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

Romney Advisers Give Ill-Advised Advice

In the rush to differentiate themselves from President Bush as they vie for the GOP nomination, the current candidates and their advisers at times choose the wrong issues on which to differ from the President. Mitt Romney made this error yesterday, and he is paying a price for it among conservative elements of the Republican Party on the Internet today. One very brief AP story that appeared in this morning’s New York Sun is beginning to erode Romney’s carefully constructed image as a strong executive who can, when necessary, make tough decisions unilaterally if necessary. Here are the key paragraphs of the Sun article that has conservatives reexamining Romney’s potential leadership on national security:

Mitt Romney yesterday jabbed at President Bush, saying the image of America has suffered globally based on the perception that it invaded Iraq unilaterally.

"I do think that we have suffered over the past several years for a number of reasons, and I think you probably know what they are," the former Massachusetts governor told civic and business leaders, citing the absence of strong international support in the lead-up to the war.
"There has been the perception that we have not been as open and participative with other nations as is our normal approach," he said.

Romney’s campaign advisers chose poorly if they believe conservative voters consider America’s international image to have any bearing on the decisions a president must make. On the contrary, conservatives applauded President Bush for his courage in enforcing the UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein even when most of the international community refused to confront what all intelligence services agreed was a dangerous regime developing and stockpiling WMD. Conservatives likewise appreciated President Bush’s speech at the UN in which he challenged that body to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant in world affairs. The President made that statement and invaded Iraq not because they were globally popular actions but because, as Romney himself stated in the GOP candidates’ debate Tuesday, they were the right things to do based on available intelligence at the time. Not only does Romney now appear to be contradicting his defense of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, he is also heaping conservative scorn upon himself by making it seem as if he believes the U.S. should seek international approval before taking actions in the interest of national security.

As an example of how conservatives are interpreting Romney’s criticism of President Bush for not securing more international support for invading Iraq, the following are selected registered reader comments posted on Lucianne.com, a news forum popular among conservatives:

Comments:
#1 You dont ask for permission to do what is right Mitt. We are not beholden to international approval when it comes to matters of American safety. This statement proves Romney is not ready for the Oval Office.

#2 Mr. Romney: Maybe it will help the U.S. "image" if, as President, you schedule a world tour. You could travel to each world capital, and approach the Person In Charge on your knees, begging them, "Oh, please, please, please like us!" (preferably while weeping uncontrollably.) Start with Mugabe, then Castro, then Ahmadoinjihad, then Putin, then...

#3 I don't support Romney but this is probably taking something he said out of context to stir up trouble and slam Bush. Having said that, Romney should have known this would happen and should have been more on guard. If he did mean it, its more evidence that this guy shouldn't be president if he actually thinks that we had any control over that perception with a global MSM that was out to portray this as badly as they could.

#4 I sent Mitt an eMail telling him he isn't going to garner any primary votes with tactics like this. Conservatives and republicans don't judge America's success by how much the Europeans like us. One thing the president has done right is ignore the whining of our foreign enemies (although he is starting to weaken).

#5 I agree that it has been the media that has caused the US perception to be sullied. But that in no way a subject for a presidential candidate venue to discuss. There are many more important things that to harangue about what the feeling abroad is of the United States. Just look at the requests for immigration and look at the southern border and one can see the true feelings about this country. I also don't think we should have to have the worlds permission to defend our interests either. Mess with the bull and expect to get the horns shoved up you Heine! The President did what a good portion of the citizens and the congress approved of felt was necessary, and that was to take regimes out of existence that were a threat to our sovereignty and well being.

#6 #4 I did the same thing! This article so angered me I had to send Romney an email & tell him this kind of rhetoric is expected out of the mouths of rats & lamestream media hacks but it is not what we expect from our presidential candidates. Mitt is off my short list.

Romney supposedly hired an experienced team of campaign and political policy advisers, many of them veterans of Bush’s victories in 2000 and 2004, yet none of them foresaw that Mitt’s comments would create this sentiment among conservative voters. Conservatives remember all too clearly the strenuous efforts the President made to convince nations who should be our allies to join together to enforce the UN resolutions and disarm Saddam. He could not force them to do what was right based on available intelligence, and so he gladly welcomed support from those he could count on (Britain, Australia, S. Korea, Spain-for a time-, Poland, and several others) and made the choice to do what was necessary. Conservatives are now questioning whether Romney is capable of making tough decisions without international approval, and that is not a quality any GOP candidate can afford to create doubts about if he wants to win the party’s nomination.

With a few brief sentences, Romney convinced many conservatives that he is not like President Bush- but on an issue where he should be convincing voters he would also do what was right for America while the rest of the world stands on the sidelines. There are plenty of issues on which to demonstrate a difference from the President, like illegal immigration or better management of the Iraq War, but Romney and his advisers chose poorly and voters may associate Romney’s criticism with another Massachusetts politician’s attacks on President Bush for his allegedly poor relations with other nations. After all, that was one of the central themes in John Kerry’s bid for the presidency in 2004: restore America’s international credibility. Romney should be wise enough to recognize that most of the nations that stood idly by when we invaded Iraq have undergone political changes, with conservative leaders who work well with President Bush winning elections. Germany, Canada, and France are all under new conservative leadership and each has vowed to restore better relations with America now, not waiting for a different American president to be elected.

America’s international image is strongest when it demonstrates strong leadership and leaves no doubt that America will keep its word, honor its commitments, and defend and advance freedom at every opportunity. If Romney wants to cast himself as a strong executive, he should make it clear that the President was right to invade regardless of international opinion and that he would do likewise if other nations refuse to join in their own defense. Romney’s campaign should learn from this misstep and give more consideration to how the media will present the candidate’s statements and how that will influence conservative interpretation. In just a few sentences, Romney lost several potential votes on the conservative news forum quoted above. That was just one such Internet forum, and the reaction on others is similar. Despite the President’s low approval ratings, GOP candidates should exercise caution and good judgment when choosing the issues on which they want to distance themselves from him. This was not one of them, much to Romney’s chagrin. With Fred Thompson definitely entering the race in July and Newt Gingrich waiting in the wings in case he is "drafted" by the GOP, Romney cannot afford any more ill-advised advice from his campaign advisers.

Technorati: Mitt Romney George W. Bush Iraq War International Opinion Presidential Candidates Unilateral Action Bush Administration Critics International Diplomacy