The Military

There is one White House unit, at least, that is top-notch. The crackerjack quick-response team acted with lightning speed to flood our BlackBerrys with a mass e-mail this week. They made damned sure we knew that two think-tankers were, uh, thinking that the situation in Iraq had become a bit less dire. It was reminiscent of a country music lyric: "I've been down so much, down seems like up to me." Read more...

The Times of London reports: “Dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood. The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement.”

The Times goes on to report that the surge seems to be working in this part of Baghdad. “The increased presence of US forces in Doura, however, is encouraging insiders to overcome their fear and divulge what they know. Convoys of US soldiers are working the rubble-strewn streets day and night, knocking on doors, speaking to locals and following up leads on possible insurgent hideouts.”

So: If the surge seems to working, why do the Democrats want to stop it?  Read more...

Will the Democrats, in their failure to muster the votes to actually change course in the Iraq war, give in to the politically suicidal temptation to punish President Bush with censure or impeachment? Pay attention to this growing Democratic trend — it isn't just for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) anymore.

There are now 1 million signatures on a petition for impeachment and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) has revived his censure idea, which first reared its head a year and a half ago. He announced he would introduce his two resolutions, which are non-binding, because he thinks they will do "something serious in terms of accountability." Wow, after all that's happened, that's really likely to shake up Bush's central nervous system.  Read more...

To readers of my blog on The Hill's Pundits Blog:

This piece, published on July 19 by USA Today, co-authored by me, a critic of the Iraq war, and Michael Medved, a supporter of the war, is intended to focus everyone, whether anti-Iraq war or pro-Iraq war or somewhere in between, on one moral imperative: If we Americans have placed Iraqis in mortal danger by asking them to work for us, translate for us, be associated with our armed forces, et cetera, we owe it to them to allow them to come to America if they can show their lives are in danger because of us.

It's that simple.  Read more...

At the moment that tears were streaming down Bob Gates's cheeks about the sacrifice of our troops in Iraq, more American heroes were killed that day, by roadside bombs, in preventable deaths, lacking the protections that were not provided by a Washington held in near-universal disrepute by the American people.

George Herbert Walker Bush cried. Then John Boehner cried. Now Bob Gates cries.

I have little sympathy for their tears because they all had the power to act for change but did not. Read more...

It is repeated today by Republicans on the floor of the Senate and restated on this site, only yesterday, and it goes like this:

The Democrats have an al Qaeda problem, and this war, which was started with the Big Lie that claimed it was necessary to defeat bin Laden, must be continued to promote the Big Lie that to change the policy would help the terrorists, when the exact opposite is true.  Read more...

Did you stay up last evening to watch the 24-hour Iraq debate on the Senate floor? I didn’t think so. I think the tractor pull on ESPN and reruns of "The Munsters" on TV Land had higher ratings. So much talk to no real end. A TV show with no audience. How did we come to this?

I think that the reason is simple: The victorious Democratic Party came to power in the '06 elections with lots of antipathy against President Bush, but with no real legislative agenda to implement once it actually took power. Is this due to lack of vision, an excess of politics focused on 2008 or both? In either case, the majority party favors speech and debate over concrete achievements in the 110th Congress. The American people are the losers in the process.  Read more...

The cover of American Legion magazine’s July 2007 issue reads “VIEW FROM IRAQ: REAL LIFE IN THE WAR ZONE.” Inside is an interview with an Iraqi soldier, First Lt. Mohamed Raad, age 28, a member of the 1st Iraqi Army Battalion.

As the U.S. Senate readies to vote on another withdrawal amendment, and as September (the month when Gen. David Petreaus reports on the progress of the “surge” strategy) looms heavy over the Bush administration, it would perhaps be good to hear from Iraqi soldiers, like First Lt. Raad, who are able to hold back a complete terrorist takeover of Iraq only with the assistance of the U.S. military.

Ideally, this Iraqi soldier would testify before the U.S. Congress and hear directly from senators like Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is quoted in today’s Washington Times as saying Americans “want this mission to end.” Ms. Boxer and her colleagues, including an increasing number of Republicans, should have to look First Lt. Saad squarely in the eye and tell him, “The mission is over; we’re going home. Good luck.”  Read more...

Now that the immigration bill has died, the next big fight on Capitol Hill will be over an omnibus appropriations bill in the late fall or early winter.

The Democrats have already signaled that they will not complete work on most of their appropriations bills, instead sending the president one big package, where he will have to take it or leave it.

It is unclear how much leverage the president will have in that fight. If there is a spectacular terrorist attack in the U.S., as promised by al Qaeda, he will have all the leverage. If not, the Democrats in Congress will have the upper hand.  Read more...

Gen. David Petraeus was recently quoted as saying that it may take “ten years” to eliminate the insurgency in Iraq. Too bad President Bush didn’t tell him that he has more like six months TOPS to help put the Iraqi government on some sort of foundation. When Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) speaks of winding down our commitment, people tend to listen. Despite what bloggers or some neocons say, most members, Republicans and Democrats, are moving toward an agreement to refocus, but not eliminate, the American commitment in that country in the next year or so.

To be sure, the parties will do this for different reasons. Democrats are under enormous pressure from their activist (i.e., left-wing) base to end American involvement. Republicans saw what happened in the 2006 elections and are determined not to enter another election where Iraq policy is the dominant issue. This has not yet become apparent as Republican senators and congressmen have loyally defended their president against political attacks, many of which are over the top, but the time is coming when, for reasons of sheer self-preservation, Republican members will begin to openly support some sort of orderly American withdrawl from active combat operations.  Read more...