Iraqis Bat .300 but Benched by Benchmarks

If the U.S. Congress invested heavily in a Major League Baseball team, and the team’s roster included a player with a .300 batting average and documented potential to increase that average consistently over time, would congressmen declare the player a failure and cut him from the team?

Considering congress’s historical record of mismanagement, perhaps congressmen would cut this productive and promising player due to their misguided belief that the player should have a 1.000 average, but this would be both unwise and fatal to hopes for a successful season. Cutting players with a .300 batting average would be a sure way to guarantee the team’s failure and dash any hopes for building a dynasty franchise that could dominate its era.

Yet congress is doing just that, and Iraq is the player batting .300 that never seems to satisfy congress’ desire for a 1.000 average and a tidy return on our federal investment in Iraq. According to AP reports, a classified GAO report to be presented to congress Thursday will advise eager opponents of the Bush administration that the Iraqi government has only reached six out of eighteen benchmarks for progress previously demanded by congress. The benchmarks were established and the GAO report commissioned to preemptively rebut the upcoming surge success report from General David Petraeus. The GAO report will further the impression that the Iraqi government has failed, which congressional Democrats have carefully nurtured over the past week.

Like our baseball analogy, the problem with the GAO report is not that congress wants to evaluate how its player, Iraq, is performing. The problem lies in the benchmarks that measure overall successes only and ignore a more flexible criteria: progress. Congress set benchmarks for success for Iraq which, like a 1.000 batting average, are unreasonably high, or as Defense Department Spokesman Geoff Morrell described them, “impossible to meet.” Baseball teams annually spend tens of millions in salaries for players who can hit .300 or anywhere near that percentage, but don't tell that to the George Steinbrenners in Congress who will only be satisfied by perfection from their players and managers and who are itching to fire anyone at any time.

Congress, in ordering the GAO report, demanded that it only report whether Iraq had actually achieved the benchmarks rather than seeking to measure progress toward those benchmarks. The Bush administration considers progress to be a form of success in itself as well as hope for the future, while congress has made it clear that it is uninterested in progress of any kind in Iraq and focuses only on the Iraqi government’s “failure” to fully reach the very broad benchmarks.

Unwilling to allow Iraq, which has already reached a .300 batting average by completely achieving six of the eighteen benchmarks, congress appears obsessed with cutting Iraq from the team because after only a few years of existence as a democracy it cannot yet bat 1.000. If congress imposed such benchmarks on its own performance in providing Americans with the legislation voters have requested, it would have a far lower batting average than Iraq’s promising .300 efforts.

Other than for purely political reasons, it is hard to imagine why congress would request a GAO report that contained multi-part benchmarks designed to create the impression that even benchmarks showing ninety-percent progress could be labeled as unmet and thus failures of the Iraqi government.

It is the epitome of irony that the U.S. Congress casts stones at another government while standing in its own glass house of bureaucratic inefficiency.

GAO report Iraqi Government Benchmarks Bush Administration Congress Batting Averages Iraq War

Hillary's Iraq Village Puppet Show

Hillary Clinton believes it takes a village to raise a child, but what is her solution when the one being raised prefers independence and resents interference from Hillary’s village? The concept of village influence seems to be the centerpiece of Hillary’s foreign policy goals, and it manifests itself most clearly in her ever-evolving policy statements on Iraq. Most recently the 2008 presidential candidate joined the shrill and gratingly off-key chorus of Carl Levin, most congressional Democrats, and a few Republicans auditioning for cabinet positions, who have called for an Iraqi no-confidence vote in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his removal despite an on-going war. Not content to allow Iraqis the fundamental right of self-rule, Hillary applied her “it takes a village” approach to the realm of diplomacy, apparently convinced that the best way for Iraq to resolve its internal disputes was to have the world village step in and try to settle them rather than patiently allowing Iraqis to do it themselves.

It is an interesting irony that Senators Clinton and Levin refuse to adhere to diplomatic protocol in their interactions with and comments about Iraq. Both act as if the fact that America has nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq gives American congressmen carte blanche in what they say about that nation’s elected government. Even Republican Mitch McConnell described the Iraqi government as a “huge disappointment.” America does not have 150,000 troops in France, and there is no question that we considered former French President Jacque Chirac’s government to be a huge disappointment. Yet neither the Republicans nor Democrats in congress publicly stated that sentiment because France deserves respect and decorum from the American government as a sovereign nation. Senators Levin and Clinton do not extend such diplomatic courtesies to Iraq’s Prime Minister, and they should be required to explain the disparate treatment.

