Friday Sermon from Iran and New York

cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

A moment of silence? At least from Tehran that is how it would appear; in NY however, the Mullahs Supreme Allegiance Branch West, otherwise known as the NY Times Editorial Board is in its usual frothing at the mouth form.

Tehran is quiet from a reporting point of view, which is unusual for a government controlled mouthpiece often overflowing with the propaganda rhetoric of the weeks Friday Prayer Leader. We’ll have to wait and see what next Friday brings to judge whether this lack will become the standard; perhaps their own words are coming back to bite them as they work to hide their faces of evil.

But no sooner does someone finish writing a paragraph and the floodgates are loosed; from Tehran, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei led the congregation with:

“Alert and wise Iranian nation, relying on strong faith and resistance, made US project of weakening Islamic Revolution face defeat. The Iranian nation would continue paving the same proud and glorious path, and a time will come when no power would dare to threaten this nation, even in his mind.”

The religio-politico leader also defined US plans following 9/11 by adding:

“The Americans had a multi-dimensional project, aimed at shaping up a pro-Zionist Middle East, but faced defeat at all layers of that project.”

Sometimes too much love can be harmful, but if you so choose visit the Motormouth Mullah for more of his positive message.

Mullahs West for its part continued the assault to strengthen the imagined belief that President Bush is the real enemy in this war and offered the fruits of wisdom with its summation of the week:

“This was the week in which Americans hoped they would get straight talk and clear thinking on Iraq. What they got was two exhausting days of Congressional testimony by the American military commander, hours of news conferences and interviews, clouds of cut-to-order statistics and a speech from the Oval Office — and none of it either straight or clear.”

It is a shame that in its role as the arbiter of truth the toilet paper believes “Americans” are so easily exhausted by an entire two days of information. Perhaps, as is obvious it is The behind the Times that has issues with the clarity and direction it expected from the testimony and “hours of news conferences and interviews.” When the only thing that would please Mullahs West is what they want to hear, anything short of that is just more smoke, mirrors and clouds.

Beyond the repetition complaining about repetition and various assertive, yet naïve strategies the board did at the least not bash General Petraeus. This was likely due to the lack of this necessity with the discounted full page ad given to the MoveOn group.

Beyond the redun, redundant, redundant and repetitive moaning and alternate propaganda with “cherry picked” remarks and misinformation, Mullahs West did offer up a very revealing sentence that suggests how wrong they really are. In hoping “Mr. Bush would drop the meaningless talk of victory” and the “fiction that the war keeps” Americans safe from terrorism; they offered “credit” to the general for not adopting “that bit of propaganda.”

So used to supporting those in the General Officers club that agree with their perspective, that when a general rightly chooses not to play a role in the larger political snafu; a role mind you that is not the generals to play, that they give him “credit” for doing something he shouldn’t be doing anyway.

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely politicians…

The Violence in Anbar has gone down Despite the Surge, NOT Because of the Surge

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Senator Chuck Shill Schumer remarked on the Senate floor yesterday regarding the “Surge” in Iraq and its success to date:

“I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.”

Most would attribute the Senators “rise” to the use of Viagra, however common sense tells us this is not so. To suggest “just the opposite,” of what is actually going on in Iraq as Schumer does is to “cling to straws” when news with even the slightest hint of “good” cannot be allowed. Schumer’s remarks are nothing more than the Iraq debate reframing debate strategy the Democrats have begun prior to Petraeus and Crockers report. We’ve entered September and Harry Reid noticed yesterday that this was the case following the Dems earlier confusion on the calendar a couple months back:

“Many of my Republican friends have long held September as the month for the policy change in Iraq. It’s September. The calendar hasn’t changed. It’s time to make a decision. We can’t continue the way we are.”

According to the Shill occasionally good news is allowed to slip out prior to Democrat pre-emptive measures to downplay it:

“We’ve heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They’re cleared, they’re safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.”

“It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.”

MORE HERE…

Non-Sense of the Senate Resolution

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

From the Left Coast via The New York Left Times OpEd page comes the “piece” “Occupation Hazard,” which discusses the future legality of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

The legality in question is “the Authority” – which (is) to say “the occupying powers under unified command” – as Iraq’s effective legal government,” as granted under annual Security Council Resolutions.

