US Troops Are Winning in Iraq - When Will Dems Admit It?

[red states rule]

For years the left bellowed how the US was losing in Iraq, it was mess, our troops were being slaughtered, and Harry Reid sneered "the war was lost"

Now, the troops are winning, the liberal media is not reporting the good news, and Dems are ducking any questions about the success

Will the Dems admit we are winning in Iraq, or still keep fighting their war on reality?



American troops are winning
By Pete Hegseth
December 11, 2007

In May and June, overall attacks in Iraq were at their highest levels since the war began, monthly coalition deaths were near an all-time high, and violence against civilians was still at staggering levels. To most observers, the war in Iraq was not going well.

At the same time, members of Congress were already declaring the "surge" a failure and stepping up their "timeline for withdrawal" rhetoric. Anti-war Democrats, and a few Republicans, cited "realities on the ground" as compelling evidence to call for an immediate, or more nuanced "phased," end to the war.

These same "realities," also emboldening anti-war groups to declare an "Iraq Summer," during which they would finally crush domestic support for the war and force Congress to de-fund the mission there. MoveOn.org and others dispatched operatives around the country and harassed members of Congress.

Truthfully, as we now know, these "realities" on the ground were the unfortunate birth pangs of the new counter-insurgency strategy being implemented by Gen. David Petraeus. Some on Capitol Hill understood this fact in June, and their courage in those dark days kept Congress from prematurely declaring defeat in Iraq.

In June, the full compliment of surge forces had just arrived, hence the violence levels hadn't yet ebbed; by June, American forces had moved off of large bases and defensive positions, and into an offensive posture among the population, hence the initially high casualty rate; and in June, al Qaeda had yet to felt the full shock of the surge, hence their continue brutality.

But that was then, and this is now; and Iraq in December 2007 is a drastically different place than Iraq in June 2007. Overall attack levels are now at the lowest levels since 2005, monthly coalition deaths are nearing an all-time low, and violence against Iraqi civilians has been reduced by more than 60 percent, according to the anti-war site icasualties.org

However, the more things change in Iraq, the more they stay the same on Capitol Hill. For the past month, with a few off-handed exceptions, Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill has largely refused to acknowledge success. They are stuck in the talking points of June, and stuck on a narrative of failure.

Despite the incredible progress made by our military — which has opened the door for real and sustainable political progress in Iraq — the Democratic leadership continues to insist that we de-fund the war and bring the troops home no matter what. Beholden to entrenched and noisy anti-war interest groups, the Democrat leadership in Washington seems willing to cut-off much needed funding, placing our brave troops in harms way.

For the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...112110007/1013

[glockmail]

They've got too much invested in a loss. Most will never admit that america has triumped yet again.

[stephanie]

Never...




In fact I've heard that Moveon.orgie has another campaign going now their getting to release, because the Democrats in OUR CONGRESS is getting ready to approve a bill that President Bush has asked for to support our troops...the Democrats staked their election and receive monies from the anti war movement and now they want their paybacks... It's not a pretty picture....when you lay with dogs..expect to get fleas...

[nevadamedic]

For years the left bellowed how the US was losing in Iraq, it was mess, our troops were being slaughtered, and Harry Reid sneered "the war was lost"

Now, the troops are winning, the liberal media is not reporting the good news, and Dems are ducking any questions about the success

Will the Dems admit we are winning in Iraq, or still keep fighting their war on reality?



American troops are winning
By Pete Hegseth
December 11, 2007

In May and June, overall attacks in Iraq were at their highest levels since the war began, monthly coalition deaths were near an all-time high, and violence against civilians was still at staggering levels. To most observers, the war in Iraq was not going well.

At the same time, members of Congress were already declaring the "surge" a failure and stepping up their "timeline for withdrawal" rhetoric. Anti-war Democrats, and a few Republicans, cited "realities on the ground" as compelling evidence to call for an immediate, or more nuanced "phased," end to the war.

