Iraq - A War That Can Be Won

[red states rule]

If libs are consistent, they will pubicly support the NY Times article and start supporting the troops and the war in Iraq

Don;t hold you breath however



Turning Point?
An op-ed and a war.

An NRO Symposium

The New York Times ran a piece Monday by two non-“neoconservatives” — Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack — arguing that the war in Iraq can be won. Is this indicative of some kind of mood change afoot? Could we really win this war? Could the rhetoric in Washington really change? National Review Online asked a group of experts.


Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
What are we to make of the fact that two of the Democratic party’s most knowledgeable critics of President Bush’s campaign to stabilize and democratize post-Saddam Iraq, Michael O’Hanlon and Robert Pollack, have publicly rejected the defeatists and called for a sustained U.S. effort there into 2008? The short answer is that they have the wit to recognize mistaken claims that all is lost in Iraq when they hear them — and the courage to say so.

This assessment is remarkable, of course, not only for the fact that its authors are breaking ranks with nearly all of the rest of the Democrats’ foreign-policy establishment. It is also noteworthy for being the latest and, arguably, most objective indicator that the situation on the ground in Iraq is, indeed, changing for the better.

As such, the O’Hanlon-Pollack report makes plain one other truth: Those who persist in denying that General David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy is having the desired, salutary effect and who insist that our defeat is inevitable are promoting a self-fulfilling prophesy. They are so determined to score domestic political points by unilaterally ending the conflict in Iraq that they are prepared to surrender the country to al Qaeda and various Shiite militias and their respective Saudi, Iranian and Syrian enablers.

Public-opinion polling and anecdotal evidence suggests that Americans are beginning to appreciate the true nature — and potentially enormous costs — of the surrender in Iraq being advocated by many Democrats and a few Republicans. The O’Hanlon-Pollack op-ed may reflect that reality as much as shape it. Either way, its authors deserve our thanks.

— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy.


Victor Davis Hanson
What is interesting about the essay is that both scholars were early supporters of the war to remove Saddam Hussein, then constant critics of the acknowledged mistakes of the occupation, and now somewhat confident that Gen. Petraeus can still salvage a victory. In two regards, they reflect somewhat the vast majority of the American people who approved the war, slowly soured on the peace — but now have yet to be won over again by the surge to renew their erstwhile support.

We are witnessing two phenomena. First, after four years of misery the Iraqis themselves are tiring of war, have grasped what al Qaeda et al. do when in local control, realize the U.S. wants to leave only after establishing a constitutional state, not steal its oil, sense that the United States may well win — and are slowly making adjustments to hedge their bets.

In a wider sense, the war is as most wars: an evolution from blunders to wisdom, the side that makes the fewest and learns from them the most eventually winning. Al Qaeda and the insurgents in 2004-6 developed the means, both tactical and strategic, to thwart the reconstruction, but we, not they, have since learned the more and evolved.

As in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, the present American military — which has committed far less mistakes than past American forces — has shifted tactics, redefined strategy, and found the right field commanders. We forget that the U.S. Army and Marines, far from being broken, now have the most experienced and wizened officers in the world. Like Summer 1864, Summer 1918, and in the Pacific 1944-5, the key is the support of a weary public for an ever improving military that must nevertheless endure a final storm before breaking the enemy.

The irony is that should President Bush endure the hysteria and furor and prove able to give the gifted Gen. Petraeus the necessary time — and I think he will — his presidency could still turn out to be Trumanesque, once we digest the changes in Europe, the progress on North Korea, the end of both the Taliban and Saddam, and the prevention of another 9/11 attack. How odd that all the insider advice to triangulate — big spending, new programs, uninspired appointments, liberal immigration reform — have nearly wrecked the administration, and what were once considered its liabilities — foreign policy, the war on terror and Iraq — may still save it.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.


for the complete article

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...EyMjQ1N2ZmMWQ=

[Black Lance]

What is the opinion of these two far-left commentators based on?

[gabosaurus]

RSS will grow a spine and develop a brain before the Iraq war becomes winnable. In other words -- never.

[LiberalNation]

It can be won but it's not wortrth the time, money, and lives to do it. We don't have 20 more years to be stuck in Iraq.

[red states rule]

What is the opinion of these two far-left commentators based on?