According to the “piece” the “current mandate expires at the end of December,” and will require renewal. This past June, “the Iraqi Parliament passed a bill requiring that the next renewal should not be made without its advice and consent.”

Were the mandate not renewed it is conceivable that the U.S. would be required to leave Iraq, however, as the author says the “Bush administration is of course unlikely to give too much heed to any Security Council resolution.”

The author believes there is a possibility that if the Iraqi parliament chose not to allow renewal and the U.S. did not depart that this might “matter greatly to the Iraqis, even to the point of becoming the signal for a general uprising of Shiites against foreign forces.” This could then lead to a general uprising against our forces and those included in the multi-national coalition, Iraq finding another friend say Russia or “the most obvious and presumably most willing new partner for Mr. Maliki would be Shiite-dominated Iran.”

If this last were to become the reality while our military was still in Iraq the author theorizes the following:

“should the United States attack Iran pre-emptively? Some in high places favor this, but a pre-emptive American attack on Iran could quickly lead to an Iranian counterattack closing the Straits of Hormuz at the lower end of the Persian Gulf. The American forces would then be trapped — both their main supply line and their main evacuation route cut off.”

“It may be time to change the slogan on the yellow ribbon from “support the troops” to “defend the nation.” Rather than see the American army of liberation humiliatingly voted out of Iraq or have its avenue of exit cut off by opportunistic enemies, the Senate should join the Iraqi Parliament, through a “sense of the Senate” resolution, and call for the next Security Council mandate to be one that requires the progressive withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, without haste but with all deliberate speed.”

Would the U.S. truly be cut off from its route of exit were it to strike at Iran? Certainly not without a fight and we can bring that, but “humiliatingly voted out of Iraq?” According to the author the remedy would be for our Senate to follow the lead of the Iraqi parliament and its non-binding resolution with the call for a withdrawal timetable.

The question of what to do were the mandate to require the U.S. presence reversed is not nothing and perhaps if it was to become a reality the U.S. should seriously consider heeding it, especially if Iraq leaned on Iran for support. As unattractive as our leaving too early would be the target area could become that much larger for our military and perhaps the U.S. could not worry so much about collateral damage as the war on terror would take quite a turn to the more violent.

This call for the future mandate of the Security Council to require a “progressive withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, without haste but with all deliberate speed,” is just more of the same Leftist driven NY Times agenda that it and the rest of the msm feels obligated to force down the throat of the U.S. and its citizens. It is the newest tactic in sounding non-agenda like, but is nothing different.

Sustainable Stability IS Victory in Iraq

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

How is the board feeling this morning, betrayed? Who do O’Hanlon and Pollack think they are returning to Iraq and actually viewing what it is like on the ground today and actually reporting back that Iraq has improved since their last visit?

Michael O’Hanlon recently wrote on June 10, 07 in the same pages of the NY Times that “Cities like Kirkuk and Mosul remain tinderboxes.” Today, writing of Tal Afar and Mosul:

“This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. 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. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq.”

In the January 2005 issue of Policy Review, O’Hanlan wrote “Iraq Without a Plan,” (reproduced by permission of Policy Review at The Brookings Institution) which he opened with:

“The post-invasion phase of the Iraq mission has been the least well-planned American military mission since Somalia in 1993, if not Lebanon in 1983, and its consequences for the nation have been far worse than any set of military mistakes since Vietnam.”

Pollack in January wrote a Saban Center Analysis, also available at The Brookings Institute; “Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War.” In May it was The New Republic with “Civil Defense: The Surge That Would Really Save Iraq”

The bottom line is that O’Hanlon and Pollack left of Center foreign policy analysts, are anti-Iraq heroes to the likes of the NY Times Editors and the rest that are so far Left they almost fall off; so their writing of improvements will make many vested in defeat very unhappy.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

If Harry Reid insists on not believing General Petraeus, will he believe these two? We’ll have to wait until after his weekly conference call with MoveOrg, Kos and the rest.

Believing the Worst Requires Too Little Imagination

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

If it bleeds it leads is one reason we are all too well aware of as to why the news has more good then bad; even when more good than bad may have happened. Watch any local newscast and the coverage is wall to wall crime, accidents and anything that might bring in the viewers hoping for some action and car chases.

