The Right Ideas

Oliver Kamm writes today in The Guardian--that's right, Britain's premiere lefty publication--that the world is safer today than before the advent of George W. Bush. (!) Read the whole fascinating and thought-provoking article.

I agree with his basic analysis that the 9/11 attacks moved Bush's foreign policy philosophy in a better direction, but his execution was poor. In my estimation, Bush has been correct in believing that there is, as Kamm notes, a fundamental link between terrorist organizations and the regimes which harbor and aid them, as Hussein's indisputably did. Kamm adds, and I agree, that he was correct to understand that the Islamist radicals do not hate us because of our role in the region, but because our society's liberties, our tolerance of different moral systems, identifies us with Satan in a very real way. (It's not mere hyperbole, as when a tenured university professor calls Bush "Satan" while watching Keith Olbermann and sipping cognac. But I needlessly imperil myself.) His philosophies rightly led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but poor execution and mismanagement led to problems in both places--however, in fits and starts, both states are making progress under a renewed and rethought American offensive.

The Democrats, meanwhile, have taken almost every angle possible on the war in order to gain political points. They have abused the president abroad--a big no-no---demanded a draft, visited Islamic autocrats for a pleasant chat, tried to retreat because the Iraq War is immoral, tried to retreat because we should only do what's strictly in our best interests, tried to retreat on a timetable regardless of position on the ground, tried to ignore any progress and play up the defeats, and tried feebly to get the president to maybe say he might possibly at some time potentially withdraw our troops from Iraq once they captured Congress because they knew that actual retreat would be political suicide, as opposed to talking about retreat. (Whew!) Ascendant in the polls though they are, it does not vindicate them from their shameless politicking of America's national security. Despite the good intentions of the pacifist and the anti-war protester on the street, the behavior of Democrat congressmen has been an absolute disgrace. The crowning glory was Harry Reid declaring the surge "lost" before it had begun.

Blogging Shall Return...

...tomorrow, or possibly tonight. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about you, gentle reader! I have, however, sacrificed your general enlightenment in favor of earning a few bucks, for I must go to work today.

However, I shall leave you with a fantastic column--by one of my favorite classicists, Victor Davis Hanson--about the colonels who have turned Iraq around, their possible promotions to general, and commanders in American history who have won wars by rejecting the conventional wisdom of the Army establishment. Enjoy!

Iraqi Army Takes Down Mahdi Stronghold

Ed Morrissey relays the news:

Despite the news media’s apparent insistence on clinging to their narrative of defeat and disaster in Basra, Nouri al-Maliki’s operation to restore control of the city to the elected government achieved its major goal today with the fall of the Mahdi militia’s stronghold in the city. An early-morning offensive against the Hayaniyah district of Basra netted dozens of arrests as the central government took control of the area for the first time...

And Captain Ed notes the way things work in mainstream media these days:

Of course, others will likely continue to spin this as more disaster because “violence” has occurred. At some point, though, the central elected government had to displace the militias and ensure that they had an indisputable monopoly on force in the nation if they expected to remain credible and keep Iraq in one piece. They gave the Sadrists at least four years to disband on their own, and they refused to do so. Maliki’s confidence in his armed forces appears to have been justified, while the Mahdis look more like the paper tigers the IA was supposed to be.

There are only four reasons, as I see it, why one might want to withdraw from Iraq immediately:

1. You don't know crap about what's going on there. This is a side-effect of Bush-hatred or of using only news gathered from the New York Times and CNN.
2. You're rooting for the jihadists. This applies to a very, very small percentage of the American population, including both native jihadis and long-time anti-Americans like Bill Ayers.
3. You're a pacifist. I disagree, but respectfully: pacifism has a long and honorable tradition within Christianity.
4. You have political reasons for doing so, i.e. you think you can win an election. This applies to a large-ish number of American politicians.

Anyway, perhaps you simply disagreed with the Iraq War at the beginning. (Though that's a pretty poor reason for wanting to get out now. In fact, it's just about the worst possible reason for wanting to get out of Iraq, in logical terms, since...well...the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Just saying.) Michael Yon, an independent reporter and the best correspondent of this war who has been there for most of its duration, has something to say to you:

"We can win this war," Yon declares. "And if we do it will be a victory of the same magnitude as the fall of the Soviet Union. It will not be a victory for the Republican Party. It will not be a victory for America and Great Britain and others 'against' Iraq. It will be a victory for freedom and justice. It will be a victory for Iraqis and for the world, and only then will it be a victory for us."

(This is Yon quoted in the New York Post, itself quoted on PowerLine Blog. Read both articles in their entirety; the Post article is a review of Yon's book, Moment of Truth In Iraq--$29.95 at Amazon.com.)

