As We Keep Saying: Reframing the Iraq Debate

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Did you know that “the Balkans are at peace today through the joint efforts of the United States, the European Union and the United Nations?” Makes it sound like the EU and UN were on board from the get go, doesn’t it? In fairness, NATO does consist of EU nations, whatever an EU nation is.

The above is an example of success(?) that didn’t come to fruition overnight, nor is it perfected yet. We could go over the “reasons” we are in Iraq, but why cover it all over to make the point that statements like the above and “a similar strategy should have been part of our Iraq policy from the outset but has never been seriously attempted,” from former leaders in our country is some of the reason we are where we are in Iraq today.

Former Secretary of State, Madeline “Not so” Albright believes that a fundamental shift in sectarian divisions in Iraq “will not occur through Iraqi actions alone.” Nor will it result from, “given America’s lack of leverage,…from our patrols, benchmarks, speeches or “surprise” presidential visits to Anbar province” either. “That leaves coordinated international assistance as the only option.”

MORE HERE…

Iraq and Afghanistan from the Air – Interview with Lt. Gen Gary L. North

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

W. Thomas Smith Jr., (former U.S. Marine infantry leader, W. Thomas Smith Jr. writes about military issues and has covered war in the Balkans, on the West Bank, and in Iraq. Smith is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. He blogs at “The Tank.”), has an interview up at NRO with Lt. General Gary L. North, commanding general of CENTCOM’s CENTAF and Combined Force Air Component Commander (CFACC).

The interview, along with the recent Hugh Hewitt interview with General David Petraeus is a must read. If there were no other reason to read it, it would be that it reveals the level of planning and reality of the logistics of our fight in Iraq and elsewhere in the global war on terror. Oddly, it’s not a fight that is of the brain-dead simplicity the media reports upon. As with anything, it is never that simple. We should all appreciate how huge an undertaking this war is and give it more credit than our politicians and detractors imply.

One quote of the greatest significance to my mind follows after a short discussion of whether the “surge” in Iraq is working, regards “the broader war on terror:”

“The enemy is determined and deliberate and this is big stakes for him. He is patient and deliberate. Where he finds weakness, he probes. Where he finds strength, he draws back. We cannot be short-sighted about this. Our grandchildren are going to be fighting this war. It’ll be different. But we are going to fight this one way or another, around the world or here at home.”

Before we step up and call, Iraq or the “surge” a failure and temptingly call for a draw down now consider the previous words. If one holds that this war is not as big or time consuming as the general avers, at the least consider it and ask yourself how leaving Iraq in an utter mess would work toward successfully seeing the war on terror through.

If Iraq is just a “distraction” now, what will it be later if we leave?

“General” Andrew Sullivan Dishonors General Petraeus

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

“Well, to be candid, that’s a hypothetical that I’m just not prepared to address. We are determined to do all that we can, while we’re given the opportunity to try to bring this to as successful as reasonable a conclusion as is possible, and that is really what is just what I’m devoting all my intellectual energy and physical energy to at this point in time, not thinking about what the implications of not getting it right are.”

– spin from one on the side of Cheney and “extremist, Republican partisans,” General Petraeus in response to Hugh Hewitt’s question of what we might expect as the consequences of defeat in Iraq.

It is unfortunate; though not surprising that Andrew Sullivan would have qualms about General Petraeus’ interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday and chose to pre-emptively judge the move on the part of the general as “working from the agenda of extremist, Republican partisans.”

This, he believes “renders Petraeus’ military independence moot,” but before passing judgment he’ll “wait for the transcript,” wee bit late on the withholding of judgment already. Believing Petraeus a willing cog or just allowing himself to be used by the “Republican propaganda machine” are charges of a partisan crime that leave Sullivan believing the he now knows “whose side” the general “seems” to be on.

I don’t blame the rising of anyone’s hackles when something they believe in the success of (losing Iraq in this instance), may be thwarted by someone in the top tier, someone whose judgment we should all be able to trust. I do however, question their judgment when they lay it all on the line and plant the seed, so to speak, for forwarding the argument of doubt for September based in part on an interview unheard or transcript unread (unavailable at the time of Hewitts post regarding the interview, therefore unavailable to Sullivan as well).