In Iraq, from Abu Ghraib, Fallujah to Haditha, the truth isn’t nearly as important as the story; much like the Duke Lacrosse players in their travails and tribulation facing prison time for a rape they did not commit nor even happened.

All this is unfortunate for us in that it leads to an acceptance of what isn’t as those it is, which brings us to all the horror stories of our soldiers in Vietnam as baby killers and presently our heartless “killers” in Iraq. Perhaps if the media wasn’t so starved or easily self-mislead toward the worst in us in a war they disagree with we might have a true picture of what exactly is going on.

Mackubin Thomas Owens, contributing editor at NRO had a great column yesterday that I had hoped to bring attention to, however failed on that task. From John Kerry and the “Winter Soldier Investigation” from Vietnam, to Stephen Glass of National Review fame, Owens reveals a reason that we should all take what we hear of atrocity with a grain of salt before we go on the rampage beating ourselves, our military and our nation down as though it is not worthy of spitting on.

Owens does not deny the reality that horrible things happen and anyone that does is obviously a fool probably cannot speak beyond the monosyllabic. That said however, it is a fool that in knee jerk order accepts that which paints what our military does as everything but honorable as though each member in its ranks cheered on the anomaly, not “new management” at Abu Gharaib.

A personal anecdote shared by Owens during his time in Vietnam goes:

“I heard of an atrocity just after I joined the unit. A Marine who was scheduled to rotate soon recounted an incident that he claimed had occurred shortly after he had arrived in the unit about a year earlier. According to his story, members of a sister company had killed some North Vietnamese soldiers after they had surrendered.

Some months later, I happened to overhear another Marine who had joined my platoon after I took it over relate exactly the same story to some newly arrived men, only now it involved me and my platoon. I had a little chat with him and he cleared things up with the new men. But that episode has always made me wonder how many of the stories have been recycled and how many accounts of atrocities are based on what veterans heard as opposed to committed or witnessed.”

Instances of atrocity are undeniable in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere; they happen in Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon and we’re not there. As a matter of fact horrible acts are committed daily all over the world. This is not to justify the action of those that commit them, but to allow ourselves the calm that should come knowing that it is not in our military’s first instinct to commit them.

We should doubt that which we read or see in the news until we know more. All the claims of support of our troops is nothing if you expect the worse of them.

From Wednesday’s NRO, Mackubin Thomas Owens, “Stephen Glass Meets the Winter Soldiers.”

Recent Deaths PROVE Iraq is a Distraction from Real War on Terror

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Just trying to get a jump on the Editorial Curve

According to CNN:

“Car bombers targeted throngs of Iraqis Wednesday as they spilled into Baghdad streets to cheer a national soccer victory, killing at least 17 people and leaving scores more wounded.

Attacking revelers in the Mansour district of western Baghdad, a suicide car bomber killed at least 10 people and wounded 62, said an Interior Ministry official. Later, in the southeastern neighborhood of Ghadir, a second car bomb killed at least seven and wounded at least 27, the official said. The attack is near an Iraqi army checkpoint.

Thousands of fans had filled the streets of the capital after Iraqi athletes competing in Malaysia defeated South Korea, catapulting the nation to the Asian Cup finals for the first time.”

Having foolishly believed in the past that Iraq is a central or the central front in the war on terror I have now come to my senses having read the above. Our military should not be in Iraq to either referee soccer matches or their aftermath. NO BLOOD FOR SOCCER!!!

This blogger apologizes to the ever-prescient editorial board of The NY Times for this and previous attacks upon their present and previous omniscience in these most trying of times.

NO BLOOD FOR SOCCER!!!

Letter to Murtha from Marine L/Cpl Justin L. Sharratt’s Dad – Wake Up America

Cross posted from Wake Up America:

Thanks to CArthur for the email.

Posted in Guest Authors by Longhunter on July 23, 2007

Throughout this Haditha investigation our family has believed in the innocence of our son L/Cpl Justin Sharratt- we knew he was innocent. There are things I do not understand and I would like to find the answers. We do not seek revenge, but we would like to see justice. In a conversation with Congressman John Murtha, my questions still remain unanswered. With the help of the American people, I hope to find justice.