These same "realities," also emboldening anti-war groups to declare an "Iraq Summer," during which they would finally crush domestic support for the war and force Congress to de-fund the mission there. MoveOn.org and others dispatched operatives around the country and harassed members of Congress.

Truthfully, as we now know, these "realities" on the ground were the unfortunate birth pangs of the new counter-insurgency strategy being implemented by Gen. David Petraeus. Some on Capitol Hill understood this fact in June, and their courage in those dark days kept Congress from prematurely declaring defeat in Iraq.

In June, the full compliment of surge forces had just arrived, hence the violence levels hadn't yet ebbed; by June, American forces had moved off of large bases and defensive positions, and into an offensive posture among the population, hence the initially high casualty rate; and in June, al Qaeda had yet to felt the full shock of the surge, hence their continue brutality.

But that was then, and this is now; and Iraq in December 2007 is a drastically different place than Iraq in June 2007. Overall attack levels are now at the lowest levels since 2005, monthly coalition deaths are nearing an all-time low, and violence against Iraqi civilians has been reduced by more than 60 percent, according to the anti-war site icasualties.org

However, the more things change in Iraq, the more they stay the same on Capitol Hill. For the past month, with a few off-handed exceptions, Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill has largely refused to acknowledge success. They are stuck in the talking points of June, and stuck on a narrative of failure.

Despite the incredible progress made by our military — which has opened the door for real and sustainable political progress in Iraq — the Democratic leadership continues to insist that we de-fund the war and bring the troops home no matter what. Beholden to entrenched and noisy anti-war interest groups, the Democrat leadership in Washington seems willing to cut-off much needed funding, placing our brave troops in harms way.

For the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...112110007/1013

They won't. The only reason the Democrats are opposed to the war in Iraq is because they were left out of the planning and can't take the credit. If they were part of it we would be hearing what a success it is and how great they are for doing this.

[red states rule]

Never...




In fact I've heard that Moveon.orgie has another campaign going now their getting to release, because the Democrats in OUR CONGRESS is getting ready to approve a bill that President Bush has asked for to support our troops...the Democrats staked their election and receive monies from the anti war movement and now they want their paybacks... It's not a pretty picture....when you lay with dogs..expect to get fleas...

As Glock pointed out, Dems haveinvested their political future in the the US losing in Iraq, and the fall of the US economy

They are losing on both

So they do what libs do best, they duck, dodge, and lie about the facts

I have confidence a majoroty of the voters are smart enough to see how the Dems thirst for failure and not success

[glockmail]

As Glock pointed out, Dems haveinvested their political future in the the US losing in Iraq, and the fall of the US economy

They are losing on both

So they do what libs do best, they duck, dodge, and lie about the facts

I have confidence a majoroty of the voters are smart enough to see how the Dems thirst for failure and not success

Look for them to start talking about homeless people now. That's always their fall back. Like the guv'mint has something to do with it.

[red states rule]

Look for them to start talking about homeless people now. That's always their fall back. Like the guv'mint has something to do with it.

So if they can't come up with a real issue - they will create one?

Situation normal for the left

[red states rule]

The troops know they are winning, and they are in still fired up


IRAQ EXCLUSIVE: Troops' Spirits Remain High, See Fruits of Labor Despite Political Pessimists
By Lt. Col. Oliver North

FOB Kalsu, Iraq — Those who believe that the campaign in Iraq is a lost cause better not tell that to the soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division — they think they’re winning. That’s not just their Commanding General, Rick Lynch talking — that’s the word from every soldier we have listened to for the week we have been with them. These troops ought to know — many of them are here on their third, year-long tour of duty in Iraq.

Those we have been interviewing for an upcoming special edition of War Stories were part of the initial attack north from Kuwait in March 2003; they were here when Al Qaeda tried to stop the democratic elections in 2005; and they have been here again since May 2007. What they have experienced along the way gives them a perspective that is much at odds from what we most often see expressed in our mainstream media and by America’s most prominent politicians.

