Good News From Iraq

In addition to the news that US combat fatalities in Iraq dropped to 5 in July, a low for the war, the Wall Street Journal reports that Muqtada Al-Sadr is disarming his army. The Mahdi Army led by the Shiite cleric has long been a difficult enemy of US troops and peace loving Iraqis and has controlled significant space in Baghdad. Reportedly, they will shift their focus to "education, religion and social justice" and won't even carry weapons.

WSJ credits crackdowns on the Mahdi militias and a loss of popular support for the group due to their use of violence. Together with a near-total defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq, if the Mahdi Army does disarm, there would not be any significant organized enemy of the US left in Iraq.

What a difference a year makes. The "surge" (opposed by Obama, favored by McCain in case you've forgotten) has been an unqualified success. Imagine how different life would be for the Iraqi people if our troops has left when Obama and the Democrats were demanding that we cut and run (it seems that their lives aren't even bad enough to report on if you ask the media). There will always be disagreement on whether or not we should have gone to war in the first place. However, looking back on the success of the surge, McCain's foreign policy experience certainly trumped Obama's lack of any experience.

McCain and the 100 Years Comment

The Democrats are off and running with McCain's comment that we may have a military presence in Iraq for 100 years:

• “He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq” (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).
• “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years” (Obama, Feb. 26).
• “He’s (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years” (Hillary Clinton, March 17).
• “What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?” (Chris Matthews, March 4).
• McCain promises “an endless war in Iraq.” And “McCain’s strategy is a war without end. . . . Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq.” (Howard Dean, fund raising letter)

Charles Krauthammer argues in National Review that these are very dirty lies. What did McCain actually say?

Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted — “Make it a hundred” — then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: “We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.” Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: “That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

Is there any doubt that McCain was talking about having a troop presence in a peaceful Iraq, like our presence in Japan, South Korea, or Kuwait? Will the Democrats demand an end to our 67 year war with Japan? Maybe Obama should consult one of his leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman, Gen. Merrill McPeak. Five years ago McPeak, although he is a war critic, suggested that “we’ll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right.”

Our military presence around the world projects power and gives stability to vulnerable countries. In the future it's possible that Iraq could pay most of the costs of our military presence, like Japan does now.

Our country needs to have a real debate about what to do in Iraq. Should we stay and keep Iraq on the road to peace and democracy or should we cut and run, leaving the country to terrorists (including Iran)? Is the prospect of a free and peaceful Iraq worth the cost to us in lives and treasure? The Democrats' lies about McCain's plans for Iraq do not constitute a serious debate.

WMDs and Iraq

Scott Piro, Saddam Hussein's FBI interrogater, claims that Hussein misled the world on his supply of WMDs in order to intimidate Iran. Piro says that Hussein was completely surprised that the US invaded (probably because the French and the Russians assured him that they wouldn't allow it, in order to protect their illegal oil and weapons deals). Saddam planned to restart his WMD programs as soon as posible. "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program." Of course, it's still possible that he shipped them all to Syria. Or you could go with the Democrat version - that President Bush made it all up because he likes war.

"Misunderestimating" Bush and the Troops

Peace and security are spreading around Iraq. US fatalities are down to 21 in the past month, almost identical to March, 2003. Michael Barone offers several lessons we should learn in NationalReview.com. One of the lessons is that "societies can more easily be transformed from the bottom up than from the top down." The Democrats have focused their latest criticisms (now that the security issues are so much improved) on the Iraqi politicians' bickering. However:

The impetus for change has come from the bottom up, from tribal sheiks in Anbar province who got tired of the violence and oppression of al Qaeda in Iraq, from Shiites and Sunnis who, once confident of the protection of American forces and of the new Iraqi military, decided to quit killing each other. They did not wait for orders from Baghdad or for legislation to be passed with all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed.

In summary:

Some of George W. Bush’s critics seem to have relished the prospect of American defeat and some refuse to acknowledge the success that has been achieved. But it appears that they have “misunderestimated” him once again, and have “misunderestimated” the competence of the American military and of free peoples working from the bottom up to transform their societies for the better. It’s something to be thankful for as the new year begins.

The New York Times on Iraq

Adding to yesterday's post - here's more on the good news coming out of Baghdad from the front page of the New York Times of all places. A couple highlights:

The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.

And

For the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.

Iraq - A Quagmire for Al-Qaida

More good news out of Iraq: the Washington Post is reporting that attacks against civilians and US troops are down 55% over the last nine months and Jack Kelly from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (ht Rush Limbaugh) makes a compelling case that Al-Qaida has suffered big losses in personnel and in their reputation in the Muslim world. After the fall of Saddam, Al-Qaida chose to make Iraq the main battle ground against the US. Now they have been driven from most populated areas and have to hide out in the mountains. Al-Qaida's attacks have killed many Iraqis and the population has largely turned against them. Where are these stories? Kelly notes:

When U.S. troop deaths hit a monthly high in April, that was front-page news in most major newspapers, Mr. Benedetto noted. But when U.S. troop deaths fell in October to their lowest levels in 17 months, that news was buried on page A-14 of The Washington Post and mentioned on Page A-12 in The New York Times.

In the same Washington Post article I linked to above, the author wonders why Bush's approval ratings remain so low, despite the improving situation in Iraq and North Korea. Could it be that whenever a Republican President is in office we get blasted with non-stop bad news? If the war is going better, it's not reported, instead we read about global warming or an income gap.

Safer than Saddam's Iraq

The American Thinker notes the rapidly declining deaths in Iraq since the "surge." The French wire service AFP put the September death toll for civilians killed at 840, down 50% from August, a figure you probably haven't heard if you rely on the mainstream media. AT notes that during Saddam's 23 year rule, he killed at least 300,000 civilians and political prisoners, or 1,086 a month. In September it was safer to be a civilian in Iraq than under Saddam. And that does not include the 500,000 Iraqis who died in wars he started, the soldiers killed by his army in wars he started, or the people killed by the terrorists he financed.

Democrats "Recalibrate" Iraq Message

The Washington Post reports that, faced with the surge's military successes in Iraq, the Democrats are now changing their argument for surrender. The military successes don't matter because of the Iraqi politicians can't reconcile. Even Shrillary and Obama have had to acknowledge the effectiveness of the surge. This complicates things for the Democrats. Their fanatically anti-war base is unhappy that we haven't lost the war in Iraq yet and General Petraeus issues his report in a month and it looks like there will be good news. The GOP is finally on the offensive.

The Surge Is Working

At last even the New York Times is acknowledging good news in Iraq. Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack wrote an op-ed ("A War We Just Might Win") last week that was overwhelmingly positive on the surge's impact. O'Hanlon and Pollack have been nothing but critical of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq until now. "Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms... we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with." Their key points:

• Morale of the troops in high, as is their confidence in General Petraeus


• Civilian fatality rates are down 1/3 since the surge began


• Our troops are leaving formerly dangerous areas as the Iraqi securtity forces step to the plate. Much of the corruption within these forces has been removed, and our troops are much more confident in the Iraqi forces


• A local mayor told them his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq


• Iraqis are rejecting Al-Qaeda and Moktada al-Sadr’s forces


• The Anbar province has gone from the least secure area to one of the most secure


• The economy is showing a lot of improvement

Democrats can't afford to acknowledge any success in Iraq. They are invested in defeat. Success in Iraq is a win for the Iraqis and a win for the U.S. but it is a loss for the Democrats.