Representing Nebraska
Will Chuck Hagel run for President or run for another term as our Senator? I’d prefer that he run for President (a primary race I don’t believe he could win) and we’d have a better option for Senator.
He’s really been at it the last couple weeks, making the job in Iraq harder for our troops. His continued stand against this war is exactly the kind of ongoing morale boost our enemies in Iraq and abroad need. It is exactly the propaganda they need to muster their own troops and the element needed for winning an insurgency campaign – don’t defeat the opponent’s military, defeat the will of the opponent’s populace. Thus, our troops are forced to fight an ever-emboldened enemy who keeps being given reasons to fight, keeps being given hope for victory over the U.S.
Beyond the boost to the enemy with his rhetoric and political positions, we are also subjected to his continuous criticism without proposals for a viable, detailed alternative to victory for the war in Iraq. Simply offering an undefined, intangible “political solution” does not cut it at any level. A failure to address any of the consequences we are sure to face, sure to experience, both at home and abroad, should we lose in Iraq also needs to be considered. His “realism” approach has slid into a seemingly permanent state of pessimism.
Senator Hagel often compares Iraq to the war he fought in Vietnam and I’m sure the plan to add more troops to Iraq fits the paradigm in which he lives.
What he should be thinking about is why we lost Vietnam, instead of trying to force everything from Iraq into the template of Vietnam. Many of us are proud of his service to our nation and know that he and the others who spilled their blood in Vietnam did not lose that war. The anti-war movement (including affiliated politicians) at home lost that war for us. That places him in a position to know better than to let history repeat itself in this way. But instead he leads the charge to repeat the process for defeat. He is repeating the anti-war performance, taking positions similar to theirs, and offering rhetoric similar to theirs.
His co-sponsorship of a resolution to cap the number of troops in Iraq, comments, and speeches offered on television news shows and Capitol Hill hearings over the last two weeks are the latest examples. He may try to argue that his resolution does not endorse a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, but his positions to this point lead there as does his rhetoric. The ultimate outcome of his positions eventually leads to our defeat. If he believes we shouldn’t pursue victory, then the only course left for him to advocate is defeat.
Why pursue defeat in the face of growing evidence that Iraqi’s are increasingly taking the lead and taking actions they need for their own behalf?
As of today, the two centers of violence in Iraq, Al Anbar and Baghdad, have momentum heading in the right direction. The tribal leaders in Anbar are fighting alongside us in the pursuit of Al Qaeda, the protagonists of the Sunni insurgency, as well as sending their young men to join the police and security forces in the fight against Al Qaeda. Iraqi Prime Minister al Maliki has finally decided to take on Muqtada al Sadr, catalyst for the sectarian violence, and arrested hundreds of al Sadr’s Mahdi Army and several members of its leadership in the last two weeks. Al Sadr and his political faction are now showing signs of getting with the program by ending their boycott of parliament.
These are opportunities to be exploited. In a military campaign you reinforce success. You reinforce momentum when opportunities present themselves. You exploit opportunities. In this case, the opportunity is not a physical hole in the enemy lines. It is an opening that has been created by the actions of tribal leaders, the Iraqi Prime Minister, and our President. Their actions have opened a hole in the defenses and game plan of the antagonists in Iraq.
This opportunity should be exploited as described in the Marine Corps’ Warfighting Manual, “It is often the ability and the willingness to ruthlessly exploit these opportunities that generate decisive results.”
But Chuck Hagel has frustrated many Nebraskans by very publicly refusing to recognize or reinforce any success in Iraq, support the momentum and opportunity at hand, or offer anything resembling pursuit of victory.
Quite often people ask me what I think he’s trying to do, what he’s up to. Has he joined the 37% of American’s who want us to lose in Iraq according to a January 18th Fox News Poll?
There’s no way for me to know exactly what he’s thinking. My hope remains that he doesn’t consciously want us to lose. But one thing I do know is that he can’t seem to pull himself away from the prism of Vietnam through which he only sees defeat.
Ask Nebraskan’s if they want to lose the war in Iraq. I’ve been around enough to know they don’t, but Chuck Hagel isn’t reflecting that attitude.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The New Strategy
The President’s new strategy for Iraq addresses at least 10 aspects of the fight in Iraq that can lead to victory: the rules of engagement, confronting external antagonists, working with positive neighbors, our military’s support, eliminating all militias, training Iraqi Security Forces, focusing on trouble spots, benchmarks for progress, a sense of urgency, and force to space ratios. It is far more than just throwing more troops at a problem as its critics would have us believe. It’s a comprehensive plan for victory that addresses the challenges we face in Iraq.
