Obama, Nukes, and "American Hiroshima"

When Barack Obama is wrong, he is really wrong. When he is right, it is often unintentional. Obama’s risky and impulsive recent foray into tough-sounding foreign policy declarations illustrated that sometimes a candidate can be spectacularly wrong from a policy perspective but correct tactically even if it was likely unintentional. Such may have been the case with his comments about never using nuclear weapons against terrorists.

To frame the issue in context, the previous criticism heaped upon Obama for proclaiming that if elected president he would meet with leaders of rogue nations like Iran was justified. Keeping oppressive regimes isolated politically and economically from the United States is an effective way to create unrest and citizen dissatisfaction in such countries that might lead to internal reform or overthrow of the undesirable regime. Meeting with such leaders would merely remove a useful diplomatic tool and increase reliance on potential military conflict to achieve the same end. Hillary Clinton was right to call Obama’s position naïve and irresponsible.

Not content to look the fool on only one major foreign policy issue, Obama decided to announce that if elected president he would send troops into a sovereign Muslim nation armed with nuclear weapons, Pakistan, to eliminate al Qaeda regardless of whether Pakistan’s government authorized the invasion. I have argued strenuously against the U.S. taking any such action in previous posts, and will not restate those arguments here, but I found Obama’s hypocrisy in talking tough to Pakistan remarkable. In essence, Obama would remove troops from Iraq, where they are engaging al Qaeda daily, and redeploy them into a nuclear-armed Muslim nation without that nation’s permission so they can, drum roll please, engage al Qaeda daily. Removing our troops from Iraq will not result in al Qaeda leaving Iraq and redeploying along with us. Al Qaeda will remain in Iraq, destroy the fragile Iraqi democracy, and considerably expand al Qaeda’s territorial reach and resources. Critics of Obama’s desire to invade Pakistan were correct to call him ignorant and naïve on this issue.

Most sensible candidates would realize that after turning the other cheek and having that one slapped too there is no third cheek to turn to opponents, but Obama found one nonetheless. After talking tough of invasions of Pakistan and taking the fight to al Qaeda leadership, Obama clarified that he would never use nuclear weapons in the War on Terror. He began his comment about nuclear weapons use by stating that he would not use such weapons to fight terrorists in circumstances involving innocent civilians, but immediately retracted that position and declared he would not use them under any circumstance in fighting terrorism. Hillary Clinton and other critics in both parties seized on this comment as a further illustration of Obama’s foreign policy ignorance and evidence that he lacks the mettle to be commander-in-chief. They cited perhaps the most overused cliché in Washington, “never take anything off the table,” as the best position for a leader to take, but Obama, albeit inadvertently, raised an important tactical issue that comes part and parcel with a policy of threatening nomadic terrorists with nuclear annihilation: the terrorists are not officially tied to any foreign governments.

What Obama should ask his critics in both parties to explain, for this is a bipartisan issue, is under what specific scenarios they would authorize the use of nuclear weapons in the War on Terror. A logical follow-up question would be to ask what it would take for them to reach the point of unleashing a nuclear weapon, such as terrorists detonating nuclear devices in America, and how they would determine whom to strike in retaliation. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have truly examined this issue and its tactical implications, but some have, in their efforts to sound forceful, stated they would strike in knee-jerk reaction against nearly any available target. For example, presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, who fought admirably to defeat the recent illegal immigration amnesty bill, stated that America should threaten to detonate nuclear weapons at Muslim holy sites as a deterrent, apparently believing that terrorists will equivocate on their “American Hiroshima” plans if they are convinced we would destroy Mecca or a similar sacred place if provoked.

