ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Friday, June 15, 2007

Iraq, the Surge, and the Democrats Insistence on Failure

I mean, the Democrats are insistent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Nancy & Harry proclaimed earlier this week that the surge was "a failure." While they just a few weeks ago surprisingly agreed to give Chimpy W. McBushitler until September to implement the new strategery, the moonbats (aka Democratic Primary Voters) have forced their hand on the matter.

This Breitbart article has the details.

[...]
As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.
[...]

Of course, reality in Iraq bears no resemblance and has no impact on the reality in Washington. From an excellent post on Protein Wisdom (read the whole thing), here's the key information:

[...]
So the failed operation has reduced deaths by 33% in its main theater of operations, and reduced deaths by around 8% overall, with the current monthly level about 40% of what it was when the operation started. That’s some failure.
[...]

Indeed.

As we've pointed out several times, the biggest challenge for Chimpy W. McBushitler isn't necessarily the military operation in Iraq (he has excellent soldiers, from the grunts to the Generals to do that). No, his biggest challenge is forcing the MSM and the Dems to admit that something is working. Unfortunately, communication and persuasion are not key strengths of the Bush Presidency.

And I suppose that it's too much to ask for the Dems to at least shut their mouth for 6 months to a year. Can I question their patriotismTM yet?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (7)
Stupid Country said...

Even if the civilian body count tails off, it is some failure if it produces no political gains.

There's not much evidence of progress on any political front, although neocons would love to claim one in the fact that Sunnis are disgusted with the carnage that the foreign fighters who brand themselves al Qaeda have brought on them and have turned on the outsiders. That was predicted long ago -- I like the Cato Institute's take on this, especially because the facts so completely undermine the administration's contention that Iraq is in danger of becoming an al Qaeda sanctuary. It's laughable.

In the end, the surge will simply be irrelevant, because it is temporary and everyone on all sides knows it is temporary. It's the policy of an administration that is coming to an end in 18 months and will be succeeded by a new administration committed to ending the war. I can say this with assurance because even the Republican hopefuls are becoming increasingly shrill in their efforts to detach themselves from Bush and the Iraq strategy.

So..."victory." Is that it? Eight percent fewer mutilated Iraqi corpses?

St Wendeler said...

because it is temporary and everyone on all sides knows it is temporary.

And whose idea was it that the surge should be temporary (if there was a surge at all)? And who reminds our enemies on a daily basis that the surge is temporary?

Ummmm, seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me...

Good to see you're still around, SC!!! Thanks for the comment. Was over at your site a few weeks ago and hadn't seen anything recent. Will revisit now, but any plans on blogging more regularly?

Stupid Country said...

The surge is temporary because the policy is temporary. The only meaningful game now is to time the policy's ultimate collapse so it can be blamed on the right people.

The Democrats want the failure of the policy to be clear to as many as possible, as soon as possible. That's partly to build support for ending the occupation, because ending it is the right thing to do and because it's what most Americans want.

But it's also partly to frustrate the Republican strategy, which is to delay the inevitable until after the 2008 election, so that they can then blame the Democrats for the collapse of the Iraq policy, since a Democrat will be in the White House presiding over withdrawal, and their majority in Congress will be enlarged, possibly even large enough to get things actually moving on the Hill.

Simple, isn't it?

Our enemies, by the way, are smart enough to figure all of this out for themselves. They have web access. Daily reminders are redundant.

I have blogged a bit more lately. I probably would more if I got more pushback. But it's always going to be a little irregular I think. Come on over. Upside-down flags seem to be really catching on. :-)

Brian said...

If a republican is in the white house in 2008 and the withdrawal doesn't happen, will it still be a failed policy?

Stupid Country said...

If that means four more years of the same quagmire, with Americans stuck in the middle of civil war trying to prop up a failed state, it absolutely will be a failed policy.

Gives you something to shoot for, doesn't it?

What would you call it if a Republican were in the White House and the withdrawal did happen?

St Wendeler said...

When Bush gave Saddam 48 hours I was traveling in a small town in upstate NY and was sitting at a bar, eating dinner. The guy at the bar next to me looked at me and said, "well... Saddam's days are numbered. I figure it'll be about 3 months for us to kick some butt and get our troops back."

I responded, "well... actually... we're probably going to have to be there 10 years, maybe more. Just like we did after World War II in Germany and Japan, we're going to have to rebuild that country and set it up as a model for the rest of the region. And we're still in Germany and Japan if that tells you anything."

That Bush wasn't able to articulate the fact that it would take a significant, long-term commitment to achieve our strategic political goals in the Middle East was his biggest failure. Of course, in his speeches in the early days of the war, Bush never said that our commitment in Iraq would be brief. However, he should've provided some quantitative time frame of 10 or 15 years to provide the American people with some expectation, instead of simply saying that it "will take a long time."

But, communication and articulation have been the weakest aspects of the past 7 years. And even when they communicate such strategic intent, it is often reduced to a 30 second sound bite about some political event that is broiling in the capital, so there's some blame that can be placed with the MSM.

But, Bush has the bully pulpit and could've gone over the heads of the media in the early days of his Wilsonian strategy in Iraq through a Presidential address and then also during the 2004 election.

Stupid Country said...

Bush had a lot of support at the war's outset, specifically because (1) he claimed the invasion was well justified by the WMDs we would find and destroy, and (2) because Americans believed it would be quick and easy, and cheap because Iraq's oil revenues would pay for it, and we'd be out of there in a matter of months.

No, I'm not saying Bush got up and said in any particular speech, "We'll be out of there in a matter of months." But he and his surrogates made sure that impression was created and nurtured the expectation that this was a short-term commitment -- do I need to dredge up "Mission Accomplished"?

My point is, if he had said in 2002, we need to invade Iraq to start the process of planting new democracies all over the Middle East, and by the way, this is a commitment of at least a decade and a trillion dollars, he'd have been laughed off the podium.

I can't argue with your comparison. A Woodrow Wilson would have made an attempt to sell the strategy as he intended it. Bush just lied about the premise and kept on lying until the lie grew into the Republican Party's albatross -- biggest and smelliest albatross that any party has had to lug around since Watergate. I'm smiling, but I feel for you guys.