the law, and that even places of worship and the offices of politicians will be subject to searches and raids if evidence of involvement in violence is found.
The Iraqi commanders are also trying to give the operation a national stamp by including troops from across the country–even from Kurdistan and far provinces like Basra, where politicians and officers have been long opposed to being involved in Baghdad. Yet another aspect that makes “Imposing Law” unique is its ascending intensity. Unlike other operations that always started from a peak and soon lost momentum, this plan is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better implementation of the “clear and hold” strategy. People here always want the “hold” part to materialize, and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts–the bad guys can’t intimidate as long as the troops are staying.
The Iraqi people themselves are playing their role in the plan. Recent figures from U.S. officers in Baghdad show that the joint forces have been receiving an average of 250 security tips from civilians since the beginning of the operation, about twice previous figures. With help from a government-appointed committee, people in some Baghdad neighborhoods are returning occupied mosques to their original keepers and worshippers, and holding joint prayers between the two sects in mixed neighborhoods.
So after only a couple weeks we can feel, despite the continuing violence, that much has been accomplished. Many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city. This change in mood is something huge by itself.
Our people want to see this effort succeed. We know it’s not going to be an easy fight. Rescuing all of Baghdad’s districts from the grip of militants and terrorists will require sacrifice and hard work. We hope the troops and the governments in Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve.
Well one thing we know is that the American troops won’t.
So while the Iraqi people are working together to fight the terrorists and bring peace and stability to their fledgling democracy, the Democrats in Congress push full steam ahead on their Plan for American Defeat in World War III.
House Republican Leader John Boehner responds:
Boehner Statement Opposing Democrats’ Road Map for Terrorists, Not a Single House Democratic Leader Attended General Petraeus’ First Progress Report Briefing This Morning
WASHINGTON, DC – Today House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) responded to the latest proposal by House Democrats explicitly designed to hamstring the ability of American troops to succeed in the Global War on Terror:“General Petraeus, not Speaker Pelosi or John Murtha, should be making military decisions based on conditions on the ground. Democrats are using a critical troop funding bill to micromanage the war on terror, undermine our generals on the ground, and slowly choke off resources for our troops. Under the guise of supporting our troops, Democrats are actually mandating their failure.
“By establishing – and telegraphing to our enemy – arbitrary timelines for withdrawal, Democrats are providing little more than a road map for terrorists, a tool they will use to plot their maneuvers against American forces. Tying equipment and resources to a series of conditions and expectations amounts to little more than a revised version of the previous ‘slow-bleed’ strategy supported by Democratic Leaders. Democrats have made it clear that whether or not our troops are able to meet Democrats’ expectations, their funding and resources will dry up. Choking off resources for our troops is tantamount to handing the enemy victory itself.
“Republicans will continue to stand united behind our generals and our troops for victory in the global war on terror, and will oppose Democrats’ road map for terrorists. We will not jeopardize the safety and security of American families, or that of those to come in future generations, by giving our generals and our troops anything less than our full and unfettered support.”
NOTE: This morning, General Petraeus briefed congressional leaders from Baghdad live via satellite feed, providing them with an assessment of the situation on the ground, outlining the successes of the new plan to date, and some of the challenges that lie ahead. Not a single Democratic Leader from the House attended to receive the General’s first progress report.
Unbelieveable!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
44 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Bruce, what else do you expect from the party of cut-and-run?
As I’ve always said – if it is good for Americans and bad for the terrorists, the Dhimmicrats won’t like it either.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 8, 2007 @ 2:29 pm - March 8, 2007
Wasn’t one of the main lessons of Vietnam that the war shouldn’t be run by polititians and bureucrats in Washington DC? I remember seeing pictures of Johnson and McNamara choosing bombing sites on a daily basis. It’ the same liberal philosphy of central control that worked so well in the USSR. (sarcasim) As ex Army, let me tell you the Democrats cutting spending, embracing Murthas “slow bleed” and setting a date for cutting and running will ensure the military votes anti Democrat in huge numbers, 80-20, for many years to come. Let’s set a date for this democrat Congress to rebuild New Orleans, raise the minimum wage, eliminate corruption in Congress, eliminate pork, reform Social Security, etc. Set a date…if they miss it, and they will, let’s kick their butts and set a date for them to “redeploy”.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 8, 2007 @ 4:15 pm - March 8, 2007
Not a single Democratic Leader from the House attended to receive the General’s first progress report.