It is not clear who is more ignorant, Obama or Tancredo, when it comes to nuclear weapons use in the War on Terror, but there is no mistaking that both are fundamentally unqualified and naïve on how their positions would be interpreted by our Islamic terrorist enemies. Whereas Obama would never use nuclear weapons, Tancredo would, especially if provoked by a nuclear detonation on American soil, retaliate against Islam itself rather than any specific enemy. In his view, an attack motivated by religion demands a response that targets that religion. The logic behind such action is severely flawed. The terrorists worship martyrdom and would consider the destruction of holy sites as collateral loss in a permanently escalated war. If they are willing to martyr themselves and their children for the cause, they will merely shrug at the loss of buildings and other material representations of their faith. Additionally, the world’s moderate Muslims would not remain moderate after Tancredo wiped out the symbols of their faith.

Tancredo’s nuclear gunslinger mentality is symptomatic of the thinking of many in Washington. America’s reliance on Mutually Assured Destruction in the Cold War has created a false sense of security that the threat of our nuclear arsenal will protect us from traditional powers like Russia or China as well as Islamic terrorists. Internet forums are filled with comments about “turning the whole area into a sea of glass,” or “they won’t realize what they’ve unleashed if they set off a nuke in America,” and other similar boasts. Our military might blinds us to the reality that if terrorists detonate a nuclear device in America, Obama’s position on using our nuclear weapons might actually be the most correct because of one simple question: whom and where would we strike in retaliation?

Our American bravado and outrage after such an event would make us want to react decisively; to punish and avenge; to destroy everyone responsible for the heinous act. The pressure on an American president to retaliate against someone, anyone, would be unbearable. The initial impulse would be to consider any Muslim nation known to harbor terrorists as targets, and the ignorant among us would believe in those moments that all Muslims everywhere are the enemy and thus fair game for nuclear annihilation. Consider for a moment the dilemma a president would face after such a cataclysmic event in America. What if al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the nuclear detonation in America? Would we bomb all of Iraq in response? What if Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah claimed responsibility? Would we bomb all of Iran in retaliation? What of the millions of Iranians who are reportedly pro-western but are ruled by a radical regime? What if al Qaeda elements hiding in Pakistan gloated that they nuked America? Would we bomb Pakistan, a Muslim nation also armed with nuclear weapons?

Thus is the paradox of leaving nuclear weapons on the table as a response to terrorism. Terrorists know no borders; they blend into local civilian populations; they strike and move, rarely remaining in place long enough to be hit by initial retaliations; the terrorists usually do not represent the political or even religious views of the majority of their countrymen, thus retaliation against an entire nation merely punishes millions of innocent foreign citizens as recompense for the deaths of millions of American citizens. Such a response, while it may appeal to our baser instincts, would be tactically unsound and surely result in further nuclear destruction and literal fallout across the globe. How would we have responded to 9/11 had it been a nuclear detonation in New York perpetrated by the same group of nineteen al Qaeda operatives? They were natives of Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among other nations. Would we have retaliated against each of those nations for the actions of their rogue citizens?

Unless a nuclear terrorist attack could be proven to have been the sovereign decision of a foreign government, a nuclear retaliation by America against an entire nation would be counterproductive. It is not an act of war by a nation if some of its radical residents, unaffiliated with that nation’s government, perpetrate an attack on another nation. Thus a measured response is essential. It is perfectly justifiable to issue ultimatums to that nation to capture those responsible immediately or allow us to do so, but an emotional and rash nuclear response against an entire nation to punish a small group hiding therein would be irresponsible in the extreme.

Harry Truman approved the use of atomic weapons against Japan in WWII because tactically it made sense to demonstrate destructive power to Japan’s government in order to convince it to surrender. The government of Japan, not wanting to see any more of its citizens annihilated, surrendered, ultimately saving millions of lives in both nations. Nuclear response against terrorists is an entirely different matter. There is no central government anywhere that can be intimidated into halting all terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals. Likewise, the deaths of possibly millions of innocent Muslims would be viewed as merely the creation of millions more martyrs to the cause and further incentive to continue targeting America and our allies. Use of nuclear weapons in a declared war between nations, as tragic as it is, makes tactical sense. Using them against an enemy hidden within nearly every nation on earth would be logically unsound and tactically impractical.

