[speechlesstx]

By many accounts now the surge is working. Carl Levin just returned from Iraq and added his name to those who acknowledge this fact - to a point anyway. And yet, as I predicted a few days ago (I get it right once in a while) come September there's going to be one helluva fight over Iraq. John Kerry and friends intend to see to it there is a fight no matter what. From his latest email:

Here's the reality this week: Karl Rove is gone but a broken Iraq policy remains.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a party cling so disastrously to a policy that is as wrong as it is unsuccessful.

The pressure for change has been building day by day since I offered legislation last year to set a deadline to redeploy American troops, and still they insist on more of the same.

So, we need to push even harder.

This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course.

All summer, our friends at Americans Against Escalation in Iraq have been organizing in swing districts and states across the country to put even more pressure on Republicans to do what is right and break with the President.

Now, next Tuesday August 28th, they and MoveOn.org will be holding events all around the United States to try to set the stage for the fights in September. These "End it in September" town halls and vigils will put even more pressure on Republicans, giving them lots to think about as they end their August recess in their home districts.

You can go here to sign up to host an event, or find out about events in your area.

It will be a big month ahead, and the chances of us getting a new direction are better than ever. A large event with lots of participation next week can set up our efforts for next month. We're getting closer; I can feel the mounting desperation in my Republican colleagues. But we have to make sure that any talk from them is backed up by real action. We won't stand for anything less than a firm deadline that will force this President to change policy.

Do what you can to turn August 28th into the largest series of events yet in the fight for a new Iraq policy.

I'll try to keep you updated when the legislation starts to move in September. It will be a busy month for the effort to get a new course in Iraq, so let's keep the pressure up on Republicans and get some movement on that.


Sincerely,

John Kerry

Do we need any more evidence that the Democrats have no intention of even giving Petraeus' report a fair hearing?

[BABRAM]

"This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course."

Interesting subject. Some Republicans want a change in policy, as well. It's not just a majority of Democrats.


Bobby

[Choux]

The White House is writing Gen. Petraeus' report. That means the report will be POLITICAL aka PROPAGANDA.

In addition, try to remember that REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS are scared to death of losing their seats in Congress because American citizens are AGAINST BUSH'S WAR OF ADVENTURISM AGAINST IRAQ and want the soldiers to STOP DYING IN THE LOSING CAUSE OF A *CIVIL WAR*. Republicans will be positioning themselves against the war for the 2008 election.

[tomder55]

Steve , Even Hillary said the surge was working and Joe Biden now says that it is important not to cut and run.

Still I think the emphasis in Sept will not be the military course of the war but from the politics in Iraq. Besides the usual cookie cutter talking points that Choux gives us every time the subject comes up; the truth is that the Maliki government has until now dropped the ball .

The whole point of the surge was to give him cover so he could initiate a change in policy which would begin to end the factionalism . I am not convinced yet that he is up to the task although there has been some hopeful signs . He has seemed until recently hopelessly beholden to al-Sadr and Iran .

Former PM Ayad Allawi wrote a scathing op-ed about the Maliki government this week.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

He calls Iraq a "failing state" . He claims that Maliki is incapable of moving Iraq towards reconciliation .He may have a point given the number of high level resignations ,although he definitely overstates the problem . Also his solutions are based in fantasy ,;especially his call for greater international cooperation . He forgets that when the going got tough the UN bailed out. His call for Arab states to intervene is the worst idea from someone who claims to want an independent Iraqi state .It would weaken any attempt at factional unity .

Anyway he should be making his case to the Iraqi people and not to the Americans . It sounds too much like a campaign op-ed to me.

Maliki has as I mentioned above begun to show flexibility .He recently met with Sunni tribes in Tikrit appealing for unity .

"There is more uniting us than dividing us," he told sheiks in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad. "We do not want to allow al-Qaeda and the militias to exist for our coming generations. Fighting terrorism gives us a way to unite."

Iraqi PM tells Sunni tribes: 'We must unite' - USATODAY.com

He also signed an accord with the Kurds and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council that commands the Badr Brigade, which has fought Sadr's forces in the south for control.So hopefully it is possible that al-Sadr has overplayed his influence.

globeandmail.com: Kurds and Shiites ally to support al-Maliki

None of this happens without the surge . NONE OF IT ! Maliki would continue to be a stooge for Iran and Iraq would eventually become a satellite state . General Petraeus ' influence goes much further than American boots on the ground. He and Ambassador Crocker have steered Maliki in this direction.

This is where I think the next phase of the surge should concentrate. It appears the Sunnis are coming on board. But they have complained that security efforts too often concentrate on Sunnis while Shia militias continue to terrorize Sunni populations .That equation has to change .

[ETWolverine]

Chou,

You, like John Kerry and the moveon.org/Michael Moore types, have already made up your mind about what the report will say before it has even been written.

You have already decided, based on a Huffandstuff bloger's statements, that the Administration is going to be writing the report, not Patreus and his staff. Do you know that for a fact?