Likewise, our elected officials do not attempt to inject themselves into the internal political workings of other, longer-established nations yet think nothing of calling for the ouster of al-Maliki. Where are the cries from Democrats for Fidel Castro’s ouster, or Hugo Chavez’s ouster? Both of those leaders are sworn enemies of America, while al-Maliki risks his own safety each day working with America to preserve a budding democracy in Iraq.

Al-Maliki, a man under constant threat of physical attack by insurgents and al-Qaeda linked terrorists, was not cowed by Levin’s and Hillary’s harsh criticisms. Demonstrating his mastery of the sound byte and his familiarity with America’s distaste for Hillary’s vision of the global village, al-Maliki fired back brilliantly at Senator Clinton:

Maliki hit back on Sunday, saying: "There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin."

"This is severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy," he said. "I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."

The semantic slap regarding Democrats acting undemocratically was well-crafted and effective. It is shameful that an elected Prime Minister of a nation we are working with closely in a sensitive region felt compelled to defend himself against a barrage of criticism from the American Congress and remind our self-important congressmen that speaking respectfully about Iraq is an expected aspect of diplomatic protocol that many have neglected.

Lost in the verbal exchange between al-Maliki and America’s congressional vultures circling Iraq’s demise with great expectation was the failure of media outlets to press Senators Levin and Clinton on what would seem to be a critical question: who would they suggest take al-Maliki’s place as Prime Minister? Neither has come forward with any suggested replacements even though both have access to raw intelligence regarding the current political situation in Iraq. Likewise, neither addresses the obvious difficulty al-Maliki’s replacement would face from being labeled an American puppet leader. It is highly unlikely that Iraq would become more stable under different leadership if the Iraqi perception was that America called for al-Maliki’s removal and chose his successor. Middle Eastern governments considered puppets of America do not have a history of long-term survival.

On Sunday, leaders representing Iraq’s Shiite, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish communities made further progress in resolving internal disputes. The leaders agreed on provisions to make it easier for former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party to serve in Iraq’s government and military, facilitated the future release of Sunni’s detained and held without charge, and endorsed a draft oil revenue sharing law. Each of these must survive parliamentary debate and votes, but the agreements were a clear show of unity and progress in direct refutation of Senator Clinton’s and Senator Levin’s low opinion of the Iraqi government.

America’s patience with Iraq’s government should not be dictated by our presidential campaign schedule. A stable and free Iraq deserves support beyond the 2008 election and merits respect regardless of which party wins the White House. Expecting Iraq to resolve all of its internal political squabbles and secure itself from foreign terrorists by next month or next year is imposing our will and political timetable on a free people. Factions within a government arguing, boycotting, and stalling important legislation are hallmarks of America’s Congress and should not be considered disappointing characteristics of Iraq’s fledgling democracy.

The Iraqis do not want to be considered throughout the world as America’s puppet, nor do they want their government to be raised and nurtured by Hillary’s global village. She should stop treating al-Maliki’s government like a child and let the Iraqis experience their own political maturation.

Technorati Tags:
Al-Maliki, Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin, Puppet Government, Iraqi Government, Diplomacy, It Takes A Village

'Ugly American' No-Confidence in al-Maliki

Is a no-confidence vote from Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) a blessing or a curse for a head of state? Perhaps the more germane question is, do Iraqis take note of or care what Senator Levin thinks of their government's internal affairs? Over the weekend, Levin visited Iraq with Senator John Warner (R-VA) for the express purpose, as we reported Friday, to shift attention away from news that the upcoming report on the progress of General Petraeus' surge strategy would be positive and increase support for continuance of the war effort. Levin telegraphed his distraction playbook, stating openly that he intended to focus his trip and subsequent media interviews on one topic: the political nature of Iraq's problems and that they can only be solved through political means.