Obama likely did not weigh such considerations before arriving at his decision to never use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism. It is far more likely that his opposition to such weapons is purely ideological and reflects the influence of the view held by many on the anti-war left that nuclear weapons are innately evil and never should be used under any circumstances regardless of the enemy we face. However, as it applies to combating terrorism, an undefined and nomadic enemy, Obama was right to suggest that nuclear weapons not be used. Nuclear weapons carry a finality that never can be undone.

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Tom Tancredo, Nuclear Weapons, War on Terror, Mecca, Muslim Holy Sites, Radical Islam

Illegal Video Games or Illegal Immigrants?

Which is a greater threat to America’s national security, pirated video games or criminal illegal aliens? While the answer to that question may seem obvious, apparently the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has funding for spending its time and resources to conduct raids and seize illegally modified Wii and PlayStation video game console chips but insufficient funds to dedicate its full resources to the highest priority job that Americans expect of it: locating and deporting criminal illegal aliens. When it comes to prioritizing between video game piracy or illegal immigration investigations, ICE must face the decision, paraphrasing Shakespeare, to Wii or not to Wii.

In fairness to ICE, many federal law enforcement agencies are mandated to enforce multiple federal criminal statutes, some of which have conflicting priorities that often force those agencies to choose investigations based on dollar-loss amounts, likelihood of prosecution by U.S. Attorneys, and positive media attention that generates increased budgets from a media-influenced Congress. Enforcement of immigration statutes and subsequent deportations, as important as they are to national security, do not meet these criteria. As a result, ICE is vilified in the media for tearing apart families, “unfairly” targeting day laborers, or ruining American businesses by disrupting their workforces when it actually enforces existing illegal immigration statutes.

The uproar over ICE enforcement of immigration statutes tends to remind ICE officials that it has multiple missions to perform, and not surprisingly those officials logically conclude that the best way to garner positive media coverage and subsequent Congressional gratitude is to actively enforce other criminal statutes that are less controversial than illegal immigration. One such statute involves the smuggling and distribution of illegal devices that allow pirated video games to play on video game consoles.

This crime may not have any impact on national security, but it does cost businesses like Sony and Nintendo approximately $3 billion in video game sales annually. Of course Sony and Nintendo have effective lobbyists who bring these losses to Congress’ attention, and when ICE conducts raids and executes search warrants to curb this $3 billion per year loss, the media praises it, congress basks in the positive coverage given to its well-spent law enforcement funding, and ICE’s decision to actively enforce non-controversial crimes unrelated to national security is reinforced.

After raids and search warrants were conducted yesterday on 32 businesses and homes in 16 states, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for ICE made the following statement:

Illicit devices like the ones targeted today are created with one purpose in mind, subverting copyright protections. These crimes cost legitimate businesses billions of dollars annually and facilitate multiple other layers of criminality, such as smuggling, software piracy and money laundering.

The same is true of illegal immigration, which costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually and involves smuggling, human exploitation, money laundering, and a host of other criminal activities. Yet ICE officials recently made it clear to Virginia’s state legislature that it cannot scrape together sufficient funds to train and work with state and local law enforcement officers in Virginia’s jails to deport criminal illegal aliens already in custody. That is worth repeating. Virginia was merely asking ICE to train its deputies to deport illegal alien criminals already in custody and sitting in the state’s jails. Virginia had previously enacted a law allowing its law enforcement agencies that staff state jails to attend official ICE training programs designed to help local agencies check the immigration status of prisoners and begin the deportation status on behalf of ICE. However, earlier this week ICE officials informed Virginia’s legislature that it simply did not have adequate funding to extend the immigration enforcement training to agencies throughout the state. ICE has received similar requests from many law enforcement agencies throughout the nation and its budget to provide the training that would help locals enforce existing illegal immigration laws cannot keep pace with the current demand. Meanwhile, ICE continues to use a portion of its funds to investigate video game piracy.

