Iraq, Pelosi, Levin and Churchill...

This November 16 post from TCS Daily is another great insight into the choices we face in Iraq.

Far too many are still hung up on 2003 and the reasons (or lack thereof, some say) for going into Iraq to begin with. Even if you take as true all of those who say President Bush cooked intelligence, wanted Iraq for its oil, wanted to get Saddam for trying to get his dad and so on it does not change the obligation we created to the people of Iraq and to the fallen American servicemen and women.

Carl Levin in this Detroit Free Press interview states;
"We've been there now as long as World War II, almost, and longer than the Korean conflict. And the solution here is a political solution. It's not a military solution. Everyone seems to tell us that, but then a lot of people don't follow through on their own logic."

And we've all heard from Levin some variation of:
"It is our firm belief -- and I believe it more deeply than ever -- that we have to force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own nation, that we cannot save them from themselves. I believe that, whether or not public opinion is 60% supportive of it or 40% supportive of it. That is my belief. I think it is more and more the belief of colleagues. ..."


First, Senator Levin implies that Iraqis are not fighting and dying for their country on a daily basis; he could not be more wrong. Since January of 2005 an average of 193 Iraqi police and security forces personnel are killed each month. The worst month for American forces was 137 in November of 2004 and the average American killed per month since the start of the war is 65. Over 19,000 Iraqi civilians have died since January of 2005. In September of this year 3,389 civilians died.

Mr Levin wants to have his cake and eat it too on public opinion; he and other democrats say the public has spoken on Iraq and they want change, but then says he does not care if there is support for a near term redeployment. He then goes on to imply other democratic members of congress would be willing to ignore public opinion on the matter.


Nancy Pelosi said on the November 8 Newshour:
"So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down. The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?"

First, Ms. Pelosi, the White House has said clearly what it considers victory, you just don't like the answer: MR. SNOW: No, I think what he was talking about is security objectives, but victory still is an Iraq that can sustain, defend and govern itself. (White House Press briefing November 10, 2006)

This is something the President has stated consistently. This "what is victory?" zen riddle posed by cut and run democrats is getting old. It is simply a way of tearing down a stated plan without offering one of their own, except of course to sell the Iraqis in to desolation and still blame George Bush.

Second, dear Speaker, how do you plan on disarming the militias? I'm sure we will wait until hell freezes over for an answer from Pelosi, Murtha, ET AL, on how to disarm the militias/insurgents without American military might to back up the Iraqi security forces. You see kids, they have it exactly ass-backwards: Disarm, control, hold, turn over, THEN you start a phased pull out.

You don't have to be Patton or a military historian to figure this out, even though in this case the vast majority of generals and experts agree. Just ask former CentCom Commander Anthony Zinni, retired Army Major General John Batiste, former Clinton administration NSC member Kenneth M. Pollack and, Current CentCom Commander General John Abizaid, to name a few. By he way, Iraq Defense Minister Abdul-Qadir al-Obaidi has publicly stated that U.S. forces pulling back and handing security over to Iraqi forces at this point is not a good idea.

Demoractic leaders are learning (I hope) that both the public and the experts agree that "change of direction" does not equal "cut and run."