On Monday, Levin wasted no time reporting on the results of his brief "fact-finding" stint in Iraq. In just two days, despite hearing glowing reports of the difference made by the surge strategy in the overall security in Iraq, Senator Levin dismissed all such good news and did what any good Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman who wishes he were Secretary of State would do: he called for the ouster of a government that has worked for years at extreme personal peril for unity and functional democracy in Iraq. Although that description also applies to the Bush administration, which Levin has also worked assiduously to thwart, Levin's no-confidence vote was for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In smug superiority rivaling that of the infamous "Ugly American" of literary renown, Levin made these less than statesmanlike public remarks about the elected leader of a government that is surrounded by mortal enemies and looks to the United States as perhaps its only reliable ally:

I hope that the Iraqi assembly, when it reconvenes in a few weeks, will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and a more unifying prime minister and government," said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.

Levin and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, just completed a two-day visit to Iraq.

The two senior lawmakers issued a joint statement saying that while the U.S. military "surge" in Iraq has given Iraqi politicians some breathing room, they have failed to make the compromises needed to bring peace to that war-torn nation.

"We are not optimistic about the prospects for those compromises," the Levin and Warner said in their joint statement.

Levin in a teleconference with reporters went a step further, suggesting the Iraqi parliament have a vote of no confidence and replace the Maliki government, which he said is built too much upon sectarian allegiances and connections.

We have heard American congressmen express a desire for Fidel Castro's demise. We heard congressmen and presidents declare their hopes for the downfall of oppressive communist governments in the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Yet we cannot recall having heard a member of congress actively promoting a hope that an allied government, democratically elected, would be voted out with no consideration given to the repercussions of such statements. That Senator Warner, who traveled to Iraq with Levin, did not immediately disavow Levin's meddling in Iraqi electoral politics makes him perhaps equally responsible for whatever may eventually result if al-Maliki's government is crippled by a no-confidence vote.

In his quest to diminish the upcoming surge progress report in September, Levin appears not to care what havoc his misinformation campaign may wreak. Note that Levin and Warner on one hand praise the surge strategy for increasing public safety in Iraq and turning Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, but on the other hand they minimize the overall importance of the surge by dismissing it as merely giving al-Maliki's government "breathing room." We are quite certain that our troops in Iraq and their commanders are not risking their lives daily merely to give, as Levin called it, a "non-functional" Iraqi government a bit of breathing room. Levin may be the most adept senator in the current Democratic Party stable at forecasting storms of doom from the clouds attached to every silver lining reported from Iraq.

Looking down his nose over studious-looking spectacles at squirming victims dragged in front of his Armed Services Committee hearings is Levin's forte. He waxes professorial as he lectures four-star generals on how they should be conducting wars, and one can easily conjure up such mental images when reading Levin's further report of his meetings with Iraqi government officials:

In many meetings with Iraqi political leaders, of all different backgrounds, we told them of the deep impatience of the American people and the Congress with the lack of political progress, impressed upon them that time has run out in that regard, and told them of the urgent need to make the essential compromises.

Somehow we doubt that Iraqis, who have survived bombings of parliament and daily face potential assassination, were overly intimidated by Levin's impatience and impertinence.

Absent in these encounters were rebuttals and chastisements from the State Department for Levin's intrusion into diplomatic issues constitutionally assigned to the executive branch. Ordinarily State objects rather publicly when congressmen journey into realms of statecraft and issues of consequence such as ousting elected governments. Nancy Pelosi's 2007 Syrian Odyssey was loudly condemned by Secretary of State Rice for protocol reasons, but more substantively because of its potential for disrupting Middle Eastern relations. It is baffling that despite the fact that Levin and Warner were entitled to such brief fact-finding trips to Iraq, Levin's proclaimed hope for the removal of the sitting Iraqi Prime Minister during an ongoing war were not decried by State aggressively and decisively.

The fact that this appeared to be a bi-partisan (thanks to Warner's presence) knife in al-Maliki's back surely will not lessen the pain of the wound. Levin and Warner clearly had come to their conclusions about the al-Maliki government prior to their two-day visit to Iraq, raising the question of why they made the trip in the first place. What information did the pair obtain by meeting with and talking down to Iraqis that they did not already possess through military and intelligence reports? A two-day stay is hardly enough for anyone to become an expert on complex issues like nation-building or the consequences of no-confidence votes, unless perhaps Levin and Warner stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. Levin's verbal attack on al-Maliki was merely the opening salvo of an expected full-scale bombardment that will intensify as the surge progress report date nears.