“If I thought we were losing, I wouldn’t be here,” said Staff Sgt. Nicholas Ingleston of Williamston, New York. He’s an M-1 Tank Gunner on his third tour of duty in Iraq. When I asked him why he had decided to re-enlist in the U.S. Army, knowing that would mean coming back to Iraq a third time, this father of three replied, “I’m part of a team and we came here to do a job and we’re doing it.” His commentary on where we have been — and where this fight is headed was typical of what we have heard on this, our ninth “embed” in Iraq.

Professional political pessimists and their apprentices in the press long ago declared this fight “lost” and U.S. efforts here a “failure.” In June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the struggle to bring about a democratic outcome in Iraq, a “grotesque mistake.” She was joined by Republican critics like Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar who said “the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting” America's vital interests in Iraq. That kind of sniping was heard from both sides of the aisle throughout the summer. Then, after Labor Day, Gen. David Petraeus was subjected to vitriolic criticism before he even had the chance to testify before Congress.

When the senior U.S. commander in Iraq reported that military objectives were, in large measure being met, he was attacked for being a shill for the Bush administration. “In recent months,” he said, “in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena.” Few accepted that, essentially saying that had to see it to believe it.

Well, if they care to look, they can see it now. As Mark Twain once said of Wagner’s music — “It’s not as bad as it sounds.”

Although there is marked improvement in the security situation, some in the media just don’t want to admit it. A recent headline in the San Francisco Chronicle read, “Even if Surge Succeeds, Iraq Faces Volatile Future.”

Col. Terry Ferrell, the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of 3rd ID – our current hosts — arrived here in June. When I was last here — in March of 2003 — it was a FARP, a Forward Arming and Refueling Point, for the Marines driving north toward Baghdad. When 2 BCT arrived here six months ago it was an Al Qaeda stronghold. Today, all that has changed.

We have now seen what few others have cared to report: that “the Awakening” in the Sunni population — and the “Concerned Citizens” program here in Babel province has indeed — as Col.Ferrell puts it, “lifted the blanket of fear on these communities.” He told us, “we have crippled the al Qaeda in this area and contributed to a dramatic turnaround in security for Baghdad.” From all we have seen, he’s spot on.

Interestingly, these kinds of stories are becoming a trend throughout Iraq. Unfortunately, these aren’t the kinds of facts that make good copy for America’s media elites. Reductions in enemy attacks, fewer U.S., coalition and civilian casualties and improvements in Iraqi military and security forces have driven news from Iraq out of the front pages of our papers and off broadcast news.

Publicly, U.S. commanders describe the situation as “cautiously optimistic,” and say that “the momentum is in the right direction.” Privately, they say that “we are putting them [Al Qaeda and the Shiite militias] on the ropes.”

Though disappointed by the lack of “good news” being reported in the U.S. press, the troops’ sense of humor is undiminished. When Sec. Gates was in Baghdad this week, it was announced that lack of congressional funding could result in “pink slips for up to 200,000 Defense Department employees.” Hearing the story, one young soldier heading out on patrol commented, “Somebody call me if I get laid off.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316003,00.html

[retiredman]

no one has ever doubted the skill and abilities of the United States military. Of course they will "win" in any ground encounter in Iraq for as long as we stay there. The point is: to what end? The stated mission of the surge was to provide some peaceful "space" so that political progress could be made. Even our ground commanders now say that regardless of how militarily successful the surge has been, the Iraqi political reconciliation has not moved forward and that the inability of the Iraqi government to actually begin governing and coming to grips with the sectarian issues that divide it is THE most grave threat to the long term stability of Iraq. The "enemy" isn't AQ anymore....it isn't even really the sectarian militias...it is the Iraqi politicians who are unable and unwilling to create a stable government.

but it is nice to see you back to you old "cut and paste" form.... always using other people's words because you are too lazy to write anything of substance yourself!

welcome back!