First it changes the rules of engagement in Iraq. Our troops have been asking for such a change for some time. Stopping combat operations to seek permission to act from higher headquarters, not being permitted into areas the enemy has fled, and exempting others from justice have hindered the efforts of both our troops and the Iraqi Security Forces. The Iraqi Prime Minister has agreed and is already supporting the change.
The new strategy addresses the turmoil created by Iran. The President has finally, publicly told them to stop meddling in Iraq. Over the last week we’ve now seen arrests of several Iranian agents with ties to terror groups in Iraq and an increasing naval presence in the region. Eliminating the Iranian influence will bring increased safety to our own troops and aid in quelling the sectarian violence.
The President proposed the engagement of Iraq’s neighbors and others in the region, except for Iran and Syria, in assisting with the development of Iraq. Many countries have a stake in a strong and stable Iraq. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have particular interests in a stable neighbor and in Iraq’s ability to deny Iran the power it seeks in the region.
The President pointed out that those still fighting the Iraqi aspect of the war on terror still believe it is a fight we can win. The input of many high level military officials was sought during the development of the new strategy. They seek victory. Additionally, we continue to see reenlistments at record rates by those fighting this war. I know they wouldn’t do so if they thought their efforts were fruitless.
As with the change to the rules of engagement, the President has convinced Prime Minister al Maliki to address all militias in Iraq, not just the Sunni’s. If an end to the sectarian violence is to be reached, all antagonists must be dealt with. This includes Muqtada al Sadr whom he has told to become part of the solution or suffer as part of the problem.
The new strategy calls for acceleration in the training and development of Iraqi Security Forces. Increasing the training tempo will allow Iraq more and more autonomous security and eventually decrease the need for our troops in that arena.
It focuses troops where there’s violence. There are two major centers of violence in Iraq: Al Anbar Province and Baghdad. The fight in Al Anbar is still a fight against Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, either directly or by their stirring up Sunni’s into an insurgency. In and around Baghdad, sectarian violence has persisted because there have been neighborhoods where militias were free to hide and/or operate. We will confront those two troubled areas head on.
Our officials have been working with the Iraqi government to establish benchmarks for their government and the rest of the country. This gives them a direction for assumption of their own affairs and something by which to measure their progress and success.
Those benchmarks are part and parcel to their understanding of the urgency by which their actions need to be dictated. In his speech the President put them on notice that our patience and commitment was not open-ended or endless, and that their government must be willing to stand strong and address all problems. It was the first public proclamation that they need to get their own affairs in order and need to do it quickly.
Lastly, it provides the force to space ratios which have been needed for at least two years. The increase in troops allows us to address the two main trouble areas in Iraq and gives specifics for their mission there. The increase in Marines will allow us to capitalize on the success we’re having against the threat of Al Qaeda in Al Anbar. Over the last few months Al Anbar’s tribal leaders have been fighting with us against Al Qaeda. Reinforcing that momentum and success is warranted. The increase in U.S. and Iraqi soldiers to the Baghdad area, along with the change to the rules of engagement, will allow us to implement the plan for bringing sectarian violence under control in all neighborhoods.
But the success of this plan now depends on us as much as it does the ability of our Armed Forces to implement it and the Iraqi’s to act upon it. Will we let the defeatists like Chuck Hagel and John Murtha convince us to cower with our tails between our legs, run home, and hope against hope for exemption from the consequences of doing so? Or will we support our troops to victory and bring greater insurance of security for our country by being a bold, victorious world leader?
First it changes the rules of engagement in Iraq. Our troops have been asking for such a change for some time. Stopping combat operations to seek permission to act from higher headquarters, not being permitted into areas the enemy has fled, and exempting others from justice have hindered the efforts of both our troops and the Iraqi Security Forces. The Iraqi Prime Minister has agreed and is already supporting the change.
The new strategy addresses the turmoil created by Iran. The President has finally, publicly told them to stop meddling in Iraq. Over the last week we’ve now seen arrests of several Iranian agents with ties to terror groups in Iraq and an increasing naval presence in the region. Eliminating the Iranian influence will bring increased safety to our own troops and aid in quelling the sectarian violence.
The President proposed the engagement of Iraq’s neighbors and others in the region, except for Iran and Syria, in assisting with the development of Iraq. Many countries have a stake in a strong and stable Iraq. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have particular interests in a stable neighbor and in Iraq’s ability to deny Iran the power it seeks in the region.
The President pointed out that those still fighting the Iraqi aspect of the war on terror still believe it is a fight we can win. The input of many high level military officials was sought during the development of the new strategy. They seek victory. Additionally, we continue to see reenlistments at record rates by those fighting this war. I know they wouldn’t do so if they thought their efforts were fruitless.
