Rumsfeld's Parting Thoughts?

According to Reuters, by way of the New York Times, Donald Rumsfeld has some suggestions about Iraq. The memo has been confirmed by the Pentagon. Some of the more interesting reported:

• Decrease quickly the number of U.S. bases, now 55, to five by July 2007;


• Place substantial U.S. forces near the borders with Syria and Iran to reduce infiltration and reduce Iran's influence;


• Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and coalition forces to encourage the Iraqi government to take charge.

There are several others, including troop increases either in Baghdad to fight insurgents or a substantial build up in Iraq all-around, though reportedly he called these options "less attractive."

Sounds just like the inflexible tyrant described by a hand full of mostly anonymous complainers.

John Podhoretz nails it

In Yesterdays New York Post.

Baker, Hamilton and the Surrendering Cowboy Band show why commission, panels and Think Tanks should never be trusted with important matters more important than coffee or tea. Commissions and Panels by their nature are scared, timid little things, afraid to take a real position or offend anyone (or so they often think they do not give offense). If you don't buy that, just read the leaks so far; this is a compromise report headed by two men who have repeatedly espoused a Chamberlain like solution to the Iraq question.

Bush: No Graceful Exit

New York Post story reports Bush says what amounts to no exit as soon as possible. That's, uh, good to hear. Maliki says he has not received the support he needs to get the country under control, but seems to continue to reject more direct American military intervention. Initial reports from the Iraq Study Group do not sound good. I have a sinking feeling.

Iraq, winning, lies and action....

Last week (just a few posts down) I argued that violence in Iraq is bad enough in any context and we better figure out a way to control it. I stand by that, but want to clarify :

Gateway Pundit posts today about the relative calm in the majority of Iraq and specifically about Sunnis and Shiites living side by side in Basra, rebuilding infrastructure and in general enjoying a peaceful existence that would likely shock a lot of Americans and Europeans.

Over the past few days Flopping Aces has developed, in a great bit of investigative journalism, that Associated Press and The Los Angeles Times are reporting false or exaggerated stories about military operations and sectarian violence. NBC News proudly declared a Civil War in Iraq:

On "Today," Lauer said NBC News consulted with many experts and carefully deliberated before making the call. He said there are two clearly defined groups, the Sunnis and the Shiites, using violence to gain political supremacy, and there's a government in place that's unable to protect people.

Carefully Deliberated. Sounds Familiar.

Now the problem: While some reports are surely exaggerated or outright falsehoods and while the provinces are quiet, Rome is burning.

As I pointed out on Friday, there is more than enough real violence and mayhem to go around in Baghdad and nearby provinces and cities. Peoples with deep and dogged hatreds, thirsts for power and needs to control are in fact killing one another at what any sane observer would call an alarming rate. Our forces perform bravely and brilliantly on a regular basis in Iraq under sometimes nearly impossible circumstances, including trying to serve, save a people who (even when not warring against one another) may not want the magic of western style democracy.

Rich Lowry in his column and Stanley Kurtz in a Corner post at NRO raises two themes in dire need of serious discussion among all conservatives, and indeed anyone who does not want to see Iraq fall into chaos or under Iranian-Syrian control.

First and foremost, Leadership. No war goes according to the game plan; every war from Iraq back to Caesar's war to put down the Gallic revolt led by Versingetorix finds itself careening off course in unexpected ways, including colossal blunders by Kings, Presidents and Generals. (Victor Davis Hanson in a piece both tongue in cheek and deadly serious catalogues the mistakes of World War Two and how they would be reported today.) It is exactly when things go wrong that leaders rise while others fall or fail.

Right now we have a Commander in Chief who in 2004 seemed to know where he stood and had an air of decisiveness that garnered him a record number of votes over a challenger who gave him everything he could handle - it was no cakewalk. I believe now as I did then that President Bush made enough Americans believe he had the plan to bring stability to Iraq without falling into the kind of indiscernible policy citizens feared and remembered from Vietnam, one where we were not losing but did not have the political will from our leaders OR the electorate to do what was required to win.

Fast forward to now and our Commander in Chief now meets with Nancy Pelosi who has described President Bush as incompetent, a liar and dangerous; he awaits the report of the Iraq study group in a manner that is evocative of someone looking for marching orders. On the military front, if his commanders in the field told him anything from the beginning except destroying Muqtada al-Sadr on the summer of 2004 was exactly the right thing to do, he took bad advice. If they did tell him that and he allowed anyone to override their advice it was a huge mistake. Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi Interim Prime Minister at the time, thought taking out al-Sadr was precisely what needed to be done.

Second, following up on the Kurtz post at NRO, were we (we go to war as a nation) more than a little naive in thinking that elections in an inherently unstable situation were going to pull the various factions together enough to have political and not (often) violence driven solutions to their differences? Also, to backtrack a moment, was the awful decision to enter into yet another truce with al-Sadr made simply in order to not delay the January 2005 elections? I agree that wars cannot have timetables as a rule of thumb; did we make the mistake of thinking democracies can?

Do we have the will now to support "going strong" if President Bush decides that is the game plan? I don't think there is enough support among Americans for "go long" and to go home at this point would be a larger failure than what any democrat or fatalist thinks we currently face.
We have the military resources to take out those like al-Sadr who are a brick wall on the road to an Iraq that can survive on its own. It will cost dear lives on both sides. But we must act decisively soon, both politically and militarily.

It's not defeatism to ask the questions and hope for action, but circumstances sometimes drive a nation at war to hard options. Those who think we are not at that point or very, very near it, are try to put lipstick on a pig.