[red states rule]

no one has ever doubted the skill and abilities of the United States military. Of course they will "win" in any ground encounter in Iraq for as long as we stay there. The point is: to what end? The stated mission of the surge was to provide some peaceful "space" so that political progress could be made. Even our ground commanders now say that regardless of how militarily successful the surge has been, the Iraqi political reconciliation has not moved forward and that the inability of the Iraqi government to actually begin governing and coming to grips with the sectarian issues that divide it is THE most grave threat to the long term stability of Iraq. The "enemy" isn't AQ anymore....it isn't even really the sectarian militias...it is the Iraqi politicians who are unable and unwilling to create a stable government.

but it is nice to see you back to you old "cut and paste" form.... always using other people's words because you are too lazy to write anything of substance yourself!

welcome back!

Is that why Harry Reid bellowed "the war is lost" before the surge was at full strength?

Or why Dems have tried 41 times to insert a surrender date in spending bills?

Hell of way to show support for the troops - of cousre this is what we have come to expect from the Defeatocrats in DC

and facts still bug the hell of out you MM

[retiredman]

Is that why Harry Reid bellowed "the war is lost" before the surge was at full strength?

Or why Dems have tried 41 times to insert a surrender date in spending bills?

Hell of way to show support for the troops - of cousre this is what we have come to expect from the Defeatocrats in DC

and facts still bug the hell of out you MM

Reid felt that the war was lost because, regardless of our military victories, we will be unable to create a stable working government in Iraq without the work of the Iraqi political leaders, and they clearly have little interest in doing so.

No one has inserted a surrender date into anything. That is a FACT that somehow gets blow away by all your Limbaughesque rhetoric.

And RSR...I have never minded facts. I use them all the time. What has become annoying - and amusing - is your inability to WRITE anything yourself.

If I wanted to read Newsbusters articles all day long, I'd go there and not here. I come here to stand MY words up against other poster's words. I have no desire to "debate" the entire conservative editorial machine on the internet!

[red states rule]

Reid felt that the war was lost because, regardless of our military victories, we will be unable to create a stable working government in Iraq without the work of the Iraqi political leaders, and they clearly have little interest in doing so.

No one has inserted a surrender date into anything. That is a FACT that somehow gets blow away by all your Limbaughesque rhetoric.

And RSR...I have never minded facts. I use them all the time. What has become annoying - and amusing - is your inability to WRITE anything yourself.

If I wanted to read Newsbusters articles all day long, I'd go there and not here. I come here to stand MY words up against other poster's words. I have no desire to "debate" the entire conservative editorial machine on the internet!

Reid and the Dems have said all is lost, smeared the troops, and all your lies and spinning will not change those facts

That is why the liberal media is not covering what is happening in Iraq like they used to, and Dems are not holding their defeatest press conferences

Will Dems cave on their surrender date? Given how support for the war is going up - probably. Dems only care about polls and not about what is right or wrong

Being a loyal lib you do not care about the truth MM - that is why I post facts about the liberal media

[glockmail]

Reid felt that the war was lost because, regardless of our military victories, we will be unable to create a stable working government in Iraq without the work of the Iraqi political leaders, and they clearly have little interest in doing so.

....

Reid's "feelings" are from constantly moving the goal posts for our military, and his inability to provide a stable Senate. I'd guess the Iraqi government has a higher approval rating than the Democrat Congress.

[retiredman]

here is a novel idea:

I wrote a post to you in which I countered the assertions made at the outset of this thread. That was post #9. WHy don't YOU use YOUR words and try to compose a reply to MY words contained therein?

I know it's crazy,and something we've never tried before, you and I...but why not give it a try?

[retiredman]

Reid's "feelings" are from constantly moving the goal posts for our military, and his inability to provide a stable Senate. I'd guess the Iraqi government has a higher approval rating than the Democrat Congress.

pretty tough to have a "stable" senate with only 48 democrats. we'll do much better in '09!