We’re winning, if only Congress would realize it

Michael Yon, who appropriately boasts that he is probably the most experienced reporter in Iraq, reminds us that Congress must stop obsessing about the past in Iraq and must approach Iraq as a winnable situation. He begins by detailing the enormous strides — both practical and “hearts and mind” stuff — that Americans have accomplished in Iraq:

It is said that generals always fight the last war. But when David Petraeus came to town it was senators – on both sides of the aisle – who battled over the Iraq war of 2004-2006. That war has little in common with the war we are fighting today.

I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about “GoArmy.com.”

The problem as he sees it (and I agree, as I’ve said before), isn’t what’s on the ground in Iraq, it’s what’s going on in Congress. There, the Democrats are determined to destroy George Bush, even if it means taking the whole US down with him, and the Republicans are desperate to pander to anyone with a shrill complaint. The result, of course, is that they’re legislating as if it’s 2005, not 2008:

Soldiers everywhere are paid, and good generals know it is dangerous to mess with a soldier’s money. The shoeless heroes who froze at Valley Forge were paid, and when their pay did not come they threatened to leave – and some did. Soldiers have families and will not fight for a nation that allows their families to starve. But to say that the tribes who fight with us are “rented” is perhaps as vile a slander as to say that George Washington’s men would have left him if the British offered a better deal.

Equally misguided were some senators’ attempts to use Gen. Petraeus’s statement, that there could be no purely military solution in Iraq, to dismiss our soldiers’ achievements as “merely” military. In a successful counterinsurgency it is impossible to separate military and political success. The Sunni “awakening” was not primarily a military event any more than it was “bribery.” It was a political event with enormous military benefits.

The huge drop in roadside bombings is also a political success – because the bombings were political events. It is not possible to bury a tank-busting 1,500-pound bomb in a neighborhood street without the neighbors noticing. Since the military cannot watch every road during every hour of the day (that would be a purely military solution), whether the bomb kills soldiers depends on whether the neighbors warn the soldiers or cover for the terrorists. Once they mostly stood silent; today they tend to pick up their cell phones and call the Americans. Even in big “kinetic” military operations like the taking of Baqubah in June 2007, politics was crucial. Casualties were a fraction of what we expected because, block-by-block, the citizens told our guys where to find the bad guys. I was there; I saw it.

The Iraqi central government is unsatisfactory at best. But the grass-roots political progress of the past year has been extraordinary – and is directly measurable in the drop in casualties.

This leads us to the most out-of-date aspect of the Senate debate: the argument about the pace of troop withdrawals. Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting. To give one example, I just returned this week from Nineveh province, where I have spent probably eight months between 2005 to 2008, and it is clear that we remain stretched very thin from the Syrian border and through Mosul. Vast swaths of Nineveh are patrolled mostly by occasional overflights.

We know now that we can pull off a successful counterinsurgency in Iraq. We know that we are working with an increasingly willing citizenry. But counterinsurgency, like community policing, requires lots of boots on the ground. You can’t do it from inside a jet or a tank.

As for me, I’ve sent this article to my Senators and my Representative. They’re all radical Democrats, so I doubt it will change their rigid, hate-filled little minds one bit, but it can’t hurt and there’s a smidgen of a chance that it might open their minds to the facts on the ground.

By the way, if you want a sense of how far the “lose at any cost” Left is willing to go, check out this American Thinker post about the attacks on General Petraeus for wearing tacky medals.  And Representative Jackie Speier, armed with an almost complete absence of useful information, didn’t even wait until her new seat was warmed up to leap into the lunatic anti-War sphere.  It must be interesting living in a factual vacuum.  I wonder if, eventually, your head explodes.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jj says

    Watching Petraeus “testify” in front of these clowns was like watching one adult in a room full of children. Singularly backward children, at that.

    Which of course raises the question: why do we keep electing children to this government?

  2. suek says

    >>…many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about “GoArmy.com.”>>

    This is so terrific. I think one of the problems we have today (in the US) is having allowed the leftists who write textbooks and teach school to destroy our heroes. We need heroes – even when as adults we find that they weren’t quite the heroes we thought they were. You can’t achieve an ideal without an ideal as a goal. Remove kids’ ideals – their heroes – and you don’t leave them much to shoot for.

    I had a link … if I could find it again…

    Here:
    http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/029882.html

    Money quote:

    “Teachers received materials as well. Unlike the children, who were happy to get the gifts without asking who they come from, the teachers wanted to know who to thank. They could barely believe their ears when Starz told them.

    “They said it’s almost too much to imagine,” Starz said. “All the teachers wanted a copy of Sgt. Stokely’s picture and the foundation’s name so they could frame it and put it up in their school. They say it’s something the Quran teaches – the forgiveness of your enemies. But it’s so hard to do … that it’s never actually seen.” “

  3. Mike Devx says

    This is probably not the best post for which to engage in speculation on “what’s really going on in Iraq”. But until Book bars me, well, here goes!

    It’s no accident that “the West” has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. What’s really going on here is a bracketing of Iran. Troops and bases on the western and eastern borders present a problem for Iran. We (the West) have done so deliberately.

    Iran is interventionist to the point of insanity. They seek to destabilize, via terror and blood and fear, any country within their sphere of influence. (I can immediately see the leftist argument rise up about our anti-Communist interventionist policies in the 50′s and 60′s, and I will automatically grant the worthiness of such debate… but I won’t automatically grant that we were worse or even equivalent. But the debate is worthy because we DID it too. Regardless, Iran is today’s current evil interventionist and destabilizer via terror, blood, murder, fear.)

    Almost everyone allows that intervention in Afghanistan was honorable and justified. You’d have to be a committed anti-war zealot, against ALL war, to be against it.

    Iraq is a much more dubious proposition. Saddam was a megalomaniac wild-card. Easily taken down. If you see it as I see it: that one goal was to bracket Iran and apply a LOT of pressure on Iran, then the decision to attack Iraq was also quite easy. Iran is a much tougher nut to crack and has the direct backing of China, and those facts would make direct invasion/occupation almost impossible. Even those who believe that the USA will attack Iran before Bush’s term expires know that any such attack would be only a spoiling raid, to set them back on their geopolitical objectives. (We never attacked Russia either remember, and we won’t attack China now.)

    But we also have the goals in Iraq and Afghanistan of creating stable non-totalitarian states, hopefully with some nascent form of democracy or representative government in control. Stable states that participate rather than serve as terrorist states or as voids within which bloody barbarism rules. I’d still contrast our goals against the goals of Iran, and see us on the side of the angels rather than the devils.

  4. Ymarsakar says

    Few people in America knows anything about tactics, strategy, or logistics. Certainly they know next to nothing when it comes to coming up with strategies against Iran or anybody else in that region.

    This kind of ignorance has been purposefully created by American education systems, in order to better manipulate the sheep and the idiots towards an anti-patriot and pro-Democrat message.

Leave a Reply