Sullivan inserts the next piece in the puzzle that is the Democrat propaganda plan of attack for the general’s report in September on the progress in Iraq.

Accusing someone of Hugh Hewitt’s caliber of being a tool of “extremist, Republican partisanship” is a sad statement just because you disagree with his views on various issues. A more “moderate” voice in the media to Sullivan is what or who; CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or any of the rest? Interviewers from these fonts may well be more to Sullivan’s liking, they would however ask more leaning question, the answers of which they would use to spin the continuing tale of utter desperation, abject failure and to quote the Time’s editorial board, the “colossal waste of the nation’s blood and treasure.”

No, we hear from these purveyors of “selective prescience” much too much these days and take what they feed us as reality; when the reality is it offers a very incomplete and unbalanced diet in its best of reporting. An interview by Hugh Hewitt, whose questions you can listen to or read, combined with the answers to these questions as provided by someone in a real leadership position should be viewed as the least of the partisan means of getting the information.

To believe the General Petraeus as partisan when his life’s work has been dedicated to the defense of his nation and now the protection of the soldiers under him as well is to take the chance of dishonoring someone that likely has more honor in one finger than many can hope to have in their entire being. Not withstanding this syrupy judgment of a man I do not know; regardless of the interviewer, someone in Petraeus’ position should be provided with a modicum of the benefit of the doubt; it is after all the general whose judgment we will need to rely upon come September.

Based upon how things are going now, I expect to hear that things are looking up (up from where of course is another question) and that likely more of what has been taking place with the “surge” offensive will be necessary. I will look upon this as hopeful and positive while others will see it as proof our entanglement in Iraq does not have a set date, time and second for completion; they will want and require that. If the threats we face are to be driven back we cannot let them have what it is they want as it’s an excuse to accomplish nothing.

Having read the transcript I think it high time that Sullivan and Harry Reid start believing the general and considering what he sees. I don’t think it has a whole lot to do with anything November 2008 related.

Let’s Not Forget Other Costs in the Recent Democrat Off-Broadway Production

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

While the sleepover took place and the theatrics were going full bore sans fireworks, while the Democrats or Reid’s Rosies moaned of the “distraction” that Iraq is from “real” terror the world continues to spin.

Iran and it’s proxies in Iraq and elsewhere in the region have been all but forgotten. This is one of those subjects of debate the media aids and abets the Democrat party as it tries to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. There are so many pieces to this war on terror that regardless of size need to be addressed; Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere. It all continues apace.

The Rosies apply the makeup, have their jammies pressed, teeth brushed and put on their latest off-Broadway hit; who says sequels can’t draw in the crowds.

“Negotiations” with the IAEA continue with Iran as the lead in the show recites his practiced lines. Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini discusses efforts to avoid a third resolution against Iran, while stating what “appeared to refer to an agreement reached last week between Iran and the UN’s nuclear watchdog for a new negotiations framework,” which the UN hailed recently.

This “new negotiations framework” stems from June 25 when Iran “invited an International Atomic Energy Agency team to Tehran to work on clearing up suspicions about its nuclear program, an IAEA spokeswoman said Monday.” Excitedly hailed at the time as forward momentum in the quest to cease the Islamic Republics nuclear ambitions by the UN, Iran and MSM, we are only now seeing that it is part and parcel in the stretching out of negotiations to allow Iran to achieve its ends during the farce of “negotiations.” After all Iran, “‘invited the IAEA to send a team to Tehran to develop an action plan for resolving outstanding issues related to Iran’s past nuclear program,’” which is only a promise to continue the same.

Reid and the Rosies rant while Hussain Shariatmadari, an adviser to the Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, claimed Iranian ownership of the Gulf Arab state of Bahrain stating:

“The public demand in Bahrain is the reunification of this province with its motherland, the Islamic Iran.”

The statement made sometime around July 13^th has not been “formally disavowed” by Tehran, which adds further insult to injury to those that continue to believe that Iranian proxies in Iraq are not participating under the orders of the government in Tehran and the Mullahcracy. To Shariatmadari, “it goes without saying that such an indisputable right for Iran and the people of this province should not and cannot be overlooked.”

