Breitbart.com quotes the two Democratic congressional leaders as saying that "The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation." Maybe I'm a little bit on the slow side here, but I just don't understand how someone can definitively declare a strategy dead before it has even had a chance to be implemented in its entirety. What happened to waiting for General Petraeus's report on progress, or the lack thereof, due to the Congress in September?
If our elected leaders actually have a little patience and wait for the full plan to be put into action, they may be surprised at the results. In an interview with USATODAY on June 13, Petraeus said he was seeing "astonishing signs of normalcy" in at least half, and perhaps as much as two-thirds of Baghdad.
According to the paper Petraeus said, "I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks-big ones, markets that are very vibrant." Soccer leagues? Amusement parks? Vibrant markets? How can that possibly be the case if Baghdad is the center of what has been described as a country engulfed in a chaotic civil war where sectarian executions in the street are common occurrences and where people are afraid to leave their homes out of fear of being caught in the running battles between insurgents, militias and coalition forces? Is General Petraeus lying to us (a claim that is probably not far from the Senate Majority Leader's lips)? More importantly, what basis would he have for doing so? No, the likelihood is that the general sees a glimmer of hope and is merely reporting what he is sensing as the head guy on the ground in Baghdad.
Now, this is not to say that everything is rosy in Baghdad, or elsewhere in Iraq for that matter. But it is a sign of possible progress in a country desperately seeking an end to the ongoing bloodshed and violence. And while Petraeus conceded in the interview that many problems still exist, he also said that what he sees is a sign that the new strategy in Iraq is working.
What General Petraeus is seeing in Baghdad should come as no surprise, even to the casual observer of the conflict. The American military can pacify virtually any city in the world, but only for a limited amount of time. The key to success for the "surge" security plan is, and always has been, the Iraqis themselves.
Iraqi security forces must be able to hold on to the areas cleared by American soldiers, and they must be non-sectarian in their administration of Iraqi law. They must put the nation of Iraq above their loyalties to sheikh, tribe, militia, or sectarian affiliation. And the Iraqi government must live up to its responsibilities as well. That means providing services to the Iraqi people in a fair and just manner, and not based on whether they are Sunni, Shi'a or Kurd. It means making the political concessions necessary to achieve national reconciliation, including the distribution of oil revenues, adjustments to the Iraqi Constitution, and revision of de-Baathification policies. It means getting control of the militia death squads that are perpetuating the cycle of violence. And it means treating all Iraqis as Iraqis, fairly and equitably.
It is a tall order, to be sure. We can buy some time for the government in Baghdad, but only Iraqis can do what it takes to move their country forward. The breathing room we are providing for political progress is being paid for with the sweat and blood of our sons and daughters. The patience of America's citizens is quickly running out, and Iraqis should be cognizant of this fact. But as the final "surge" troops move into place this weekend, the least we can do as Americans is wait until they've had a chance to execute their mission before passing judgment on their success or failure.
Published by Greg Reeson
I am a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal and a The Veteran's Voice. I also regularly contribute to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free. View profile
- A Rose by Any Other Name - Smells the Same; Surge or Escalation?The President flies in the face of Congress, including prominent Republicians to escalate the conflict in Iraq rather than push a viable, logical plan for finality. The media's answer - respin it as a "Surge" rather t...
Democrats Need Iraq Surge to FailDemocrats need the surge strategy to fail in Iraq to maximize their potential for political gain in 2008.- Understanding the Iraq SurgeA field perspective on the surge from the senior counterinsurgency adviser in Iraq.
Indoor Amusement Parks Scattered throughout North America and various other locations are numerous indoor amusement parks you can enjoy with your entire family. Don't let rain and thunderstorms put a...
Six Flags Sells 7 Amusement ParksAfter dealing with both a declining attendance level and a large debt level, Six Flags Inc. announced it will be selling seven of its thirty North American Six Flags amusement p...
- Should Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Be Forced to Resign?
- Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid Tries to Slip 'Oil Shale' Ban into Fina...
- Mahdi Army Defeated: A Look at the Baghdad Security Plan's Impact on Shi'ite Militias
- Iraq Surge Statistics Assessed
- Troop Surge in Iraq: President Bush's First Reckless Decision of 2007
- Why the Petraeus Report Has Nothing to Do with How Long the Surge Lasts
- Surrender Monkeys Court Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi

2 Comments
Post a CommentThis congress ought to get to the business of passing ... I don't know, some legislation? Never in my memory going back the last 35 years has there been a less productive congress. Perhaps they feel that 'being opposed to the president' is a full time job for which I'm footing their salaries, but I respectfully disagree. Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, and the rest of those clowns in Congress should really start EARNING their pay. They were NOT hired to be "opposed to Bush".
Yeah it really ushers the question on how you fight a war when your enemies consist of politicians who would easily sell out American lives if it meant being able to wag their finger in the opposition party?