Technorati Tags:
Carl Levin, John Warner, Armed Services Committee, Iraq, Al-Maliki, No-Confidence Vote, Ugly American, Surge Strategy, Surge Report, General Petraeus, Iraqi Government

Levin is Surge Report Misinformation Minister

When war news is good, it stands to reason that the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee should be pleased. After all, there should be no question that a senator holding such an important and influential position would want America’s military to win any war it enters. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), who currently chairs the Armed Services Committee is embarking on another “fact finding” trip to Iraq, but he is not going there to be supportive of the troops or to witness firsthand the widely-reported successes of the surge strategy led by General David Petraeus. On the contrary, Levin’s latest trip to Iraq serves, as explained in his own words, only one purpose:

I'm going to try to see if we can't shift the attention of the American people from the report on the military situation to a report on the political situation since everybody acknowledges that it's the failure of the political arena and the political areas that are the cause of the ongoing violence in Iraq.

That was a revealing and disturbing statement. Rarely does a politician so bluntly state that he is engaging in an intentional misinformation campaign designed to “shift the attention of the American people” away from a detailed military report that proves we are making significant progress and can win a war we committed troops to fight. Clearly senior Democrats do not want Americans to read the Petraeus report due in September, and Americans should pause for a moment to ponder the motive behind Levin’s Iraq trip as Minister of Misinformation.

Congressional Democrats are in an unenviable political position: having voted almost unanimously to send troops into Iraq; shifting to a virulent anti-war position; demanding a timetable for troop withdrawals; opposing the surge strategy; and now facing the release of a positive analysis of the surge’s effectiveness and optimism for eventual troop withdrawals under more favorable security and political conditions in Iraq.

During his presidency, media figures and congressional Democrats have insulted President Bush with labels such as “inept,” “incompetent,” “mentally unstable,” and of course “stupid.” Yet no such labels are applied by the media to the Democratic Party as a whole for its remarkable blunder of putting itself in position to profit politically only from military failure. Our troops lose, Democrats win. In that respect at least, the grim and incessant media comparisons between the Vietnam and Iraq wars are appropriate. There is an Iraq quagmire. Democrats stepped in it by investing their political futures in defeat in Iraq, but now they cannot seem to scrape the pesky quagmire ooze from their patent-leather shoes.

It is no wonder that on July 30th House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) stated that such a report from the military would be “a real big problem for us.” In other words, good news from the front lines in Iraq would be harmful to the Democrats’ political ambitions. To prevent such a “disaster” from occurring, Minister of Misinformation Levin will be working overtime shifting attention away from Petraeus’ report, which is already being dismissed in the media as merely an instrument for communicating what the Bush administration wants. Liberal bloggers have already attacked the report, which none of them have seen even a portion of, as a “fantasy evaluation” and just another Bush “sandbagging” of the American people.

Considering the recent foreign policy and military counterterrorism strategy gaffes by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, it appeared that no Democratic senator could be equally as naïve as Obama on those issues. Yet Levin’s explanation of why American’s should pay no attention to the upcoming Iraq progress report by General Petraeus demonstrated a fundamental ignorance or intentional obfuscation of what is causing the current level of violence in Iraq. Is there internal strife within the Iraqi Parliament? Of course there is strife there, just as there is bitter partisan strife within our own Congress. In Iraq, Sunni legislative blocs occasionally withdraw from the government in anger over real or perceived slights and injustices. In our Congress there are filibusters, blocked votes on judicial confirmations or cabinet appointments, and leaks of classified information to embarrass or destroy political rivals. In many respects, our Congress is more dysfunctional than the Iraqi parliament, yet our nation is not awash in suicide bombings, IEDs, and foreign-inspired terrorist groups infesting entire cities, which are all too common in Iraq.

As Iraqi parliamentarians are not detonating themselves in protest or killing each other over political disputes, the explanation for the violence in Iraq must go beyond mere politics. Failure by the Iraqi government to achieve rapid political unity and success, as Levin and his colleagues demand, may cause political discord, but to assert that the war in Iraq centers on political issues is far too simplistic. Religious disputes, more than politics, fan the flames of disunity, but without the violent interference of terrorists pouring in from neighboring nations, Iraqis would be in a much better position to engage in political discourse. That is what we are trying to achieve in Iraq: Remove foreign influences and provide sufficient security and public safety to allow Iraqis to resolve their differences and govern themselves unhindered by neighboring nations.