You have already decided that, no matter what the report actually says, it will be propaganda and lies. Are you a mind-reader? Do you know the future? And if so, why are you wasting time here when you could be making a killing in the stock market?

You have assumed that every Republican and Democrat who has acknowledged that there has been significant progress in Iraq, and all those who were in favor of a pullout before but are now in favor of waiting until we have more data are all wrong. Do you have better sources of information of what is going on in Iraq than they do? What's your security clearance level?

It seems to me that YOU and John Kerry are the ones guilty of propaganda. You are already pushing an opinion on the report without even knowing what the report is going to say. You scream "Bush is a liar, Patreus is a puppet, the report is propaganda" from the highest mountains and we're supposed to believe that you aren't a propagandist?

Why not wait and see what the report says before slamming it. At least then you will know what you are slamming.

Better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello:

The war IS/WAS lost. You can't win a war that you've already lost I don't care how many "surges" you do. It's a civil war. The government is on vacation while our boys DIE.

I want OUT - NOW!!

excon

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

So... even if we win every battle, get rid of every terrorist in Iraq, and stop the factional infighting, we will still have lost the war? Because it is "already lost"?

Boy, I'm glad that General George Washington didn't have you on his staff. Washington lost more battles than he won, and gained most of his command experience in the field by losing battles. Prior to winning at Saratoga, Washington lost in Long Island, Germantown, Brandywine and practically every other major battle in which he was engaged. After losing a quarter of his forces during the winter in Valley Forge, the entire future of the Continental Army was in doubt. Nobody thought, at that point, that we could possibly win the war. If we had taken YOUR advice that "we can't win a war that is already lost" we'd still be eating crumpets, drinking over-taxed tea, and singing "G-d Save the Queen".

A war isn't lost until one side or the other can't fight anymore and either surrenders or dies. The USA hasn't lost in Iraq. The Iraqis haven't lost in Iraq. The fighting continues, the enemy is dying or being captured, and fewer attacks against ou allies, civilian and military, are taking place. The enemy hasn't lost yet, but they certainly aren't winning either.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing." --- Darth Vader

[excon]

So... even if we win every battle, get rid of every terrorist in Iraq, and stop the factional infighting, we will still have lost the war?

Hello El:

The key word you used is "if". Come on, El. IF the fantasy future you believe is possible NOW, it WAS possible from the beginning. It DIDN'T happen then when it COULD have and SHOULD have, plus Bush has been given more than ONE chance at it already. The country is done playing "let's hope".

The defeat, at this juncture, is a political one for sure. But, Bush DID have his opportunities to win militarily, though - lots of them. He's his own worst enemy.

Probably, if the people knew how badly George Washington was doing when HE was fighting the revolution, we'd still have a king. Communication then wasn't what it IS in our day. If you want to blame the defeat on modernization, that's cool. Certainly, you're going to blame the defeat on the Democrats.

The plain truth of the matter is that George Bush lost this war. You can spin it anyway you please, and I'm certain you will.

excon

[CaptainRich]

Let's not forget the potential consequence of our abandoning the region, when the option is to let radical militants gain possession of vital resources: did I say OIL?

I'm not too sure everybody is on board with the idea that if the regional control fell into the wrong hands, and I'm sure it would, we would not be the only nation that would suffer. Heck, as we moved into Iraq because their leadership had invaded Kuwait, Sadam had his own country set ablaze!

Current conditions at the UN haven't been fruitful. They have tied our hands and kept the effort subdued. I don't know why.

We are the only peoples on the face of this planet that has the means and the where-with-all to control events in a manner that would allow any similation of regional stability.

And I, for one, don't want them following us home, tail between our legs.

[tomder55]

I'm sorry.. I can't resist

"Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! "

[CaptainRich]

Hello El:

The key word you used is "if". Come on, El. IF the fantasy future you believe is possible NOW, it WAS possible from the beginning. It DIDN'T happen then when it COULD have and SHOULD have, and he’s been given more than ONE chance at it already. The country is done playing "let's hope".

The defeat, at this juncture, is a political one for sure. But, Bush DID have his opportunities to win militarily, though - lots of them. He's his own worst enemy.

Probably, if the people knew how badly George Washington was doing when HE was fighting the revolution, we'd still have a king. Communication then wasn't what it IS in our day. If you wanna blame the defeat on modernization, that's cool. Certainly, you're gonna blame the defeat on the Democrats.

The plain truth of the matter is that George Bush lost this war. You can spin it anyway you please, and I'm certain you will.

excon

Bush didn't lose this war any more than Clinton did when he let the US down after "they" attempted to assault the Twins the first time.

[excon]

Hello Captain:

I don't care if you blame Clinton. He sucks the big one too. That does NOT make me feel better about Bush's defeat.

And, I'm well aware of the terrible, terrible future this defeat is going to bring to the region, and to US. As your fellow wingers will tell you, I'm not dovish on the region...

excon

PS> Yes tom, we lost when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

[speechlesstx]

"This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course."