Does this speak kindly to the “peaceful” use of nuclear technology? How about the fact that “Iran has marked 600 targets in Israel for missile strikes if it is attacked, the Qatari newspaper Al Watan quoted Sunday diplomatic sources in Damascus as saying. The report said the targets are within reach of Iranian missiles and would be completely destroyed if Israel should attack Iran or participate in an American attack on it.” This threat also includes attacks against Syria within its protective umbrella.

This is not the “peace” we think of, but “peace” has a very wide ranging definition when practiced by the likes of the Iranian regime.

During the Cold War peace between the major powers was maintained via proxy and the promise of mutual assured destruction. Today and over the past 30 years this has been the practice of Tehran with an almost light speed increase in these efforts recently. Assuming history will repeat itself to the tee that some feel it has or does, i.e. Iraq is Vietnam; dangerously disregards the danger inherent in a new Cold War, this one with an nuclear armed enemy that reveres martyrdom in death.

So, to Reid and the Rosies, the UN, and the MSM thanks for making the assured destruction of many a possibility with your lack of seriousness in these grave issues.

Fear Mongering; The View from Up Here

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

The NYTimes Editorial board sees the recent release yesterday of “The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,” as having a message, the message being, “Be very afraid. And don’t question the president.”

Oddly, the board chooses that as the underlying message as though it and others in the business of propaganda are having their right to free speech challenged. Here’s an idea, why not hold off on the knee jerk reaction, pause and just ‘listen to the president?’ That way you might spend a little less time reacting as though we’re stuck in some bizarre time warp in an alternate universe that never recognizes anything changing. Has the board heard of a general by the name of Petreaus? Do they know that President Bush won in 2004 or are they stuck somewhere?

Acknowledging “the report’s conclusions” as “disturbing,” is a start; but they fail with their ultimate conclusion. Their conclusion is more in line with an ‘we told you so,’ as in the case on the ground doesn’t matter so much as that we were right; at this point they prepare to move forward from their roughly 2003 posture. Why else would they say, “if the report is given an honest reading, it is a powerful rebuke to Mr. Bush’s approach to the war on terror. It vindicates those who say that the Iraq war is a distraction from the real fight against terrorism.”

If not mistaken a “distraction” is something to be ignored or if nothing else, the response to a “distraction’ should be muted or minor, while efforts are concentrated on the bigger task at hand. The Board however, distracts itself during the course of its tizzy when noting Iraq as a distraction, then near closing noting when in reference to their statements that al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the invasion that “we’ve seen no evidence of that, and none was in the intelligence report.”

So there is an acknowledgement of the fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq regardless of their time of entry or birth there. Why then, close with “Congress surely can see through the president’s fear-mongering and show Mr. Bush the exit from Iraq that he refuses to find for himself.” The board’s closing reveals that they are still fighting an old, old battle which prevents them from truly seeing today; else wise why would we grope for the exit as though this would resolve it all as we head on back or increase our efforts in the Afghanistan region, which may prove to be a “distraction” to the reality of what Iraq has become.

The board’s perceived enemy is the Bush Administration, viewing it as the real enemy, as the makings of a fascist if not fascist administration already. The Times editorial board has a myopic view of what fear mongering is when they cannot recognize their own brand of it.

In Rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Essay – “Renewing American Leadership” – Part I

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Over the course of the roughly seven years of the Bush Administration it has been the public discourse of the Democrat party, Leftists and media of this nation to see and judge in each action; the wrong action. As is the case with any action taken, whether by a government leader or individual civilian, it is naturally followed by a reaction.

This is the nature of existence; even inaction generates a reaction. The President of the U.S. must make decisive action and once that action is taken, the reaction(s) will follow. Most leaders(?), will backtrack after the fact and say ‘well it was misinterpreted,’ or ‘that’s not what my vote meant,’ or ‘I was hornswaggled.’

Where the opposition gains is the myriad possibilities that may arise upon the taking of a certain action. Any number of observations or predictions is much easier to make once someone has done the difficult work of making it so. When an action takes place parts of the outcome are apparent, at least in that moment in time. Those in disagreement have all manner of direction(s) to choose from when attacking, as those are only words or theory, whereas the action is “real” and cannot be changed.

In this vein, I offer an analysis and reaction to Senator Barack Obama’s effort to define himself as a visionary in the realm of foreign affairs, as published in the pages of Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007 issue.