Possible New Cure For Bush Derangement Syndrome

Michael Barone helpfully reads Douglass Feith's new book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism (Amazon.com, $18.45) and notices some interesting points. Here is an excerpt from the book that he posts on his blog:

Readers who have invested time and faith in the current public affairs literature may find it jarring to discover that key Administration figures—Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, myself, and others—made arguments and advocated policies that run directly counter to the positions usually associated with them. For example:

• It was the Pentagon "neocons" who continually urged the President to tone down his democracy rhetoric.

• The most powerful analysis of the downsides of going to war in Iraq came not from the State Department or the CIA, but from Donald Rumsfeld.

• The Pentagon-CIA dispute over the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship began with objections by Defense officials about the CIA's politicization of intelligence, not the other way around.

• The work of the State Department's Future of Iraq project on post-Saddam political transition was opposed not by Defense officials, but by Colin Powell and Richard Armitage.

• It was CIA officials who predicted that Iraqis would launch pro-U.S. uprisings after the start of the war.

• It was State Department officials who advocated a multiyear U.S. occupation of Iraq.

What would Bush-haters have if it were not for preconceptions? Not much, one suspects.

Southfield, Michigan, Terrorist Arrest

(Via PowerLine)

Surprise! Southfield resident and former head of Michigan's chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Murthanna al-Hanooti, was indicted for working as a spy for Saddam Hussein. (What?! CAIR involved in militant Islam?!) Debbie Schlussel has the story, which you can read for yourself. Apparently the guy has a second family (including a wife) in Iraq.

Of note: Saddam paid for a trip to Iraq through al-Hanooti for several congressmen, including Michigan liberal congressman David Bonior. Sadly, there are also financial ties between al-Hanooti and Michigan Republican congressman Joe Knollenberg, whom Debbie Schlussel names "Hezbollah's Congressman." I was not aware of this fact, and regret that the rare Republican also sometimes engages with these murderous people.

Brits Abdicate, Iraqi Army Picks Up Slack

(Via Captain Ed at Hot Air)

Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades began fighting in Basra after the British pulled troops out, and who moved in to secure the area for the central Iraqi government? The Iraqi Army, that's who.

The surge has given us an enhanced opportunity to train Iraqi military units, and the results have been extremely positive. Long gone are the days when the Iraqi Army was an incompetent mess, entirely dependent on their American partners. Such victories may be very important to establishing a sense of national pride and confidence in the government, which has been succeeding to a degree unimaginable merely a year and a half ago.

This event should also be instructional about the consequences of pulling out of Iraq. The British left one section and triggered intense infighting. We are fortunate that it happened when the Iraqi Army had already become capable of dealing with the situation. What would happen if we left? Who would stop the bloodshed? If we found ourselves in another war, what local nationals would want to help us, seeing how we betrayed those who helped us in Iraq? But give us time to establish the government, to train and equip the army properly, and to instill a sense of secular national pride--then, although we may need permanent bases as staging areas against other threats, we can bring a great many of our brave soldiers home to their families.

AQI On Last Legs?

(Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air)

Michael Yon is reporting that Nineveh may be Al Qaeda in Iraq's last stand; read his whole report for yourself. (Also, Michael Yon's reporting is funded by donations, so if you appreciate the excellent reporting he's doing, then send him a few bucks!)

Captain Ed's post about this report, to me, displays the danger involved when headlines, news tickers, and even whole stories simply report that there's a new wave of violence. Americans don't understand that, quite often, the upticks we see in violence now are a result of new and important offensive operations by us rather than new outbreaks of insurgency.

Michael Yon has been reporting from Iraq since nearly the beginning of this war, and while he's seen dark times there for our troops and for that nation, his reporting has grown considerably more optimistic since the surge began turning the tide. At this point, it is reasonable to believe that we may very well see the establishment of a stable Iraqi state that will fight jihadists.

George W. Bush may very well be the Harry S Truman of his time.

Fun With Spelling

(Couldn't resist this from RedState.com)

Teehee:

Report Proves No Link Between Iraq and Al Qaeda! (?)

At least, as PowerLine's Scott Johnson reports, that's what several major news outlets would have you believe.

But Stephen Hayes, contributor to The Weekly Standard and author of the book The Connection, begs to differ. With what evidence? Why, the report itself. As Scott Johnson writes, "If you have only learned of the report via reportage such as (ABC News and The New York Times), take a look at the report with your own eyes before drawing any conclusions about it." Verily. Here is the report; here is Hayes's post about it.

