Glenn Reynolds links here a very encouraging report out of Baghdad:
“Iraq’s parliament adopted legislation Saturday on the reinstatement of thousands of former Baath party supporters to government jobs, a key benchmark sought by the United States as a step toward national reconciliation. The bill was approved by a unanimous show of hands on each of the law’s 30 clauses.”
Ed Morrissey has some followup here:
This looks like progress to me. It’s progress that wouldn’t have come without lowering the violence and removing the provocations and depredations of al-Qaeda in Iraq. That wouldn’t have happened at all had we not ramped up our efforts and taken a much more aggressive posture against the terrorists — and the Sunnis would not have cooperated if we hadn’t signaled so strongly that we intended to beat AQI and stick it out.
I wonder how the anti-war crowd will spin this. My guesses:
1. It’s too late — the sky is already falling!
2. Too many people have died to make freedom worth it.
3. (crickets chirping)Or is there spin I missed?
Well, there’s undoubtedly a spin or two you missed, Ed, but it’s going to take some time before we’re privileged to see it. I’ve noticed since last June or so that whenever a positive story with good sourcing comes out of Iraq, the netroots take much longer to respond to it than they did immediately before the 2006 elections. I suspect it’s because version 2.0 of the Townhouse list (see here for a look at Townhouse 1.0) is forced to spend a lot more time than they used to in coming up with remotely plausible ways to spin such stories, and to get everyone on Townhouse 2.0 to agree to push the consensus spin.
“Well, there’s undoubtedly a spin or two you missed”
One will probably be:
“You can’t believe anything from Faux News.”
Heh, I thought of that when I saw the story as well, but it’s sourced by the AP (although with an interesting title).
And what’s the pro-war spin?
Hey, after just five years, 30,000 American casualties, and 500 billion taxpayer dollars, the Iraqi government has met one benchmark. If you have to ask the cost, you probably can’t afford it!
As a member of the “anti-war crowd,” let me just hasten to add that this is good news. Rolling back Jerry Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 1, issued in May of 2003, was a long time coming, and an awful lot of water has passed under the bridge since it was issued, but it’s a benchmark met. The fact that the Shiite Sadrists ended up pushing the final version of the law while Sunni parties opposed it suggests this may be more complex than a headline can capture. Still, a bit of good news about some action by the Iraqi government is very welcome. We need more of that — much, much more.
“Hey, after just five years, 30,000 American casualties, and 500 billion taxpayer dollars, the Iraqi government has met several benchmarks.”
Corrected for accuracy.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17855.html
Go down the list. You can check off #2, #8, #9, #13, and #14.
Sure, it’s not all 18, or even half. But it’s more than 1.
Actually, according to that source neither #9 nor 13 were actually met. So, at best, that’s three of eighteen. Let’s say four of eighteen, giving 1/2 credit for each of 9 and 13, since we’re feeling especially optimistic.
What a fiasco.
The Dems have figured out their new strategy, used by both Hillary! and Obama last week: claim that any progress now is because the Dems threatened to surrender this summer and scared the Iraqis into making progress.
much more than you want to read:
http://docweasel.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hillary-we-win-by-threatening-to-lose/
We’re going to have to split the difference.
(9) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.
The Iraqi government has provided three brigades, but they are not fully manned.
It doesn’t say “Provide three fully manned, trained, and ready brigades…” And the results don’t say the ones provided are not trained and ready to offer support, just that they are not at 100% filled.
Go read Michael Yon or Michael Totten to see how much the Iraqis are helping out these days. You sure as hell won’t hear about it from the left or MSM.
Yeah, you gotta love it, Doc. Defeatism is now a viable military strategy. It’s a good thing George Washington didn’t think that way.
I guess, to be fair, they are more using it as a geo-political strategy. But I think my point still stands.
“The U.S. dilemma remains unchanged: continue to pour lives and money into Iraq with no end in sight, or cut our losses and deal with the consequences of failure.”
— B.U. Prof. Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Post, 1/20/08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802873.html?referrer=emailarticle
There it is. John McCain says keep pouring, for a hundred years if necessary. I say cut now, and deal with the consequences.
On the other hand:
“Unless you are suppressing insurgents the way the Romans did — creating a desert and calling it peace — it typically can take the better part of a decade or more,” said Andrew Krepinevich, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
“The paradox,” he added, “is that counterinsurgency requires convincing the Iraqis of our staying power. At the same time, the American people view success in terms of how quickly we can pull out.”
Also this:
There is a streak of opinion within the larger ranks of opponents of the Iraq war that, going far beyond the critique asserted by most, seems actually to covet U.S. failure in Iraq as somehow serving America right for the blunder of having gone there in the first place.
That is a malevolent righteousness that properly repels most Americans.
That’s from Tom Teepen, who used to opine for our own local Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Teepen’s as liberal as they come.
“Cutting now” might have been feasible during the first six months of 2007, when the war was all but lost, and Democrats could point to the 2006 election results as proof that the country was tired of Iraq. That window’s closed, I’m afraid, and we’re back to the point where there’s been significant progress and people know it.
I know I’ve got a bias here, I’m prior service. To me, however, there’s no “leaving” a war…there’s only winning, or losing. Losing has consequences. I don’t want ‘em, for me or for my kids.
“there’s no ‘leaving’ a war…there’s only winning, or losing. Losing has consequences. I don’t want ‘em, for me or for my kids.”
Well said, Joe, and succinctly put. Put that way, I think we’ve lost and the sooner we stop pouring the less serious the consequences will be. Staying in a losing war has consequences, too, of course.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/world/middleeast/22vehicle.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
300 pounds of fertilizer vs. a $1.5 million armored vehicle, sometimes the cat wins and sometimes the mouse wins. 100 years of this is gonna take a lot of pouring.
Addendum:
I should probably have said “300 pounds of fertilizer and a detonator vs. a $1.5 million armored vehicle and 100,000 pounds of recently precision-delivered high explosive”