The Iraqi people have already achieved something Americans have not yet accomplished. Iraqis have united in recognizing that their enemy is al Qaeda rather than each other. Sunni and Shiite Iraqis have joined together in driving al Qaeda out of entire provinces. In contrast, nearly thirty percent of Americans believe that the Bush administration rather than al Qaeda brought down the World Trade Center towers with pre-placed demolition charges. If recognizing who our real enemies are is a sign of national survival instinct, America is woefully lacking, while Iraqis appear capable of uniting when self-preservation is at stake.

Leave it to a career politician like Levin to overestimate politics as the solution to all of Iraq’s current ills while ignoring the critical need for public safety and security in what clearly is a military confrontation with terrorist groups funded, trained, and equipped outside of Iraq and inserted into that nation as a destabilizing influence. The Iraqi government will never succeed in its political duties or live up to Levin’s benchmarks for success until al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist insurgents are decisively defeated, disbanded, and their demise displayed to the world as a deterrent from further foreign treachery in Iraq.

That will only happen through victory by our troops there and continued strengthening of the Iraqi military. General Petraeus’s September report will demonstrate that the surge strategy is working, which should be received as welcome news by all Americans. All Americans that is, except for those who, like Harry Reid and his fellow party leaders, have already declared the surge a failure and the war lost. In Reid’s case, he has already determined that he will not believe anything Petraeus reports if it includes good news about the surge . There is an ironic oxymoron in the nation’s highest ranking liberal being so decidedly close-minded. Democratic abandonment of Petraeus and the surge was an abrupt and hypocritical change in Democratic “support” for both considering the fact that earlier this year the senate voted 81-0 to confirm him as the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq knowing precisely what his intended plan of action would be.

Over the next several weeks while congress enjoys its summer recess away from Washington, Americans will be bombarded by media reports of Levin’s “findings” from his current trip to Iraq. We will witness a carefully calculated misinformation campaign that Levin himself admits is meant to distract people from the substance of General Petraeus’ pending war report. When politicians work so hard to discredit a military report or minimize the attention given to it, it should peak our interest in what is reported and why one party’s anti-war base considers it “a big problem.”

Americans should respond by rejecting the misinformation ploys and reading every word of the report, making their own decisions as to its veracity and impact on public support for the war effort.

Technorati Tags:
General Petraeus, Carl Levin, James Clyburn, Surge Strategy, Iraq War, Misinformation, Surge Progress Report, Iraqi Government, Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Anti-War Democrats

Sleepless Senate Awakens Iraqi Unity

Forget democracy and Iraqi self-determination as motivating factors for reconciling the internal differences plaguing their parliament. It seems that all it took to accomplish such a feat was the mental image of Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid in pajamas. The all-night Senate slumber party this week to debate troop withdrawal from Iraq was reported with amusement and no shortage of mockery by the American media, and ultimately the amendment to withdraw U.S. troops by April 2008 went down to inglorious defeat. Senator Levin (D-MI) argued at length that the Iraqis simply had not done enough to secure their own country, and virtually every Democrat who participated in the amendment debate cited Iraqi internal divisions and "civil war" as the primary reasons to withdraw American troops from the conflict. I disagree completely with those characterizations of the situation in Iraq, but perhaps the Democrats' emotional anti-Iraqi rhetoric lighted a few fires under certain factions within Iraq's parliament.

It may just be coincidence, but perhaps Iraqi parliamentarians, surely watching the captivating "Sleepless in the Senate" production via satellite, took note that while this particular troop withdrawal amendment failed passage in the Senate, others are sure to follow. They likely realized that the only way to blunt the criticism was to demonstrate unity in purpose among Shi'ite and Sunni members of parliament. That is one possible explanation for a news report Thursday that should have been heralded in the media as a great breakthrough in Iraq but was largely relegated to obscurity through beneath the fold attention. Credit Reuters for placing the headline "Sunni Bloc Ends Boycott of Iraqi Parliament" as the lead international news story at Reuters.com for a few hours Thursday.

Reuters reported that Sunni Arabs, who had staged a boycott of the Iraqi parliament since June, decided Thursday to end the boycott and work with the majority Shi'ite bloc to work on "very important legislation." The Sunni Arabs constitute 44 of the 275 seats in Iraq's parliament, making the passage of legislation without that bloc a difficult task that has bogged down Iraq's legislative attempts at unity. When combined with 30 Shi'ite followers of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who ended their boycott of parliament earlier this week, the end result was that 74 disgruntled Iraqis of varying religious sentiments returned to parliament to rebut accusations from the House and Senate that unity of Iraq's Shiites and Sunnis is not possible.