Virginia’s response was predictable and poignant:

Delegate Robert G. Marshall, Prince William Republican, declined to say whether he would support using state funds for immigration enforcement, but said the federal government should pay to enforce its own laws.

"If we're doing the job of the federal government, they should be humiliated that they wouldn't offer to pay for all of this," said Mr. Marshall, who sits on a separate commission studying the effects of illegal aliens on the state. "I'm not going to start putting the state's cards on the table until the federal government is going to openly say, 'We don't have the interest. The state of Virginia can [forget] their efforts to enforce immigration law.' "

There are an estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States. More than 250,000 of them lived in Virginia in 2005, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Virginia’s counties have been so impacted by illegal immigration that two, Loudoun and Prince William counties, recently voted to deny county services to illegal immigrants, a move that was widely applauded by residents who already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation.

The question this budget shortfall for ICE training for local agencies raises is an important one: in a War on Terror, should Homeland Security agencies like ICE continue dividing their manpower, equipment, energy, and budget resources between financial crimes like video game piracy and national security responsibilities like illegal immigration? Like many other agencies, ICE has conducted many successful high-profile criminal investigations of smuggling, counterfeit merchandise, and child pornography materials, among others. They are good at what they do. However, as the recent national uproar over the “comprehensive immigration reform bill” demonstrated, Americans do not want amnesty or new laws; what they want is enforcement of existing illegal immigration laws, and the issue is considered to be directly related to national security. In war, priorities are paramount.

While it is unfortunate that Sony and Nintendo lose money annually due to video game piracy, there are many agencies in departments other than Homeland Security that could enforce piracy and intellectual property statutes. It would make sense if the agencies grouped into the behemoth Department of Homeland Security actually performed duties that directly protect some aspect of the homeland. Agencies that do not perform national security functions should be relocated to other departments, so that the remaining agencies would all reflect what the Department of Homeland Security’s name implies. ICE clearly belongs in Homeland Security, but some of its investigative case load includes enforcement of statutes that are completely devoid of any national security nexus.

If ICE could dedicate its funds, manpower, and other resources exclusively to criminal investigations related to national security rather than to a year-long investigation of video game piracy, it would find funds to help Virginia’s jails start criminal illegal aliens on the path to deportation. ICE did good work in its raids and seizures of 61,000 illegal game console chips, but there is more important work to be done to secure the homeland and our resources must be dedicated to priorities that improve national security. Illegal immigration is such a priority; illegal video games are not.

Americans care far less that their neighbor’s Wii or PlayStation games are legal than they do that their neighbors themselves are here legally.

Technorati Tags:
ICE, Illegal Immigration, Software Piracy, Video Games, Sony, Nintendo, Wii, PlayStation, Virginia, Loudoun County, Prince William County

WSJ Better Off With Murdoch Than Burkle

There is a neglected question surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of the Dow Jones Company and the Wall Street Journal: why were critics of the purchase and Dow Jones and Wall Street employees themselves up in arms over the threat to journalistic independence posed by Murdoch but none of them seemed even slightly concerned over the potential danger to literary freedom that might have occurred under a different buyer? The media attention Murdoch’s purchase garnered revolved around the assumption that Murdoch might meddle with the Wall Street Journal and compromise its journalistic integrity while there seemed to be very little concern that an owner other than Murdoch might inject his or her own ideology into the paper’s news coverage.

Before Murdoch and the Bancroft family, owners of Dow Jones, entered into the latest intense round of purchase negotiations that ended with this morning’s announced final decision to sell to Murdoch, the names of other potential buyers made brief splashes on media pages, only to be obscured by the long shadow cast by Murdoch’s media empire. One billionaire who expressed significant interest in purchasing Dow Jones, parent company of the Wall Street Journal, was Ron Burkle, former grocery store magnate and unquestionably the closest influential and wealthy friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, both during Bill’s presidency and after.