Interesting subject. Some Republicans want a change in policy, as well. It's not just a majority of Democrats.

Fortunately, most Republicans don't want that change to be a policy of surrender.

[speechlesstx]

The White House is writing Gen. Petraeus' report. That means the report will be POLITICAL aka PROPAGANDA.

A propagandist complaining of propaganda. Ain't that something?

In addition, try to remember that REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS are scared to death of losing their seats in Congress

As Kerry's message shows and the Democrats admit, they are no more concerned about losing their seats than the left is about Bush having success in Iraq.

[excon]

Hello again:

Here's the worst part of this whole thing. We've got the best military in the world. We've got fighting men who DON'T give up. They follow their orders. They WIN their battles.

But, the battles they've been ordered to fight haven't been the right ones, or they gave back the territory after they won it. I've been in the military. You don't win a war by doing that.

Now, if we lost because our boy's just weren't good enough, that's one thing. But losing because your commanders are stupid is unforgivable.

You are all right. There will be a heavy price to pay for it.

excon

[speechlesstx]

None of this happens without the surge . NONE OF IT ! Maliki would continue to be a stooge for Iran and Iraq would eventually become a satellite state . General Petraeus ' influence goes much further than American boots on the ground. He and Ambassador Crocker have steered Maliki in this direction.

This is where I think the next phase of the surge should concentrate. It appears the Sunnis are coming on board. But they have complained that security efforts too often concentrate on Sunnis while Shia militias continue to terrorize Sunni populations .That equation has to change .

As always a thorough analysis. Good job, tom. Speaking of the UN and other developments (has the left been clamoring for the UN to solve this like everything else?)...

After the Bush administration pressed for weeks, Security Council Approves Resolution Widening UN Role in Iraq. Isn't that part of the "political solution" the Dems have been demanding?

Mookie welcomed this news - conditionally:

'I would support the U.N. here in Iraq if it comes and replaces the American and British occupiers,' he said. 'If the U.N. comes here to truly help the Iraqi people, they will receive our help in their work.'

Since the UN's announcement, France 'more involved' in Iraq

Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, arrived in Baghdad last night to deliver an unprecedented show of support for Iraq's beleaguered government.

It is the first visit by a French cabinet minister since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was vigorously opposed by Jacques Chirac, the former president.

An Iraqi official said that Mr Kouchner was the "most important VIP" to arrive in the Iraqi capital this year, outranking earlier trips by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, as well as Cheney, the US vice-president.

I'll leave the analysis of that one to you.

[BABRAM]

Fortunately, most Republicans don't want that change to be a policy of surrender.

Of course. But that has already proven to change with time and as reality sinks in.


Bobby

[CaptainRich]

excon, I'm not either, you seemed to have missed my point.

Let's not forget the potential consequence of our abandoning the region, when the option is to let radical militants gain possession of vital resources: did I say OIL?

I'm not too sure everybody is on board with the idea that if the regional control fell into the wrong hands, and I'm sure it would, we would not be the only nation that would suffer. Heck, as we moved into Iraq because their leadership had invaded Kuwait, Sadam had his own country set ablaze!

Current conditions at the UN haven't been fruitful. They have tied our hands and kept the effort subdued. I don't know why.

We are the only peoples on the face of this planet that has the means and the where-with-all to control events in a manner that would allow any similation of regional stability.

And I, for one, don't want them following us home, tail between our legs.

... so long as there are no bombs dropping on my street..

[BABRAM]

Hello again:

Here’s the worst part of this whole thing. We’ve got the best military in the world. We’ve got fighting men who DON’T give up. They follow their orders. They WIN their battles.

But, the battles they’ve been ordered to fight haven’t been the right ones, or they gave back the territory after they won it. I’ve been in the military. You don’t win a war by doing that.

Now, if we lost because our boy’s just weren’t good enough, that’s one thing. But losing because your commanders are stupid is unforgivable.

You are all right. There will be a heavy price to pay for it.

excon

And I'll vouch that Excon speaks from experience. This has nothing to do with General George Washington and some two hundred and thirty years ago. Not even close. This has to do with Commander-in-Chief George Bush that may mean well (and I believe he does), but he has placed us in a poor predicament a long ways from home.



Bobby

[ordinaryguy]

It appears the Sunnis are coming on board. But they have complained that security efforts too often concentrate on Sunnis while Shia militias continue to terrorize Sunni populations .That equation has to change .

The Sunnis are coming on board because they've realized that they can get arms from the US if they help get rid of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who they never liked that much to begin with because they are foreigners. After AQM is gone, those arms will be used in the struggle to regain the Sunnis' "rightful" place as rulers over the Shiites. The Shiia-Sunni civil war is going to continue whether the US is in the middle of it or not. Putting ourselves in the middle only guarantees that both sides will hate us.

This Op Ed piece The War as We Saw It gives a grunt's view of what's going on, and I trust it far more than what the generals and polititians are saying. A couple of excerpts:

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.