Associated Press: Gullible or Propagandist?

Flopping Aces may have found the story of the year.

One wonders what might have been if the media during Tet were subjected to the citizen scrutiny shared today? More on this after I have digested this rapidly evolving story.


(Big Hat-Tips to my wife & Gateway Pundit)

Iraq, Washington, D.C. and statistics

I've always thought one of the things that separates conservatives from liberals (and I've been around plenty of both) is conservatives are more introspective about their positions. In fact, I often think we can become paralyzed over our own debates and endless assessment of policies and what makes a conservative.

But I am stunned over the numbers game a number of conservative blogs, many I respect deeply, are playing today. It actually started last May when Republican House Member Steve King took the floor to compare the deaths per 100,000 (the standard statistical measure) in Iraq and some American cities. His point was that in many places many more civilians died over a year than were dying in Iraq. Context for numbers is good and required for intelligent discussion; but the context has to be complete.

Many of the hundreds killed in Iraq every day are slaughtered by the forces of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a man so secure in his power and his 10,000 man militia he feels comfortable saying who the leaders of Iraq can and cannot meet with, including the President of the United States. The U.S. Military has been held back from getting al-Sadr before and is being held back now. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refuses to move against al-Sadr. In fact, it seems coalition forces are doing little besides being used as moving targets right now, unless fired upon directly, with no offensive operations of any significant size or scale being undertaken.

Anyone who reads this little blog at all knows I am NOT in favor of abandoning Iraq. I'm in favor of winning. So my question is, who the hell cares how many are killed in Brazil? WE are not there. We ARE in Iraq and if we have no capacity to stop the violence by thugs like al-Sadr and the equally barbaric Sunni militias, it raises some questions that go to the very core of the handling of this entire enterprise up to this point.

The disbanding of the Iraqi military, the complete dismantling of the Baath government infrastructure, the training of Iraqi security and military forces and, not the least question by the way, why are we propping up Maliki who is propping up a murderous thug who kills innocent men, women and children and has declared open war on the United States troops in Iraq. Did we not go there to crush exactly these types?

Do we hang Saddam (I'm more in favor of slow death by scorpion) but coddle the man who coddles and kowtows to al-Sadr?

There is only one circumstance that would make me support a complete pullout from Iraq ASAP: if we're not there to win and bring dignity, peace and safety to the people of Iraq. We better figure out fast if that is what we are going to do, because I'll bet you everything I own that a U.S. military medic or surgeon holding a child mangled by yet another car bomb does not give a tinkers damm about the murder rate in Bolivia.

The cost of winning

In my post of of November 6, 2006, I did my best to discuss the sorry but often necessary choice of war over peace and the death of some to insure the survival of the many. This post on TCS Daily by Philip R. O'Connor is somewhat parallel to my larger point.

Remember when....

Leading up to the election you were a right wing-nut and questioned the patriotism of democrats/the left if you said a vote for them was a vote for "cut & run."

Clinton, the former president, provided a rebuttal from a stage in Rochester, N.Y.
"On this 'stay the course in Iraq' deal, they say we're the cut-and-run crowd," he said. "These people don't look like cut and run to me," he said, gesturing at Eric Massa, a House candidate and Navy veteran, and former Sen. Max Cleland, a triple amputee from war wounds suffered in Vietnam a generation ago. " (DAVID ESPO AND ED WHITE - The Associated Press)

I guess Murtha, Levin, Pelosi, Kennedy, H.R. Clinton and the rest of the gang did not consult Cleland and Massa on Iraq Policy.

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."

Dear Mssrs. Murtha and Levin:

Before you continue your cut and run campaign on "behalf of our sevicemen and women" read this. (Hat Tip Jonah Goldberg at The Corner)

Check out Murtha pic on CNN.com

Murtha is one unhappy man. Video from MSNBC here.

This is more than a rejection of Murtha on ethics; His stand on Iraq took a real beating, not only from General Abizaid, but many others; read here and here and here.

His Okinawa idea made even some in his camp on the war wonder if he was thinking before speaking, but then he repeated it often enough to toss aside his credibility, since last year we reached an agreement to reduce troop numbers in Okinawa.

As I said last week, the leftist democratic leadership rode into power on the backs of moderate/conservative democratic candidates, including a number of vets, some who served in Iraq and dammed well know the score better than Murtha and Levin.

In my opinion, this was 146 democrats saying "Keep your committee assignments and pork, we will not sell our ethics, our military and the people of Iraq out for a nice office and a bridge back home." I'm not blind and I understand promises were made by Hoyer, but they had a choice between corrupt and left or moderate and no skeletons. Good for them.

Khamenei calls Bush defeat a victory for Iran

Texas Hat-Tip to Threats Watch.

Now Al Qaeda in Iraq leader "gloats" over Bush lame duck status, Rumsfeld resignation.

Meanwhile John Murtha wasted no time in saying he will do all he can to make sure all some said would happen with a democratic takeover is going to happen:

"What we have to do is give a deadline to the Iraqis," Murtha said, adding
that he favored opening an investigation into how Bush's White House entered
and managed the war in Iraq. (Link to full story above)

It's not enough to have the 9/11 Commission, which also looked at pre and post war intelligence, and the Iraq Study Group; someone has to pay - starting to get the picture?

So while leftist democrats who rode to power on the backs of moderate-posing democratic candidates prepare for jihad, the head of MI5 in Britain says there will still be terrorist - even without a republican majority.