On Wednesday morning, July 17th I spoke with Congressman John Murtha via telephone from his Washington, DC office. We had a courteous conversation. I knew what to expect from a career politician and Congressman Murtha did not disappoint. Mr. Murtha avoided answering the hard questions and I was unable to press him for the answers. I wanted the conversation to remain amicable and decided to let him speak and avoid a heated confrontation.

At no time during the dialogue would Mr. Murtha acknowledge the impending exoneration of my son. I pressed him to use the word exoneration but the best I could get was “things seem to have gone well in your son’s Article 32. The General is a fair man and I believe he will do the right thing.” I replied, ” Lt. Col Paul Ware presented a strong recommendation for exoneration and we are anticipating Lt. Gen James Mattis following this recommendation.”

Mr. Murtha asked me if I had served in the military. He recalled his visits with injured Marines, soldiers and sailors. He said he supports our troops and it is the war he does not condone. Mr Murtha believes combat operations in Iraq have put an enormous strain on our Armed Forces. The stress of combat situations has led our troops to kill innocent civilians. I pointed out to Mr. Murtha, ” Our Haditha Marines are innocent until proven guilty.” It seems he is again denying our Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Mr. Murtha replied that we have a Marine (Mendoza) testifying that innocent women and children were killed in Haditha. I retorted that he is again believing the reports of the media and Mendoza was granted immunity for his lies. Mendoza has changed his testimony at least two times. NCIS may have threatened him with deportation and denial of US citizenship. This time I scolded him, ” I witnessed their (NCIS) conduct first hand in my son’s Article 32.”

I questioned Congressman Murtha as to his statements of 17 May 2006. On national television, in front of millions of Americans, he stated ” Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” I asked him why he denied these Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Again the Congressman used his experience to side step the answer. Mr. Murtha stated his intentions were to point out the stress our military was under in Iraq. He replied we would not win the hearts of the Iraqi people by killing women and children. I again snapped, ” Our Haditha Marines have not been convicted of killing innocents and are innocent until proven guilty.”

I believe this conversation was the first step in obtaining justice for Our Haditha Marines. I did not expect Mr. Murtha to admit to or apologize for any wrongdoing in his role to railroad my son and his Marine comrades. The American people now know that his unfounded and untruthful allegations were used to further his political agenda. It is my intention to ask the Congress of the United States to censure Representative John Murtha and hold hearings to explain his conduct in respect to the Haditha incident. I will ask the American people to question his blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights of Our Haditha Marines. I will campaign to the voters of Pa Congressional District 12 to oust Representative Murtha from his elected office. The American people deserve better, we must demand better representation from our elected officials.

Darryl Sharratt
Proud American, Proud father of L/Cpl Justin L. Sharratt

Now Hear This: The Editors Have Spoken Again

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Will someone please, please, please flush the toilet Paper???

According to the emotion and angst filled, non logic using editorial board members at The NY Times:

“Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists.”

This group whines like Mike Gravel at a Democrat Debate, why are they so invested in the never changing need to get out? Who are these people? Who are the members?

Because we are still in Iraq (big surprise!) it is nothing but an utter failure. Because we are in Iraq, “Al Qaeda’s top leadership (has) regrouped and (is) resurgent in its old strongholds along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier.” Is the logic(?) that we could then invade Pakistan or send more military to Afghanistan? What kind of a “quagmire” would be created by sending more soldiers to Afghanistan; do we really want to get involved in something like that? Who would we place the blame upon for that battlefield not going right or according to “plan” or an ever increasing number of casualties and deaths?

NO BLOOD FOR POPPIES!!!!

What would our “exit plan” be? Does that question not really enter the equation because we’re already there? Hasn’t Afghanistan gone on long enough? When will the Afghanis take responsibility for their own safety and government, why should they still need us?

Of Iraq, the board asks:

“What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit?”

(bold/italics/case/ul mine) This according to those that “know” that getting out of Iraq is “THE essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

This is the boards over riding “intelligence” estimate. The rallying point that Iraq is for “extremists” would no longer be if we left. This is the answer they “stubbornly and damagingly” hold onto and refuse to view any other way.