I'm not going to go into detail about the contradictions themselves, since Johnson and Hayes have done such a fine job of it already. But it seems that the main distinction that has not been made here by the news agencies is the difference between "ties" and "operational ties." Just because Iraqi and al Qaeda agents never conducted joint operations hardly means there are no ties between them. In fact, the report gives powerful evidence of cooperation between the two organizations. And, as Hayes points out, their short-term goals are extremely similar, so why not?

Beyond which, Saddam Hussein's ostentatious support of terrorism, whether cooperatively with al Qaeda or not, justified invasion under the Bush Doctrine, in principle if not in practice (which is a different debate altogether.) The idea that Hussein had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism is one simply dreamed up by anti-war (but mostly anti-Bush) folks after the fact. Atheistic Westerners loathe religious people, so I suppose it's easy for them to imagine that a secular nationalist government like Hussein's has the same loathing for jihadis. They may be forgetting that, whereas Westerners have the luxury to despise religious folks from the comfort of their studies in their enormous houses around San Francisco, California, Hussein and other such leaders kept power by encouraging and harnessing anti-Western emotions, just like al Qaeda, and shared with al Qaeda a violent hostility toward the West. The notion that cooperation between the two is philosophically impossible is absurd. Divergent philosophies never got in the way of marriages of convenience before (think Molotov-Ribbentrop).

Winning The Hearts And Minds

I'm a bit behind here so both of these are from two days ago.

Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine Blog notes that al Qaeda's popularity is decreasing as a result of our occupation and destruction of their networks. Go figure. Allahpundit points out, meanwhile, that The New York Times, of all people, is reporting on the rise of secularism among the Iraqi youth.

I remember when we were preparing to invade Iraq and people were decrying our lack of understanding about the culture and terrain. "Desert Power," that's what we needed...didn't anyone read Dune?! The ignorance of that idea is laughable to this day, since our superior technology means that we're the only ones who can survive in the desert (water transportation and air power).

Now, about the issue of the various sectarian and ethnic groups, we truly didn't know as much as we should have. But there were two significant factors on our side. In the first place, Islamic culture has a great tendency to respect power. In our dealings with the Middle East, it is nearly always the case that displays of power accomplish things and displays of pandering move us backward. And indeed, our display of toughness in Iraq is showing the Islamic world that we aren't going away before al Qaeda does. In the second place, Iraq has a relatively highly-educated populace and is largely composed of Shi'a, the sect of Islam more closely associated with secular government. For example, Shi'a Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has repeatedly refused to make efforts to install himself as ruler despite his high standing in Shi'a Islam and his immense popularity; Ahmed Chalabi, formerly exiled leader of the Iraqi National Congress, is a Shi'a who explicitly espouses a secular government and who has done well for himself in the new system.

Americans need to take three moments. One, to rejoice in the incremental gains we are seeing in Iraq. Two, to remember the words of those who said the surge had been defeated before it began, who dishonored our soldiers, and who repeatedly threaten to negotiate with those whose only term is our death. Three, to mark the right box in November.

(Have I drunk the McCain kool-aid? You'll have to stay tuned! Every day is more exciting than the last, eh?)

Al Qaeda In Iraq's New Strategy

(Via Captain's Quarters Blog.)

Kill our own people! Yeah! That'll take them by surprise! CNN.com reports:

Video provided to CNN shows an al Qaeda in Iraq firing squad executing one-time allies -- fellow Sunni extremists -- who were not loyal enough to the terror organization, coalition military analysts said.

In the video provided by coalition military officials, armed men wearing masks are shown standing behind nine kneeling men, all of whom are wearing blindfolds or hoods with their hands presumably tied behind their backs. The video shows the men being executed.

AQI's executing its own members can only mean one thing: More of them are helping Coalition forces or becoming sympathetic to reconciliation efforts.

Political progress at the national level may be slow, although I think it's moving quickly, all things considered. But plenty of real progress has been made at the local level in terms of mixed ethnicity and religion neighborhoods finding peace, refugees returning, increased cooperation with U.S. military forces, and a growing sense of national identity. That nation is growing more stable, not less, with each passing day, and AQI is hurting because of its increasing alienation from the people they depend on for shelter, information, and recruits.

They should probably make a new investment: Barack Obama for President!]

Why the LAT is SOL

("Sorry Out of Luck," that is, as my friend Mike Stein would put it.)

Captain Ed Morrissey comments on the absurd editorial in the LA Times today. Here's a sample from that editorial:

Ironically, all this good news might make it harder to get American military personnel out of the country. The better things go in Iraq, the less likely it is that U.S. generals (or politicians) will want to risk jeopardizing their hard-won gains by drawing down. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has agreed to a request by Gen. David H. Petraeus to return to the pre-surge level of about 130,000 troops by August, and then allow a "strategic pause" to evaluate whether more can come home.