Since leaving the White House, the Clinton’s have flown more mileage around the globe on Burkle’s private jet, an ostentatious Boeing 757, than on all other aircraft combined. Burkle’s Bel Air (Los Angeles) estate has hosted countless parties, fundraisers, rallies, and private retreats for the Clintons, as president and former president. Further cementing his position at the Clintons’ side, Burkle has consistently ranked as one of the top individual donors to the Democratic National Committee, Hillary’s election and reelection campaigns for the Senate, and currently to her presidential campaign.

I am not suggesting that there is anything improper about this cozy financial and political relationship. Wealthy and influential individuals in both parties have always ingratiated themselves with political figures for a variety of personal or business reasons. Likewise, I am not impugning Burkle’s motives for his desire to bankroll and provide free transportation to the Clintons to further their political ambitions. The significance of this relationship lies in the complete lack of attention given to it by the media and Dow Jones employees while Burkle was floating multi-billion dollar offers that many found more appealing than selling to Murdoch. While Murdoch was vilified for his personal involvement in making changes to previous news enterprises he had acquired, no one gave any serious consideration to how the Wall Street Journal might have covered news under Burkle’s ownership in light of his close ties to the Clintons.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), largely because of its foundations in American business, has usually been a reliably conservative publication, with a few exceptions such as its advocacy of open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Even in taking that position, as flawed as it was, the WSJ was consistent with the views of many influential businesses that utilize cheap labor. Aside from that issue, though, the WSJ’s conservative news coverage and Op/Ed pieces are a welcome alternative to the brazenly liberal news coverage offered by the New York Times and most major dailies in America’s cities. As “meddling” as Murdoch’s takeovers and purchases of various media outlets may have been, few would argue that his influence has ideologically altered the news coverage of those outlets. It is certainly true that he has employed certain tactics such as shocking headlines and stories with some reference to sex to generate attention, particularly in some of his international publications. Yet he established Fox News as a more conservative alternative to liberal CNN and traditional network news offerings, and after more than a decade of broadcasting, Fox News remains dedicated to providing that conservative perspective. Dow Jones and WSJ employees should consider that aspect of Murdoch’s track record and breathe a little easier than they might have if Burkle had successfully purchased Dow Jones.

The Clintons already have an influential and widely read publication consistently doing their bidding: the New York Times. Their reach would have been enormously increased if Burkle had purchased the WSJ. It is extremely unlikely that an aggressive businessman like Burkle, who enjoys personal involvement in running his enterprises, would have been an absentee owner who would have kept his hands off of the WSJ’s journalistic ideology. Burkle is highly active in the DNC and his personal relationship with the Clintons would certainly have influenced what he would or would not want to read in his version of the WSJ. Why would he have paid billions of dollars to purchase Dow Jones and the WSJ only to allow it to undo his political activism through articles or Op/Ed pieces critical of his party and specifically the Clintons? That would not have been a wise return on his investment. Under Burkle’s ownership, the WSJ likely would have embarked on a slow but steady drift to the left, something neither its readers nor its employees would have appreciated.

It is easy to understand why Dow Jones and WSJ employees feared a Murdoch takeover, but they had much more to fear, including their jobs as conservative journalists, had a less controversial buyer like Burkle gotten his hands on the WSJ. Murdoch will be under enormous pressure to maintain the WSJ’s reputation and broad readership. He will surely tinker with the WSJ, attempting to make it more widely available, or perhaps bring it into more direct competition with the New York Times or even USA Today. Some of those efforts might achieve spectacular success, and some might prove to be dismal failures. The good news for WSJ employees is that his track record with Fox News indicates that he will not alter the generally conservative bent of the WSJ, which is the source of the paper’s journalistic independence in a news media world dominated by liberal lock-step ideology.