In typical fashion, the Washington Post determined that this effort at reconciliation might bring good news from Iraq and hope for its future, and the Post immediately buried the Reuters wire story at the bottom of its online front page, where only avid news observers might stumble upon it. It is sadly ironic that the main reason given in the Senate Sleepover for withdrawing our troops was that Iraq is engulfed in a hopeless "civil war," yet when Iraq's minority members of parliament set aside their differences with the majority and vowed to work together to secure Iraq's sovereignty and security, neither the Democrats in Congress nor the liberal media wanted to give that sign of progress any meaningful attention. Clearly, while they waxed philosophical (Sen. Schumer, D-NY) or emotional (Sen. Kennedy) about the "quagmire" in Iraq, none had any sincere desire for an actual reconciliation of Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. The prospect that President Bush might be right about the instinctive human thirst for freedom in Iraq was just too politically frightening for the chorus of critics to consider or patiently nurture.

The Iraqi government still faces rough seas ahead, but at least now it will face challenges with a full complement of Shi'ite and Sunni leaders who presently appear committed to proving the sleep-deprived Senate critics wrong. Yet as the Senate Snoozefest demonstrated, if our Congress actually put in the kind of work hours that most Americans do each week, the number of world crises they could solve, even in their pajamas, would be impressive.

Photo Credit: McClatchey Washington Bureau

Technorati Tags:
Senate, Iraqi Parliament, Sunni, Shia, Boycott, Troop Withdrawal, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Moqtada al-Sadr

Reid, Pelosi Lack Al-Maliki's Faith, Spine

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are, in a politically correct euphemism, “diplomatically challenged.” This condition has manifested itself through various symptoms over the past six months, including Pelosi’s unconstitutional and borderline treasonous “diplomatic” visit to Syria, Harry Reid’s declaration to the world and the enemy that “the war is lost” in Iraq, and their newest premature and impatient judgment that the surge strategy currently underway in Iraq is a failure, giving even more encouragement to the enemy attempting to destroy Iraq’s democratically elected government. Despite the pleading of Iraq’s parliamentary leaders and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki for the U.S. to remain steadfast in its defense of the Iraqi democracy, the pleas have fallen on Reid’s and Pelosi’s deaf ears, blind eyes, and cold hearts, resulting in an international cold shoulder that is the antithesis of responsible diplomacy.

Never mind the fact that Reid and Pelosi have judged the surge a failure 3 months in advance of the scheduled progress report to be delivered by General Petraeus in September. Never mind the fact that Petraeus’ current summaries reveal significant reductions in violence and increased rebuilding in the Anbar province. Reid and Pelosi remind me of a line from the George Banks character in Disney’s Mary Poppins. While in a particularly irritable mood, Banks sits down at the piano in his home, plays one note, and promptly judges that the piano is out of tune. He then chastens his incredibly patient wife for allowing the piano to have become out of tune. He states to her, “When I sit down to an instrument, I expect it be in tune.” Mrs. Banks points out, “But dear, you don’t play.” George Banks, in classic Reid/Pelosi mentality, shouts in response, “Madam that is entirely beside the point. Kindly do not cloud the issue with facts!”

What are the facts on progress in Iraq and the effectiveness of the surge strategy? General Petraeus stated that the results thus far have been mixed, with “breathtaking” achievements in some provinces, but increased violence in others. Reid and Pelosi do want their issues clouded with facts, and so they choose to ignore Petraeus’s explanation that the surge strategy itself draws more terrorists and insurgents into confrontation, and this naturally produces statistical increases in casualties on both sides in the short term. They also choose to ignore Petraeus’s reports that the Iraqi Army has increased its enrollment by 20,000 men so far this year and it continues to grow steadily. It now stands at approximately 120,000-150,000 and is becoming better trained, better equipped, and more capable with each passing month. More importantly, residents in some provinces, Sunni and Shia, have risen to take up arms against al Qaeda, recognizing the terrorist group as their common enemy. The result has been a complete retreat of al Qaeda from those provinces. These are the facts of the surge strategy thus far, but Reid and Pelosi want no silver linings found in their clouds. From a letter to the White House written jointly by Reid and Pelosi:

"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

"It has not enhanced America’s national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