Their trips to Iraq, and what they saw

Here is the original op-ed. Remember these two guys are libs and this ran in the NY TIMES


By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Published: July 30, 2007
Washington


VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, 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.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

for the complete article

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/op...30pollack.html

[red states rule]

RSS will grow a spine and develop a brain before the Iraq war becomes winnable. In other words -- never.

Upset some good news was reported - and from the Dems beloved NY Times

Many conservatoves have been saying for years, any good news from Iraq is bad news for the left

Not only you, but now an elected Dem Congressmen are proving it to be a fact

[red states rule]

RSS will grow a spine and develop a brain before the Iraq war becomes winnable. In other words -- never.

I love it when the facts go against the moonbat left (which is often)

Is the Surge Working?
July 31, 2007 11:53 AM ET | Barone , Michael | Permanent Link


Yes, comes the answer from Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, in yesterday's New York Times. They write, after an eight-day trip to Iraq, with careful qualifications and with some stinging criticism of the Bush administration (perhaps to reassure readers that it really is the Times they're reading). Here is one key passage:

We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, 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 conclusion:

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

O'Hanlon specializes in military affairs; Pollack is an expert on Iraq and Iran. Both are Democrats; Pollack served on the national security adviser's staff in the Clinton administration. Both are first-class scholars whom I have long respected, though they differ from me in significant respects on foreign policy. For other comments on their article, see this symposium in National Review Online.

Their argument is one many Democrats in Congress don't want to hear. Literally. This is the transcript of the response of freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas at a House Armed Services Committee hearing last Friday to the optimistic testimony of Gen. Jack Keane, one of the original advocates of the surge:

And I just will make some statements more for the record based on what I heard from—mainly from General Keane. As many of us—there was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while. So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things—after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.

But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation—things are going so well—those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem. And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue.

Read that last sentence again. "And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue." The reality, that is, of how she sees it. Which is, apparently, that Iraq is a totally lost cause. She can't bear to hear anyone say anything otherwise.

But one thing students of the history of war know is that things can change in war. And apparently they've been changing in Iraq, at least in the opinions of Michael O'Hanlon, Kenneth Pollack, and Gen. Jack Keane. Democrats like Boyda would like to preserve in amber the state of public opinion that prevailed during the 2006 election and for the first half of this year that we have been defeated in Iraq. The more cynical among them want to make political gain from that; the less cynical want to end a conflict that is taking American lives as fast as they can.

But there is evidence—just a little evidence so far—that opinion may be changing. The New York Times and CBS took a poll and found that support for going to war in Iraq had risen to 42 percent from 35 percent from May to July. The percentage of those thinking it was the wrong decision fell to 54 percent from 61 percent. This was a statistically significant difference and indicated a very different political balance. Not many politicians want to get on the wrong side of a 35-61 split. But many politicians are willing to take the risk of getting on the wrong side of a 42-54 split. The former means that opinion is running negative in just about every state and district. The latter means that opinion is running about 50-50 in states and districts somewhat more Republican than average. Which is many, many states and districts.

Using the 2004 election results as a gauge of what states and districts are more Republican than average (though not of current opinion today, which is different from what it was in November 2004), you find that very many are: George W. Bush carried the 50 states by a 31-19 margin and carried the 435 congressional districts by a 255-180 margin.

The Times and CBS News didn't believe the 42-54 result, for the good reason that the poll didn't show movement on opinion on Iraq and for (I suspect) the bad reason that they couldn't imagine there could be any rise in the percentage favoring the policies of Bushchimphitler. So they took another poll—an unusual step, because it costs money to take polls, and news organizations, particularly those with declining audiences like the Times and CBS, have limited budgets. Presumably they expected to get a different result. But they got pretty much the same numbers.

Interesting. We'll be able to see if there are similar shifts in other polls. Maybe there will be; maybe there won't. The nightmare scenario for Democrats is that increasing numbers of Americans will see progress in Iraq and will not want to accept defeat when they could have victory. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, according to the Washington Post's Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, is already having such a nightmare. He said that a positive report by Gen. David Petraeus in September will be "a real big problem for us":

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

The "us" in question is of course the House Democratic leadership. A political party gets itself in a bad position when military success for the nation is a "real big problem for us." Voters generally want their politicians to root for the nation, not against it. We're still a good distance from this nightmare scenario for congressional Democrats, and we may never get there. But it seems that Jim Clyburn, a highly competent politician and from everything I've seen a really nice man, is worried about it.