Of Petraeus and Crocker’s plan the editors are aghast at the gall in the “assumption” that “a large-scale United States military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years.” Forget the fact that it is a “war plan” and not the “change in direction” or “exit plan” the editors envision and “assume” is the only answer to Iraq and is the only question in the minds of Americans with regard to Iraq.

The board sums it all up in a voice revealing the thin line between it and a Kos-hat (see a*s-hat):

“Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing.”

One “illusion” here is that the board considers itself part of “everything” or perhaps “everything (that matters anyway).” Another “illusion” is that the “surge” and this newest plan isn’t a re-evaluation of strategy. The last “illusion” is the boards unbending surety that it is failing and overall Iraq has failed.

It must be nice to know.

Iraq is a “quagmire;” Alright, I said It

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

The term “quagmire” and the beginnings of its overuse hark back to the Vietnam War; becoming part of the popular lexicon following the publication of David Halberstam’s Pulitzer Prize winning account of the Diem/Kennedy years of the Vietnam War, “The Making of a Quagmire.”

Just about every military intervention of the U.S. since Vietnam has been referred to as a “quagmire,” in one form or another. It has become a catchphrase that speaks volumes, however elicits no details other than the minds eye portrays. Once labeled a “quagmire” a war or battle has likely heard its last level headed remark made about it; that goes for those in support of or against the conflagration in question.

There has to be a time that we will remove the majority of our forces from Iraq, however, a specific date cannot be selected and certainly not when things might be taking the kind of turn that may give us the first glimmer of a paced exodus that is actually based on a workable improvement; a real possibility of ‘perhaps they can take the helm on their own.’

The “quagmire” admitted to is a “quagmire” more of the mind than of the physical reality of one. Physically “quagmire” is a measurement of degree and subjection that is thought of differently depending upon the point of view, so to me it is a fairly useless assessment as to any movement forward or backward. One can get from point A to point B through the thick mud or “quagmire” an inch at a time or in a barely perceptible manner and if so, do we judge it before getting to B prior to actually getting there?

“Quagmire” is most realistically descriptive of the mental “quagmire” that so many involved directly and indirectly are dealing with when we discuss Iraq. It is best illustrated this morning in The NY Times in an article entitled, “Standing Against the War, but Unsure How to End it.” Forget about whether the toilet paper is speaking on either side of the political spectrum. Read what is actually being said; “Now, what do we do now? Walk away? We should really ramp it up, or get out now” and “It’s fighting between Republicans and Democrats, I don’t even know that they’re really looking at doing anything.” No one quite knows how to end it and one reason for that is no one knows what “end it” means.

If we pull out on Bill Richardson’s timeline (all out by March/April ’08) or even the, dare I say more realistic Joe Biden time frame (at least a year at minimum); what “end,” are we talking about? It would perhaps be the “end” to our concentrated and numeric involvement, but that is not truly an end is it? I don’t believe it would be unrealistic to envision that it would continue and worsen in the overall region, having ramifications that make our involvement now appear trivial.

If we stick it out and see the “surge” through to September awaiting the report of General Petraeus it won’t be over either. Many seem to believe and I’m sure will fight tooth and nail to use his interim report as “proof” the “surge” is not working and Iraq is “lost.” However, the “surge” is a prime example of the day to day morphing of the battlefield and how our unrivalled military addresses it. It is the politics of the battlefield; not the battlefield of politics.

This morning, the “U.S. Is Seen in Iraq Until at Least ’09, is an article on a classified plan, “which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador.” The “plan” is not an end either, but it strikes me as a move forward (no promises) that has the means to turn our mental “quagmire” on its head but only if we allow it.

As quoted earlier, “it’s fighting between Republicans and Democrats,” really does describe pretty appropriately what a major problem is with our effort in Iraq. It would be nice if both sides of the aisle stepped back and perhaps viewed this latest as the beginning of a realistic possibility for a draw down. Step back, avoid calling it Bush’s plan or a Democrat plan; call it the “military” plan that may allow us to pull all of our heads out of our “quagmire.”

“We’re Not Staying; You Don’t Have Much Time!”