This isn’t politics. It’s fiduciary misconduct. I guess they just don’t care.
Comment by Robert — March 8, 2007 @ 6:56 pm - March 8, 2007
They were all too busy having their “cut and run” telecast informing the enemy…”hey, we are ready to leave….just be cool…we will be gone in a year”…..Seldom have I witnessed such an irresponsible bunch of fools.
Comment by benj — March 8, 2007 @ 8:22 pm - March 8, 2007
Here is how the real world views the Democrats moves toward sedition/surrender:
Text and Video:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11288
CNN Reporter: Artificial Iraq Deadline ‘Serves Only America’s Enemies’
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 8, 2007 – 16:08.
Something is happening on the ground in Iraq. Something that even certain representatives of the MSM can’t deny. Earlier this week, as NewsBusters noted here and here, NBC’s Brian Williams, reporting from Iraq, offered some unusually positive observations. Now comes this eye-opening exchange from earlier this afternoon on CNN International between host Jim Clancy and correspondent Michael Ware, also reporting from Iraq:
JIM CLANCY: “The Democrats are pressing for a deadline, be it at the end of 2007, 2008 to bring all U.S. troops home. How is that going to affect General Petraeus, the Iraqi government and the Iraqis themselves?”
MICHAEL WARE: “Well, Jim, certainly in terms of the Iraqis and the war that’s being fought in the streets and the deserts of this country, I mean, what’s happening over there, what the Democrats are saying about timetables may as well be happening on the planet Pluto for all that it counts, to the bloodshed and endless combat that we’re seeing day in, day out. All that it does, anyone setting time frames like that without real pre-conditions, anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, al Qaeda and Iran. It allows them some leverage to know when to put the pressure on, to know that the clock is ticking and to know where the pressure points are.
WARE: “So, in terms of the battle, day-to-day here, General Petraeus isn’t looking more forward than five or six months. He’s trying to make this surge work. But in terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America’s enemies.”
Nancy & Harry, are you listening?
Aside: Speaking of positive reports on Iraq come from unexpected sources, as I reported here for NB’s sister operation Cybercast News Service, on Wednesday an al Jazeera reporter based in Baghdad told MFN spokesman MAJ GEN William Caldwell that residents of the city are experiencing positive changes.
Comment by Vince P — March 8, 2007 @ 8:35 pm - March 8, 2007
And if SanFranNan and her mind-numbed robots in the House on her side of the aisle screech and moan because they weren’t “briefed” on any subsequent action, they should shoulder the blame themselves.
I knew these Dhimmicrats would not know how to govern. And the proof is in the pudding.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 8, 2007 @ 10:32 pm - March 8, 2007
Peter: I have constructive criticism about what you said.
Less word play on peoples’ names.
Comment by Vince P — March 8, 2007 @ 10:39 pm - March 8, 2007
You’re all awfully confident about an administration that hasn’t got much of anything correct yet, aren’t you?
Comment by Just A Question — March 8, 2007 @ 11:22 pm - March 8, 2007
In other news, a bill to repeal DADT has been introduced in the House. The sponsor is a Democrat, and the co-sponsors include 105 Democrats.
And three Republicans.
(Insert glib, cutesy sports metaphor here.)
Comment by vaara — March 8, 2007 @ 11:35 pm - March 8, 2007
Just A Question: You expect us to take your analysis seriously when you ask questions to no one in particular and yet address them in the second person?
Comment by Vince P — March 8, 2007 @ 11:39 pm - March 8, 2007
the republican delusion continues. just ask US rep capt. murphy.
Comment by markie — March 9, 2007 @ 12:01 am - March 9, 2007
Speaking of the Baghdad security plan, one of its key elements consists of Iraqi government forces confiscating guns from all private citizens.
Which, according to right-wing “logic,” means the plan is doomed to failure anyway — Pelosi or no Pelosi. “More guns, less insurgency.” Isn’t that how it’s supposed to go?
Comment by vaara — March 9, 2007 @ 12:09 am - March 9, 2007
vaara: Your question is based on fundamentally invalid premises. You’ll have to ask your questions from a positive assertion, not a nullity.
Comment by Vince P — March 9, 2007 @ 12:10 am - March 9, 2007
The Iraqi government is currently confiscating guns from all private citizens in Baghdad.
Conservative-libertarians fervently believe that gun control inexorably leads to more violence, not less.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that according to libertarian-conservative dogma, the Iraqi government’s gun-grabbing program is likely to lead to more violence, thus making the Baghdad security plan less effective.