Finally, read this interview by radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt of John F. Burns, the New York Times's chief correspondent in Iraq. Burns is a superb reporter, probably one of the best war reporters of all time, and his analysis is absolutely fascinating. And if you haven't already, take a look at the reader-supported reporting of Michael Yon and Michael Totten.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2...e-working.html

[red states rule]

Even Al Gore was for the war in Iraq - before he was against it

[red states rule]

Why the surge might not be stopped

By: Jim VandeHei
Aug 1, 2007 06:10 AM EST


Sens. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) grabbed all the headlines last month when they called for change in Iraq war strategy. But conversations reveal that many more Republicans privately fear the war is lost -- both politically and on the ground.

This has created a widespread perception that President Bush will be forced to shift plans and begin bringing U.S. troops home in early 2008 after a military progress report is delivered to Congress next month. And that might happen.

Yet there are very good reasons to believe the prevailing conventional wisdom on Iraq might turn out to be wrong once again.

The reasons are simple: the power of the presidency, the anguished feelings of many congressional Republicans and math. In short, Bush is in no mood to yield.

House and Senate Republicans still don't appear prepared to force him to. And a loyal group of GOP senators are prepared to back a Bush veto if Democrats ever succeed in limiting or ending the U.S. mission in Iraq.

"At the end of the day, all of this hand-wringing needs to be understood (in the context) of how Congress works: There will always be 33 of us, as long as there is not a complete meltdown, to support a military strategy that is aggressive and is not based on needs of the next election," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Congress has essentially hit pause on the war debate until next month, when Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, delivers a detailed summary of progress -- or lack thereof. Almost all the Republican members have said they will withhold judgment until they review the Petraeus report.

"Where everyone is at this juncture, it seems to me, is (waiting) to hear back in September about … where the generals believe we are in terms of conditions on the ground militarily, and at that point make determinations about what is necessary in our national security interest," said Ed Gillespie, a top Bush adviser.

In other words, Bush will not adjust the strategy if Petraeus says it is working. And there are growing indications Petraeus will report significant military progress tempered by continued political problems in Iraq, according to Republicans in close contact with Bush.

The clearest sign of Bush's September plan is that the White House has launched a new preemptive campaign to convince lawmakers the surge plan is working.

Significantly, GOP leaders are helping. This started with Bush pulling in GOP lawmakers and then leading conservative columnists last month to argue the war is going better than perceived -- and to spread the word he has no plans to retreat.

It worked: Conservative outlets from the National Review to the Weekly Standard have stepped up their defense of administration policy in Iraq.

Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), a top House GOP leader, said much more significant was an op-ed in Monday's New York Times by two Brookings Institution scholars, Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack. The two Iraq experts contended that the surge is starting to work.

The White House blasted the op-ed to its allies within minutes of its publication -- and the National Review directed its readers to the piece shortly after.

Putnam said the op-ed was more significant than recent GOP defections on Iraq. "It has shifted momentum going into August recess," he said. "It transforms the debate from purely political calculations of how many votes to prevent a defunding of the war … into an intellectual discussion about whether the surge is working."

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) showed Tuesday morning how Republicans are still rallying to Bush's side. "Analysts and commanders on the ground report surge successes," read an alert the Boehner operation sent to reporters.

Guess who they cited? U.S. commanders -- and what he called the "liberal" Brookings Institution (O'Hanlon and Pollack).

A few hours later, Senate GOP leaders did the same: "Good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats in Congress." Their releases cited the Brookings duo, too.

Republicans also pounced on South Carolina Democratic Rep. James Clyburn's statement to The Washington Post that an upbeat report by Petraeus would divide Democrats.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5193.html

[red states rule]

It can be won but it's not wortrth the time, money, and lives to do it. We don't have 20 more years to be stuck in Iraq.

GRAY LADY HEDGES
By RAPLH PETERS


August 1, 2007 -- SOMETIMES where a thing is said is bigger news than what was said. That happened on Monday, when The New York Times ran a guest op-ed detailing the progress in Iraq.
Long before the fall of Baghdad, The New York Times was as dogmatically pessimistic about the Bush administration's efforts as it was gushingly supportive of Joseph Stalin in the 1930s. It even promoted the least-qualified op-ed writer in North America as its point man for its attacks on our military: Frank Rich, whose experience was with ballet slippers, not combat boots.

Rich must feel like a dying swan just now.

What did the column in Monday's Times say? Exactly what readers of this paper have been hearing for months: Gen. Dave Petraeus has made a remarkable difference; al Qaeda's in trouble in Iraq; the performance of the Iraqi military is improving, and security gains are making a significant difference in the daily lives of Iraqis.