The defeatist attitudes displayed by our Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House are in starkly embarrassing contrast with the optimism and faith in democracy displayed by Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. I have recently been reading Never Give In! The Best of Winston Churchill's Speeches, particularly those speeches he delivered personally or via radio to the citizens and government of the United States from 1940 until the attack on Pearl Harbor. In every speech he patiently and graciously attempted to convince the American people that their interests were tied to Britain’s and to join directly in the battle to preserve freedom in Europe rather than remain entrenched in isolationism. The tone of those speeches, in trying to convince America to join a war that would surely engulf it eventually, was eerily reminiscent of Prime Minister Al-Maliki’s current pleas for America to stand firmly by its new democratic ally in a war for freedom already in progress.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal contained a column penned by Prime Minister Al-Maliki entitled, “Our Common Struggle,” in which the Iraqi leader offered an eloquent appeal for America’s steadfastness and patience, lacing his arguments with historical precedent and providing an internal audit of the current conditions in Iraq. It should be required reading for all members of Congress, all members of the media, and all Americans who insist that Iraq is a “quagmire,” “failure,” or that “the war is lost.”

Here are some of the highlights from the Prime Minister’s OpinionJournal piece, but I recommend reading it in its entirety:

Under the Baath [Saddam] tyranny, Iraqis were to endure a brutal regime the likes of which they had never known before. Countless people were put to death on the smallest measure of suspicion. Wars were waged by that regime and our national treasure was squandered without the consent of a population that was herded into costly and brutal military campaigns. Today when I hear the continuous American debate about the struggle raging in Iraq, I can only recall with great sorrow the silence which attended the former dictator's wars.

It is perhaps true that only people who are denied the gift of liberty can truly appreciate its full meaning and bounty....

….War being what it is, the images of Iraq that come America's way are of car bombs and daily explosions. Missing from the coverage are the great, subtle changes our country is undergoing, the birth of new national ideas and values which will in the end impose themselves despite the death and destruction that the terrorists have been hell-bent on inflicting on us. Those who endured the brutality of the former regime, those who saw the outside world avert its gaze from their troubles, know the magnitude of the change that has come to Iraq. A fundamental struggle is being fought on Iraqi soil between those who believe that Iraqis, after a long nightmare, can retrieve their dignity and freedom, and others who think that oppression is the order of things and that Iraqis are doomed to a political culture of terror, prisons and mass graves. Some of our neighbors have made this struggle more lethal still, they have placed their bets on the forces of terror in pursuit of their own interests.

When I became prime minister a year and a half ago, my appointment emerged out of a political process unique in our neighborhood: Some 12 million voters took part in our parliamentary elections. They gave voice to their belief in freedom and open politics and their trust imposed heavy burdens on all of us in political life. Our enemies grew determined to drown that political process in indiscriminate violence, to divert attention from the spectacle of old men and women casting their vote, for the first time, to choose those who would govern in their name. You may take this right for granted in America, but for us this was a tantalizing dream during the decades of dictatorship and repression.

….Iraq is well on its way to passing a new oil law that would divide the national treasure among our provinces and cities, based on their share of the population. This was intended to reassure those provinces without oil that they will not be left behind and consigned to poverty. The goal is to repair our oil sector, open the door for new investments and raise the standard of living of Iraqi families. Our national budget this year is the largest in Iraq's history, its bulk dedicated to our most neglected provinces and to improving the service sector in the country as a whole. Our path has been made difficult by the saboteurs and the terrorists who target our infrastructure and our people, but we have persevered, even though our progress has been obscured by the scenes of death and destruction.

Daily we still fight the battle for our security. We lose policemen and soldiers to the violence, as do the multinational forces fighting along our side. We are training and equipping a modern force, a truly national and neutral force, aided by our allies. This is against the stream of history here, where the armed forces have traditionally been drawn into political conflicts and struggles. What gives us sustenance and hope is an increase in the numbers of those who volunteer for our armed forces, which we see as proof of the devotion of our people to the stability and success of our national government.

We have entered into a war, I want it known, against militias that had preyed upon the weakness of the national government….We believe that the best way to defeat these militias is to build and enhance the capabilities of our government as a defender of the rights of our citizens. A stable government cannot coexist with these militias.

Our conflict, it should be emphasized time and again, has been fueled by regional powers that have reached into our affairs....

…We have come to believe, as Americans who founded your country once believed, that freedom is a precious inheritance. It is never cheap but the price is worth paying if we are to rescue our country.