Comment by vaara — March 9, 2007 @ 12:28 am - March 9, 2007
vaara – Are there any circumstances where you would welcome the success of the surge plan. IE Greatly increased security and a major reduction of violence in Baghdad?
Comment by BoBo — March 9, 2007 @ 12:30 am - March 9, 2007
I’d welcome it under any circumstances. Why would you think otherwise?
Comment by vaara — March 9, 2007 @ 12:38 am - March 9, 2007
#0
I’d like to know why the general is in Washington instead of Baghdad vido-conferencing.
#14
A better question would be why a liberal cares.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 9, 2007 @ 12:42 am - March 9, 2007
Because, TGC, conservative blogs repeatedly trot out inane comparisons of murder rates in Iraq and certain U.S. cities (e.g. New Orleans); so if wholesale gun confiscation works in Baghdad, why shouldn’t it be tried in New Orleans too?
Comment by vaara — March 9, 2007 @ 12:52 am - March 9, 2007
What an insight! Baghdad and NO are exactly the same except for the absence armed militias supported by hostile powers and AQ suicide bombers in New Orleans.
Comment by BoBo — March 9, 2007 @ 1:08 am - March 9, 2007
From your mouth to God’s ear, BoBo.
http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
Comment by vaara — March 9, 2007 @ 1:56 am - March 9, 2007
#18
Because, TGC, conservative blogs repeatedly trot out inane comparisons of murder rates in Iraq and certain U.S. cities
Sooooooo…..More Americans die in the United States than in Iraq and that’s “inane” in your book. Good to know where you’re coming from.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 9, 2007 @ 5:08 am - March 9, 2007
Oh. I get it. You’re terrified that there won’t be enough people dying to sustain your orgasm.
Don’t worry. If there’s one thing liberals learned from New Orleans, it’s how to make up body counts. Don’t worry, vaara. Libs have been fudging numbers since the Iraq theatre beagan. You’ll find somebody with a high enough body count (hint: The Lancet) to make you all wet again.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 9, 2007 @ 6:15 am - March 9, 2007
wow…. the various violent Iraqi factions are doing their “whack-a-mole” routine, and “gay patriots” call it “progress it Baghdad” while ignoring the deaths and attacks occuring outside of the capital.
Comment by p.lukasiak — March 9, 2007 @ 7:31 am - March 9, 2007
[Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]
Comment by vaara — March 9, 2007 @ 10:30 am - March 9, 2007
So much for the aura of civility that Bruce and Dan are trying to impose on this board.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 9, 2007 @ 11:05 am - March 9, 2007
Number 23 poster above is obviously impervious to the truth that violent deaths in Baghdad have gone down 80% since the surge began.
That’s a direct quote from Army intelligence, BTW.
Try again, lower-case-libtroll.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 9, 2007 @ 12:27 pm - March 9, 2007
I apologize for my intemperate outburst in #24. I was attempting to respond in kind to #22, in which I am accused of being some kind of necrophiliac.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Please provide it.
Comment by vaara — March 9, 2007 @ 1:09 pm - March 9, 2007
Actually, vaara, a necrophiliac is someone who likes having sex with dead people.
TGC’s point was that people like yourself get pleasure out of terrorist and suicide attacks.
And the reason why we would think that is obvious; Ian, for one, has made it clear that Democrats are doing everything in their power to sabotage the war effort so that we fail in Iraq and the country collapses, which they think will vault them into political power.
Meanwhile, let’s deal with your argument directly.
Conservative-libertarians fervently believe that gun control inexorably leads to more violence, not less.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that according to libertarian-conservative dogma, the Iraqi government’s gun-grabbing program is likely to lead to more violence, thus making the Baghdad security plan less effective.
There is a key difference there, vaara; the Iraqi government’s plan involves TAKING guns from EVERYONE, not just blocking law-abiding citizens from GETTING them, as is the case in the United States.
San Francisco’s unconstitutional handgun ordinance is one example. What the law did was to prohibit the manufacture and sale of handguns in the city and make it illegal to keep one in their homes.
Which hit exactly one group of people — those who bought from legitimate businesses and who had complied with the existing law by registering their weapons. It did nothing to take guns out of the hands of people who use them for criminal purposes, who tend not to do either.