The column's authors had just returned from Iraq, where they traveled widely. Michael O'Hanlon of The Brookings Institution and Ken Pollack of Brookings' Saban Center aren't typical Washington think-tank drones parroting party lines. They're men of great integrity and veteran analysts. In the past, Pollack was sharply critical of the Rumsfeld-era mess in Iraq, while O'Hanlon wrote widely about policy shortcomings.

Their bottom-line message to America? Don't quit yet: The surge has shown sufficient success to merit its continuation into 2008.

The authors noted Iraq's enduring problems, not least sectarianism in the police establishment. But both men admitted that they had been surprised by the pace of progress. They described strolling the streets of Ramadi without body armor, where just months ago our Marines were fighting block by block.

The Times deserves credit for running the column, which contradicts the paper's editorial line of the past five years. Cynically, one might suspect the Gray Lady of hedging her bets as the turnaround in Iraq becomes impossible to dismiss (by anyone except the blustering Rich, who might usefully spend a few weeks in Iraq himself).

But the important thing is that the Times took one small step backward toward the days when its claim to be "the newspaper of record" didn't seem downright preposterous. The editors probably argued over the O'Hanlon/Pollack piece (which can still be read at realclearpolitics.com), but, in the end, they did the right thing and published it.

This matters. Because left-wing America-haters may disparage The Post and every other paper in the country, but they cling to the Times more avidly than Linus clutches his security blanket.

Even more important, the fact that the Times accepted the new reality in Iraq - at least to the extent of running a single op-ed about it - makes it more probable that the "last to know" and the "don't want to know" anti-war hucksters on Capitol Hill might start to feel the shift in the wind's direction.

Iraq looks more hopeful than it has since mid-2003. Recent polls show that the American electorate's support of the war has been increasing. And, as Monday's column noted, troop morale has soared as soldiers and Marines see street-level results.

But the potentially fatal problem remains the cowardice and selfishness of politicians in both parties who care far more about retaining their offices in the 2008 elections (or gaining higher ones) than they do about Iraq, our troops or our national security.

If the situation in Iraq continues to improve, let's not forget which pols bailed out - and not just the Reid-Pelosi-Murtha Democrats, but the Republicans who ran for the trees at the first drop of rain.

As O'Hanlon and Pollack made clear, success in Iraq is far from guaranteed. And if their column has one fault, it's shared by many of us who've written on the subject: Placing too much weight on Gen. Petraeus's shoulders. He's worked miracles. But we can't expect uninterrupted miracles. There will be setbacks, too.

Yet, as The Post has noted for months, we've now got effective military leadership from top to bottom in Iraq; Ambassador Ryan Crocker is performing superbly in Baghdad; former enemies have decided they like us a lot better than al Qaeda; the Iraqi people don't want us to leave, and we're making tangible progress - not just against Iraq's enemies, but against our enemies.

Monday's Times column sidestepped talk of outright victory, but victory in Iraq isn't only possible - if we don't quit - but can be defined on three clear terms:

* Al Qaeda down.

* Iran out.

* Sectarian violence controlled.

The great dream of an ideal Arab democracy may be dead - murdered by the Iraqis themselves, with Saudi, Syrian and Iranian help - but an American strategic advantage in the post-Saddam Middle East looks unexpectedly plausible.

Even The Times felt compelled to whisper the news.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...plh_peters.htm

[actsnoblemartin]

I thought he put it in a lock box

Even Al Gore was for the war in Iraq - before he was against it

[red states rule]

I thought he put it in a lock box

I thought Hillary but Bill's di** in the lock box and kept the key

[actsnoblemartin]

[red states rule]

So are both Bill and Hillary

[red states rule]

Beating the Heat
By Rick Moran


As our young men and women spend the next month sweating in the 130 degree heat of a Baghdad summer, risking their lives to build a better future for the Iraqi people, the elected representatives of the people of Iraq - men who will have a hand in running that future our military is trying to build for them - have decided to beat the heat and take the month off.

It is totally, completely, incomprehensible.


Their excuse? They've got nothing to do:

Lawmakers said the government had yet to present them with any of the laws. The parliament had earlier signaled its intention to go into recess in August after cutting short its summer break that normally starts in July.