“The war is lost,” “failure,” “little impact,” “has not enhanced.” Reid and Pelosi could use optimism and spine transplants. Iraq’s Prime Minister would be a highly appropriate donor.

Technorati:
Nouri Al-Maliki Harry Reid Nancy Pelosi Iraq War Troop Surge Diplomacy Iraqi Democracy Quagmire David Petraeus Rebuilding Iraq

Iran's Incongruent Congruence

There must be a medical term for what happens to a person’s ability to speak truthfully when he becomes an ambassador or a government spokesman. A case in point is the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. His is a difficult and largely thankless task, but he did little to help himself with his glass half-full assessment of yesterday’s initial round of diplomatic talks between Iran, Iraq, and the United States. There is nothing wrong with a glass half-full perspective when the facts offer even a ray of hope, but when the glass is completely empty, as was the case in these negotiations over Iraq’s security, it is deceptive and counterproductive to pretend that progress was made when it clearly was not.

The diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran, after nearly thirty years of official silence, focused on the security and stability of Iraq’s federal government and Iran’s role as helper or hindrance. Ambassador Crocker reportedly confronted Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi on Iran’s funding, support, and personnel involvement with terrorists and “militant groups” that continue to attack U.S., British, and Iraqi troops throughout Iraq. Ambassador Crocker also pointed out to his Iranian counterpart that many of the firearms, IED’s and other weapons used to attack allied forces are Iranian and arrived in Iraq directly from Iran.

Had this been a glass half-full diplomatic discussion, Iranian Ambassador Qomi would have stated something to the effect of “We don’t know how our weapons keep popping up mysteriously in Iraq, but we can assure you will do everything to find out who in our country is behind this and cut off their (insert whatever limb would be appropriate for weapons smuggling here) as a show of good faith” or similar. However, this was not a glass half-full discussion. Here is the (UK) Times online summary of the Iranian response:

The Iranians, whose leadership has long attacked the US as the Great Satan, rejected such accusations and raised their own fears, calling the US presence in Iraq an occupation. Tehran also criticized efforts to train the Iraqi Army and police as inadequate.

The Islamic Republic suggested creating a three-way system, comprising Iran, Iraq and the United States, to coordinate security.

Clearly, no headway was made in that exchange, since the U.S. insists that Iran is the cause of stability and terrorism in Iraq, while Iran denies any involvement and blames the U.S. for inviting attack by its mere presence in Iraq. There was no glass half-full common ground to agree on, but don’t tell that to Ambassador Crocker. After the rebuttal of each of his arguments, Crocker’s description of the “progress” made leaves one wondering to what discussions he was referring when he toasted the talks with this half-full glass:

There was pretty good congruence right down the line in support of a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbours.

I am sure Ambassador Crocker is a well-educated man, but perhaps his schooling did not include the proper use of the word “congruence.” The term literally means agreeing, or being in harmony. The two sides did not agree on Iran’s role in Iraq, thus there was no congruence down that or any line. The only item on which the Americans and Iranians agree is that it would be beneficial for the region if Iraq were controlled by a stable centralized government. However, the “congruent” line diverges with who would control Iraq’s government. Iran is doing all it can overtly and covertly to undermine the Iraqi parliament that contains a mixture of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish elements. What Iran wants is a stable non-democratic Shia Iraq that could be a natural ally or potentially an expansionist target. The mullahs fear democracy in general and would be terrified of a democratic Iraq on its border. Already fearing the spread of western influence and ideas of freedom seeping into its radical Islamic culture, the mullahs cannot afford to have a successful, free Iraq residing next door. “Keeping up with the Jones’s” would take on a whole new meaning if Iranians could point to a free neighbor and ask, “why can’t we have what they have?” The U.S. wants precisely that scenario to develop but Iran dreads it and fights it at every turn. The two sides could not be more incongruent.

The only item on which Iran and the U.S. agreed in these historic talks was to disagree. The Iraqis, who set up the talks, soft-pedaled the animosity between Iran and the U.S. Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, offered this remarkable interpretation of the meeting results, “It shows that both countries are looking at getting the problems solved.” That may be true, but both sides are also looking to solve the problems at the disadvantage or destruction of the other. Until Iran ceases its role as trainer, financier, and arms dealer to “militants” and terrorists in Iraq, and abandons its suicidal sprint toward nuclear weapons, America’s glass of optimism for Iran will and must remain decidedly empty.