Battlefield commanders know best how many troops are needed to keep the country stable, but as a political and economic matter, U.S. forces must leave Iraq eventually -- sooner, if voters choose a Democratic president, much later if the president-elect is Republican John McCain. Either way, the United States needs a logical, orderly exit strategy that minimizes the risk that civil war will resume when our troops leave.

Where to begin? Captain Ed notes that we're still in South Korea and Germany, and no one complains about that. Come to think of it, isn't there a lot more strategic importance to keeping a troop presence in Iraq than in Germany? After all, the most dangerous forces in the world today are in the Middle East, including Iran's pursuit of nuclear arms and Saudi Arabia's funding of jihadist madrassas across the globe. Disengagement from that area after a hard-fought victory is folly, and shows that the Los Angeles Times and the Democratic Party do not understand and are not prepared to fight the war against Islamic jihadism.

By the way, you can just taste the disappointment of the editorialist. What they most want is American failure and retreat, not victory, which would almost certainly mean a small, long-term troop presence to remain involved in an extremely important region of the world. Make no mistake; it may sound extreme, but they want us to lose. Progressivism, you've come a long way.

Iraqi Parliament Passes Another Important Benchmark

(Via Captain's Quarters; Yahoo! News has the story.)

See for yourself:

Iraq's parliament on Wednesday passed three key pieces of legislation that set a date for provincial elections, allot $48 billion for 2008 spending, and provide limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody.

The three measures were bundled together for one vote to satisfy the demands of minority Kurds who feared they might be double-crossed on their stand that the budget allot 17 percent to their semiautonomous regional government in the north.

The vote came a day after the Sunni speaker of the fragmented parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, threatened to disband the legislature, saying it was so riddled with distrust it appeared unable to adopt legislation.

So, the second of eighteen benchmarks is away.

There are two points that strike me here. First, listen to the Iraqi lawmakers; they don't sound like feuding warlords, but like American lawmakers trying to represent their constituents, drawing lines, but coming to compromises that everyone can find acceptable. Even the Sadrist parliamentarians, a little more than ten percent of MPs, although they walked out for the debate for the Kurdish funding, came back for the second debate and the vote. No calls for blood and violence.

Second, when you consider the history of the region and the hatreds that exist between all three groups, this sort of progress is incredible. Two major benchmarks passed in a period of only a few months! And the progress is even more remarkable at the local level, as Sunni and Shi'a coexist peacefully--for the most part--as neighbors and even welcome back Christian refugees from earlier in the war by helping to rebuild and clean up their churches. Iraq is already a more tolerant nation than almost any surrounding it.

Yahoo! News puts as gloomy a spin on the story as it can, but this can only be seen as remarkable progress for the surge, our troops, and the President's plan to fight global jihadism.

This Was The Danger

I'm on a tear this morning! Well, anyway.

This was always the danger, really. If we invade Iraq, whether it's successful or not, once things start settling down there, will Americans forget about the wider war on terror?

Americans need to remember that the Iraq War is not meant to be an isolated action by the United States. It is just one part of a larger battle against an ideology currently sweeping the globe. (By the way, one thing is for sure: although I have serious disagreements with John McCain about other things, he is dead on in the War on Jihadism.) The strategic strengths of an Iraq invasion were these: 1) it is a nation with large populations of both Shi'a and Sunnis. A functioning, moderately pluralistic democracy here would be a dagger in the heart of Sunni-Shi'a sectarian battles. 2) It, like Afghanistan, borders Iran. With a large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, we now have the capability of initiating a debilitating blockade against Iran if the necessity arises. What's better, the Iranians know that option is on the table for us. 3) It has a large Shi'a majority. Militant Shi'a theocracy has a very short tradition; the Iranian Revolution of 1979 played a major role in its advancement, and an allied Iraqi democracy could do serious damage to that movement. 4) Eliminating the Hussein regime took away an important safe haven and source of funding from jihadist militants. Moreover, an allied Iraq gives us an important base of operations for moving against other jihadist safe havens and sources of funding.

Islamic terrorism is difficult to keep fighting politically, because when you're winning, the problem seems to have gone away. It's only obvious when you're losing. We need to keep reporting what Mark Steyn wrote about in his important book, America Alone (Buy at Amazon.com): around the world, madrassas teaching violent Islamic radicalism are raising a generation of jihadists against Israel and the West. In many Western nations, Muslim immigrants are becoming less assimilated to their adopted nations' cultures and demanding enforcement of shari'a law. Parisians' cars are burning, and it isn't because of global warming activists.