Technorati Tags:
Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, Takeovers, News Integrity, Ron Burkle, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton

Summer Intern Wilts ABC Poll Headline

ABC News can hardly be blamed for getting a headline backwards. After all, news is a serious business and with so many important events out there to cover it is easy to be distracted by other, more intriguing stories that arise. Apparently ABC News employees were focused so intently on one particular human interest story, that when it came time for them to frame a headline for a comparatively dry article reporting poll results on the public’s perceptions of the Supreme Court, they mistakenly concluded that thirty percent was a more significant number than seventy percent. What was the cause of the distraction?

When news spread through ABC News offices that a summer intern had posted nude pictures of herself on the Internet and may have even posed in college for Playboy, ABC News employees threw themselves into a feverish online search for the highly sought-after intern images. ABC News information management officials noticed a spike in employee visits to adult Internet sites and were forced to send an email to all employees reminding them that surfing adult sites during work time was discouraged. According to the New York Daily News which broke the story reported that ABC News had approximately seventy summer interns and ABC News employees were not sure which intern was the alleged Internet vixen. Thus, employees were captured in the web (no pun intended) of adult Internet sites and the natural human desire to solve a mystery.

So what resulted at ABC News from this nearly institution-wide loss of concentration? ABC headline writers apparently pulled themselves away from their surfing long enough to skim the results of an ABC-Washington Post poll that asked Americans whether they thought the Supreme Court was too liberal, too conservative, or balanced. In their clearly hasty review of the poll statistics, they crafted this misleading headline: “Three in 10 call SCOTUS ‘Too Conservative.’” The statistic itself was not misleading, but the choice to emphasize the thirty-one percent of Americans who felt the court was too conservative over the sixty-nine percent who did not, certainly was calculated to create the impression among readers that the court is too conservative. The ABC report also implied that the court had become too conservative since the additions of justices Roberts and Alito.

What the poll results actually revealed was that forty-seven percent believed the Supreme Court was balanced in its political ideology, with eighteen percent stating the court was still too liberal despite Roberts’ and Alito’s influence. When sixty-nine percent of Americans in a poll jointly constructed and conducted by two left-leaning news organizations state that the court is not too conservative, liberals should give close attention to what that statistic portends for their political futures, as it strongly implies that a significant majority of Americans would approve of the selection of additional conservative justices when further openings occur. If ABC News employees had given as much attention to selecting a headline that emphasized what the poll results actually indicated rather than how they wanted those statistics to be interpreted by readers, the headline would have been quite different.

Senator Chuck Schumer (NY-D) was so convinced of the court’s alleged conservative imbalance that he referred to the court as “dangerously imbalanced,” and called on fellow Democrats to block all future court nominees from President Bush because the current court is “ultraconservative.” Schumer’s inflammatory exaggeration of the court’s ideological makeup was based on his objection to the court’s reversals of decisions made by previously liberal-dominated courts. Schumer’s math is shoddy at best and disingenuous at worst. Conservatives on the Supreme Court hold a 5-4 majority, but even conservatives complain that the court did not move far enough to the right or center even with the additions of Alito and Roberts. When conservatives hold only a one vote majority on the court, use of the term “ultraconservative” is blatantly inaccurate. Apparently when a court votes to reverse unconstitutional decisions of prior courts, such as affirmative action programs that differentiate between races, colors, or other factors prohibited by the constitution, that is “ultraconservative” to Schumer. Perhaps that explains why sixty-nine percent of Americans still feel the court is not too conservative, leaving room for it to move even further to the right in restoring constitutionality to the court’s decisions.

If the adage is true that if you tell people something often enough it becomes truth, then ABC News and Senator Schumer are working diligently to create a fictional truth about the court. Both are attempting to convince Americans of an ideological imbalance on the Supreme Court when in fact no such imbalance actually exists. Then again, ABC News employees were also desperately searching for Internet intern photos that may or may not exist. Chasing desirable mirages, whether they be summer interns or poll statistics that don’t quite fit the liberal argument, appears to be the currently preferred activity for ABC News staffers. Along with emails warning employees about surfing adult Internet sites, ABC News should advise staff to match headlines with the actual content of their news stories.