"We do not have anything to discuss in the parliament, no laws or constitutional amendments, nothing from the government. Differences between the political factions have delayed the laws," Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman told Reuters.

The parliament is due to reconvene on September 4, just two weeks before the top U.S. general in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and Washington's envoy to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, are due to report to Congress on the success of U.S. President George W. Bush's new Iraq strategy and make recommendations.
Just a second here. Hold the phone. They claim they've got nothing to do? How about ironing out some of those "differences between the political factions" that have paralyzed the government these many months. They all know the issues involved; reconciliation, the oil revenue sharing plan, a federalism arrangement for power sharing, local elections, and allowing former Baathist party members to get jobs in government. While they're at it, they might think of reforming the civil service to deal with rampant corruption, hold some hearings on where those billions in reconstruction money is actually going, and tell Mookie al-Sadr to take a hike.

But hey! They've got nothing to do so let them flee the capitol for those sandy beaches in Dubai. I hear the Gulf water is fine this time of year - if you don't mind the film of oil that covers the surface. Maybe that's why beach volleyball is so popular although the images of women in burkini's prancing around on the beach would be enough to drive me back to Baghdad.

Actually, I think we should make those weasels meet outdoors in the same 130 degree heat our boys are enduring. We could strap 100 pounds of gear on them for the whole month and tell them they don't get to go inside until they come to an agreement on at least some of the political benchmarks set by the Administration and Congress. Just to make it interesting, we could lob a few mortars over their heads once and a while to give them the same feeling our guys are experiencing every time they go out on patrol.

All sorts of images come to mind to describe the utter contempt I feel for these bozos. Nero fiddling while Rome burned is particularly apt although history tells us that Nero didn't fiddle and that Rome actually needed a good fire to clear out the disease-infested slums where the fire began. Things just got a little out of hand, that's all.

No need to start a fire in Iraq. The conflagration that currently engulfs that bloody country has been burning for 4 years and shows little sign of abating. And there's still plenty of hatred on all sides of the sectarian divide to feed the flames of violence and death for the foreseeable future. That the Iraqi government has chosen this time of all times to abandon their posts and refuse to continue trying to settle their differences shows a lack of respect for the United States and its president who has expended every ounce of political capital - and some he didn't have - to keep the American commitment from faltering.

And what of our military? We have stretched the ability of our army to deal with conflicts to the absolute limit. Don't believe me? Ask the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
He said he was committed to "resetting, reconstituting and revitalizing our armed forces," acknowledging, "There is strain. We are stretched." Although recruitment and retention generally remain good and "morale is still high," he said, "I worry about the toll this pace of operations is taking on [service members and their families], our equipment and on our ability to respond to other crises and contingencies.


"The U.S. military remains the strongest in all the world, but it is not unbreakable," Mullen said. "Force reset in all its forms cannot wait until the war in Iraq is over."

Mullen also had this bit of cheery news about our friends in the Iraqi parliament:

Levin expressed skepticism that Iraqi political leaders can take the necessary steps toward reconciliation, saying they "remain frozen by their history." He described the Iraqi parliament as "at a standstill," with nearly every session since November forced to adjourn because too few legislators showed up.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) voiced similar doubts about the ability of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to meet its commitments.


"So the surge is moving forward successfully," he said. "But the Maliki government is sliding backwards and is failing in the partnership that was established as the predicate, the foundation, for the surge concept."
It's not all the PM's fault. Maliki got the lawmakers to stick around in July, foiling the Council's plan for two months of lying in the hammock and snoozing the nation's future away. But for the rest, one can't help get the feeling that the Prime Minister is just not up to the challenge of enticing the factions to come together and do what is necessary to begin the process of putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. In the end, he appears to me to be an empty suit, tugged this way and that by various Shia factions and totally incapable of standing up to those who thirst for the blood of Sunnis or seek revenge for Saddam's atrocities.

When General Petreaus delivers his report in September, Congress will have to weigh both the successes and failures of the surge as well as the prospect for any progress from the Iraqi government.

For the former, I have no doubt that there will be encouraging news about the security situation in several parts of the country. As for the latter, while Petreaus may seek to put the best face possible on political developments, the cold hard truth is that the Iraqi Council of Representatives does not reconvene from their fun and games until September 4 - a scant two weeks before the American general must face the Congress and try and convince them that the Iraqis are serious about doing the things they simply must do to heal the gaping wounds in the national polity which fuel the violence that make Iraq such an aching tragedy.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/..._the_heat.html