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

One of the of-size issues of “discussion” these days is what a “redeploy” order would be like for the U.S. and Iraq. The two “schools” of thought are, in a nutshell; one would free us up to fight the real enemy, with a sprinkling of disdain for the plight of the Iraqis once we leave as it’s their country. The second sees Iraq as a new haven or sanctuary for al Qaeda and other nasties, as well as a rippling effect upon the region deleterious, although pretty obvious in many others to our efforts in the greater war on terror.

Is it just a bunch of “fear mongering” to suggest mayhem and unimagined violent ramifications to a U.S. “redeployment?” If so, how would one describe the other side of the argument, “peace mongering?” Certainly not, as there would be no “peace” for miles and miles; just because the U.S. had left; just a certain “peace” of mind for some because it isn’t our problem.

Yesterday, top military and Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker met via video hook-up with “lawmakers” at the Pentagon and Capitol Hill; which according to The NY Times met with “stern rebukes from lawmakers of both parties.”

Crocker told lawmakers “that it was increasingly likely that Iraq’s government would not achieve all of the political benchmarks by September.” A very telling remark from Crocker would be, “the longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discrete, precisely defined benchmarks because, in many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important — Iraqi attitudes toward each other and their willingness to work toward political reconciliation.”

If we have invested as much as we have in Iraq is it really wise to say ‘let’s pack up,’ now when, regardless of precision benchmark goals are not quite met according to a spreadsheet formula?

If Crocker’s previous comment is “telling” so are the “stern rebukes,” from lawmakers.

Senator Voinovich (R-OH) said: “There’s got to be some real evidence that action’s taking place there, and everything you can do to convey to Mr. Maliki and his executive committee, to the other players in the region, that the American people’s patience is running out.”

Senator Biden (D-DE) said: “We’re not staying. You don’t have much time.” (No reporting as to how long he took to spit this out as the good senator does like to drag things out.)

Senator Warner (R-VA) said: “The facts are pretty much in the public domain; our concerns are about their inability to come together and reconcile things.”

If “the facts are pretty much in the public domain,” I do not agree that the concern should be so much the “inability” of them to “come together and reconcile things;” rather it should be up to the Senate and OUR employees (lawmakers) to understand what those public domain facts are coupled with the realities or likelihoods and what those likelihoods mean to this country and the Middle East region.

Worthy Quotes from Required Reading for the Senate (all from today’s NRO):

For starters, an essay directly appropriate to what was offered at the video-conference yesterday from Charles Krauthammer at NRO regarding an “incapacity” of the Iraqi government to get it together, so to speak:

“The Democrats cite this incapacity as a reason to give up and get out. A tempting thought, but ultimately self-destructive to our interests. Accordingly, Petraeus and Crocker have found a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al Qaeda.”

Victor Davis Hanson today at NRO:

“In fact, “redeployment” is a euphemism for flight from the battlefield. And we should no more expect an al Qaeda that won in Iraq to stop from pressing on to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia than we should imagine that a defeated U.S. military could rally and hold the line in the Gulf. Would the IEDs, the suicide bombers, the Internet videos of beheadings, the explosions in schools and mosques cease because they now would have to relocate across the border into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?”

Mona Charen and the good enough for now terminology, “Democratomyopia:”

“The Democrats have convinced themselves, once again, that the enemy is us — or at least our fault. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded the country, they argue. If it exists now, it’s entirely our own doing. It is our presence that causes the violence in Iraq. In fact, our presence in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool the terrorists have!”

Lastly but not least(ly), is Jonah Golberg’s “Order Is in Order:”

“In Iraq, security isn’t merely the most important thing, it’s the only thing. Without security, nothing else is possible. “The good society is marked by a high degree of order, justice and freedom,” Russell Kirk wrote in The Roots of American Order. “Among these, order has primacy: For justice cannot be enforced until a tolerable civil social order is attained, nor can freedom be anything better than violence until order gives us laws.”’

Regardless of political affiliations and partisan irreverence, the thoughts and writings of these and other commentators deserve serious consideration to those that have made up their minds about what is best in Iraq. As usual, in my case they are “preaching to the choir,” and this “church” for me does not live in the negative, rather it more closely relates to a reality I can appreciate especially when the other does not offer any vision.