Hence the issue; you prevent the law-abiding from having guns, but you do nothing to stop their proliferation among those who DO break the law. That’s why it’s ineffective.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 9, 2007 @ 3:10 pm - March 9, 2007
NDT, you know how much I respect you… With respect, sometimes your brush can get a little too broad. vaara isn’t Ian (and vice versa), even if they agree on some things. And lumping people with their real-or-imagined cohorts – thus saddling them positions they may not share – is a fallacy. We sure know it’s a fallacy, from how much some individuals have (at different times) done it to each of us.
Comment by Calarato — March 9, 2007 @ 4:39 pm - March 9, 2007
P.S. I think the rest of your argument is sound. There is a world of difference between taking guns from the law-abiding and taking them from criminal / terrorist gangs.
Comment by Calarato — March 9, 2007 @ 4:41 pm - March 9, 2007
And NDT/Cal – did you hear that the DC Court of Appeals struck down DC’s gun law on a 2-1 decision?
It will go to SCOTUS next on appeal by DC in all likelihood.
The two votes favoring the Second Amendment: Judge Laurence Silberman and Bush’s recent pick, Judge Janice Rodgers Brown.
The anti-Federalist dissenter: Judge Karen Henderson. (Her ruling was flimsy because she claimed that since DC is not a state, the Second Amendment did not apply.)
Oh happy day…..!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 9, 2007 @ 4:59 pm - March 9, 2007
Yeah… sweet!!!!!
I think the appeal probably takes it to full DC court (vs. a 3-judge panel). SCOTUS later. I have no idea what will happen.
Comment by Calarato — March 9, 2007 @ 6:04 pm - March 9, 2007
North Dallas Forty
The conservatives/Republicans are doing their utmost to slaughter our men and women overseas and guaranteeing more innocent will die.
Bush is a war-monger.
Comment by Elais — March 9, 2007 @ 10:48 pm - March 9, 2007
Elais: The Democrats legitmized the mass killings by going along with the Congressional authorizations.
So now what?
Comment by Vince P — March 9, 2007 @ 10:53 pm - March 9, 2007
The conservatives/Republicans are doing their utmost to slaughter our men and women overseas and guaranteeing more innocent will die.
And cutting off funds, reinforcements and supplies to our soldiers in-country does what? Not only did the liberals in congress authorize it, they DEMANDED it. They were for it before they were against it.
Bush is a war-monger.
Most folks would rather have a “war monger”, who stands up for our country, as president than a total p*ssy who bends over and lubes up for “our allies”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 10, 2007 @ 1:32 am - March 10, 2007
#31, 32 — Well, now we can all look forward to a massive plunge in DC’s murder rate.
Comment by vaara — March 10, 2007 @ 2:06 am - March 10, 2007
yeah, lots of progress:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/10/iraq.meeting/index.html
another deluded stance from the gop.
Comment by rightiswrong — March 10, 2007 @ 10:20 am - March 10, 2007
And #36-37 are sterling examples of the liberal/socialist/communist idea that the way to creating a “worker’s paradise” is to disarm the population.
Sort of like what they do in Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and anywhere the liberals are in charge of the courts, like the Ninth Circuit.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 10, 2007 @ 12:24 pm - March 10, 2007
Comment by Vince P — March 10, 2007 @ 1:35 pm - March 10, 2007
You know was so funny.. in movies where there is war and the bad guys are looking to discredit the good guys.. the bad guys put on thier false mask and then make dire cries that the good guys are “war mongers”.
Whats even more funny is that the leftist who make these lies never see the parellels.
Comment by Vince P — March 10, 2007 @ 2:11 pm - March 10, 2007
Peter H – wow. All I did was predict a massive plunge in D.C.’s murder rate if its gun laws are repealed — “more guns, less crime” is how the theory goes, right? — and suddenly I’m just like Kim Jong Il.
That’s quite a logical leap there.
Comment by vaara — March 11, 2007 @ 1:41 pm - March 11, 2007
[...] The Surge Is Working… As Democrats Push Defeat . Another important point is the insistence of the Iraqi government that political factions not interfere… of the operation, about twice previous figures. With help from a government-appointed committee, people in some [...]
Pingback by election2004.ph » Blog Archive » Winning Room Reference Base Blog Archive Gambling Casinos - This Recorded History Of Organized Betting — March 12, 2007 @ 10:41 am - March 12, 2007
It’s a very logical leap to equate liberals with communists. Just look at Hugo Chavez.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 12, 2007 @ 11:20 am - March 12, 2007
omg, they are calling it a civil war!!!!
Comment by markie — March 14, 2007 @ 4:03 pm - March 14, 2007