Following the gushing acknowledgment of three 20^th century Democrat presidents; FDR, Truman and Kennedy, Obama enters into the reality of a U.S. that must once again “provide visionary leadership.” Where the Bush Administration has moved forward with what could be described as “visionary” as they are actions unlike the previous tactics of the status quo and don’t rock the boat attitudes; yet Obama sees this as a “conventional” response to an “unconventional” attack:

“largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.”

Obama believes we must not see our nation’s power as being in a “terminal decline” but to seize it anew. Admittedly it is far easier to see the pessimistic than the optimistic as it takes much less effort for the former; this however is exactly what the Left has done with each word spoken and each step taken by the U.S. when it has been offered by the present administration.

He speaks of being in the “wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib,” because when offered the opportunity of giving his and their own nation the benefit of the doubt the Senator and the Left pounced upon their own homeland as the one with the evil intent as did much of the world media. How is that for optimism?

With his first day in office as president, Barack Obama promises to “renew American leadership in the world.” First by ending our efforts in Iraq soon and responsibly and then to set our sights on the greater Middle East, which was diverted from with our entry into Iraq.

Regardless of any good that has come from or does come from following our actions in Iraq, Obama must toe the line in painting the Iraq Theater as pointless. Doing so however, limits the seriousness with which one can take the candidates suggestion that “we should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.” After all, this is what the U.S. is doing now, but with greater numbers than it is assumed a President Obama would envision that he has awaiting his orders just “over the horizon.” This statement also belies and reveals that there are in fact terrorists, including al Qaeda in Iraq and that not having apprehended Osama bin Laden was a dropping of the ball. Bin Laden is another needle in the haystack, which the opposition can easily conclude and state would be in custody this very day, were they in charge. No way to prove it, yet no way to disprove it either; how convenient.

Clearing up the Bush created “morass in Iraq” would free the U.S. up so that it can re-enter the Israeli-Palestinian problem in the Middle East; this “a task that the Bush administration neglected for years.”

As candidate Obama sees it, those in the Middle East and “the rest of the world have looked to America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace.” I would hope however, that one would be forgiven the snicker that arises with this “idyllic” revision of the recent past. One might agree that many in the world have looked to the U.S. to stick its nose in so that others could then bad mouth the U.S. as a puppet of the Zionist regime or just a partner in the continuing failure to bring peace to a region that has done as much or little as possible to actually assist. There is also the issue of those actors that wish for and work toward the obliteration of Israel; which just so happens to include those a President Obama would apply his “(T)ough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power — political, economic, and military,” to.

The commitment as offered by Barack will be to address the growing threats in the region consisting of “a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah.” A commitment that sounds strangely similar to the present albeit minus the “Bush,” a commitment that sounds strangely like pre 9/11, a commitment that will require the assistance of ‘allies,’ that didn’t so much dislike the Bush Administration but had very different views and economic interests.

End of Part I

White House Wiretap Subpoenas

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

In addition to subpoenas issued to the White House, the VPs office and the Department of Justice:

“the panel is seeking materials on related issues, including the relationship between the Bush administration and several unidentified telecommunications companies that aided the N.S.A. eavesdropping program.”

So upon the question of illegalities in the NSA program, the usual games of rhetoric and politics can be played. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) called the response prior to the subpoenas issuance as ‘“stonewalling of the worst kind.”’

May saw the testimony of James Comey a former deputy AG during which he described a March 2004 “confrontation” between Justice officials and White House aides regarding the “legality of the wiretapping program.”

Of the testimony Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in fine politically tuned rhetoric said:

‘“The Comey testimony moved this front and center. Alarm bells went off. His testimony made it clear that there had been an effort to circumvent the law.”’

These types of comments, of which the Dems have become very adept with their use of effectively, continue the public and media belief of illegalities where illegalities may not be.

A “confrontation” does not a circumvention of the law make.

Schumer’s the guy whose conversation about seats was gleefully shared by the Majority Leader, Harry “Hang ‘em High” Reid that “we are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.”

These folks are the same that want an “end” to the action in Iraq regardless of outcome or reality; the same that see a war lost without actually knowing anything or listening; the same that want voices unheard and call it “fairness.”

These are the folks that I trust less.