Technorati Tags:
ABC News, Supreme Court, Summer Interns, Chuck Schumer, Conservative Court, Poll Results, Misleading Headlines

Times Surge of Truth Refreshing

Stop the presses! The New York Times, far and away the most virulent anti-Bush, anti-war news organization in America, today published an Op/Ed piece that actually debunked that paper’s own daily headlines of doom and gloom news from Iraq.

In a contribution co-authored by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, Brookings Institution fellows and no fans of the Bush administration, the pair presented a region by region analysis of the results so far of General Petraeus’ surge strategy, which finally reached full operational strength in June. Congressional Democrats and defecting (perhaps defective?) Republicans call for troop withdrawals and insist that defeat is inevitable, but O’Hanlon and Pollack, who spent eight days meeting with troops, military leaders, and Iraqi leaders, came to a far different conclusion about progress in Iraq than Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and presidential candidate Barack Obama.

I recommend reading the Op/Ed piece in its entirety, as it contains descriptions of progress that never garner any attention from major media outlets bent on reporting only suicide bombings or IED incidents that add to the death toll. The cynical nature of Iraq War news reporting offered by the traditional networks belies the truth of what is actually occurring in Iraq’s cities and villages: The country is becoming more secure, and the U.S. military has been infused with high morale. The following analysis of conditions in Iraq will surprise the “impeach Bush” crowd, much as it did the authors themselves:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul…. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside.

The authors rightfully conclude from their observations in Iraq that while Iraq’s government must achieve solidarity and work with more urgency for its own survival, the undeniable fact is that General Petraeus’ surge strategy is working, and working impressively. They further credit Petraeus for ending the “whack-a-mole” security situation in many parts of Iraq that existed previously. The “Whack-a-mole” issue has been a complaint of U.S. soldiers through much of the war, because regions were formerly only temporarily secured by minimum force levels, and once American troops moved on to other more intense fighting, insurgents and al-Qaeda recruits would pop up again in the previously secure areas. This usually meant that our troops would be forced to return and re-secure those areas. Under Petraeus’ leadership, regions are held until they are actually secure before troops move on to clear other regions of insurgents and terrorists.

Bush administration critics should consider that the results observed by these two Brookings fellows have occurred in a relatively short period, and are increasing in momentum now that the surge force has reached full staffing levels. War opponents were looking with eager anticipation for Petraeus’ surge report due in September. They were certain there would be ample evidence in the report to justify their advocacy of troop withdrawals by April 2008, however this early report of surge success, coming as it did from two consistent critics of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq War, should throw some much needed water on the “impeach Bush” bonfire.

The Times deserves praise for providing its readers with O’Hanlon’s and Pollack’s Op/Ed report of the successes of the surge thus far. Although the pair included a mild disclaimer that “victory” may not be possible, they clearly saw potential for a “sustainable stability.” Such an achievement of stability would indeed constitute victory, as stability would permit the Iraqis to solidify their democratically elected government and develop the resources needed to defend themselves from foreign influences with ulterior motives for Iraq’s future. A “sustained stability” would further alleviate the need for full U.S. troop deployment in Iraq, as our soldiers could eventually assume an advisory/training role rather than performing actual regional security sweeps.

Surge critics will find it increasingly difficult to justify their opposition to Petraeus and the Bush administration when similar reports of success become available in the media. Americans are confident of our armed forces and know that good news is always just around the corner when our soldiers are committed to action. The surge strategy appears to have helped the Iraqis turn some important corners, and they are now more actively engaged in their own security and counterterrorism operations than ever before. That is good news for America, Iraq, and the free world. Hopefully the Times will continue to search for and publish the successes of the surge strategy with fervor equal to its reports of perceived Bush administration failures.

Technorati Tags:
David Petraeus, Surge Strategy, Iraq War, Brookings Institution, Anbar Province, Surge Progress