As with the change to the rules of engagement, the President has convinced Prime Minister al Maliki to address all militias in Iraq, not just the Sunni’s. If an end to the sectarian violence is to be reached, all antagonists must be dealt with. This includes Muqtada al Sadr whom he has told to become part of the solution or suffer as part of the problem.
The new strategy calls for acceleration in the training and development of Iraqi Security Forces. Increasing the training tempo will allow Iraq more and more autonomous security and eventually decrease the need for our troops in that arena.
It focuses troops where there’s violence. There are two major centers of violence in Iraq: Al Anbar Province and Baghdad. The fight in Al Anbar is still a fight against Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, either directly or by their stirring up Sunni’s into an insurgency. In and around Baghdad, sectarian violence has persisted because there have been neighborhoods where militias were free to hide and/or operate. We will confront those two troubled areas head on.
Our officials have been working with the Iraqi government to establish benchmarks for their government and the rest of the country. This gives them a direction for assumption of their own affairs and something by which to measure their progress and success.
Those benchmarks are part and parcel to their understanding of the urgency by which their actions need to be dictated. In his speech the President put them on notice that our patience and commitment was not open-ended or endless, and that their government must be willing to stand strong and address all problems. It was the first public proclamation that they need to get their own affairs in order and need to do it quickly.
Lastly, it provides the force to space ratios which have been needed for at least two years. The increase in troops allows us to address the two main trouble areas in Iraq and gives specifics for their mission there. The increase in Marines will allow us to capitalize on the success we’re having against the threat of Al Qaeda in Al Anbar. Over the last few months Al Anbar’s tribal leaders have been fighting with us against Al Qaeda. Reinforcing that momentum and success is warranted. The increase in U.S. and Iraqi soldiers to the Baghdad area, along with the change to the rules of engagement, will allow us to implement the plan for bringing sectarian violence under control in all neighborhoods.
But the success of this plan now depends on us as much as it does the ability of our Armed Forces to implement it and the Iraqi’s to act upon it. Will we let the defeatists like Chuck Hagel and John Murtha convince us to cower with our tails between our legs, run home, and hope against hope for exemption from the consequences of doing so? Or will we support our troops to victory and bring greater insurance of security for our country by being a bold, victorious world leader?
What's Up, Chuck?
I wish it were ’08 in Nebraska because we can’t get rid of Chuck Hagel soon enough.
He’s really at it now, trying to make the job in Iraq harder for our troops. His continued stand against this war and pursuit of defeat is exactly the morale boost the enemy in Iraq and abroad needs. It is exactly the propaganda they need to muster their own troops and the element needed for winning an insurgency campaign – don’t defeat the opponent’s military, defeat the will of the opponent’s populace. Thus, Chuck Hagel forces our troops to fight an ever-emboldened enemy who keeps being given reasons to fight.
He loves to liken this war to the war he fought in Vietnam and I’m sure the plan to add troops in Iraq makes his heart leap with joy at the opportunity to make the comparison to an escalation during Vietnam.
What he should be thinking about is why we lost Vietnam. He and the others who spilled their blood did not lose the war in Vietnam. The anti-war movement here lost Vietnam for us. Yet he finds himself in their shoes, repeating their performance, demanding surrender for the U.S. as they did, pursuing defeat as they did. He should be at the top of the list of those who should know better than to let that act be repeated. But instead he leads the charge to repeat the process for defeat.
His co-sponsorship of a resolution to cap the number of troops in Iraq is the latest example. He may try to argue that it does not endorse a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, but every position he has taken to this point leads there, as does the ultimate outcome of this position because it eventually leads to our defeat. If Chuck Hagel believes we shouldn’t pursue victory, then the only course left for him to advocate is defeat.
He continues to offer rhetoric and actions toward that very thing, either directly as he did with his embarrassing comments to Condoleezza Rice, or in a disguised manner, such as with this resolution.
He fails to comprehend and misses the opportunity at hand.
As of today, the two centers of violence in Iraq, Al Anbar and Baghdad, have momentum heading in the right direction. The tribal leaders in Anbar are fighting alongside us in the pursuit of Al Qaeda, the protagonists of the Sunni insurgency, as well as sending their young men to join the police and security forces in the fight against Al Qaeda. Iraqi Prime Minister al Maliki has finally decided to take on Muqtada al Sadr, catalyst for the sectarian violence and has arrested over 400 members of al Sadr’s Mahdi Army and several members of its leadership in the last week.
In a military campaign you reinforce success, you reinforce momentum. It’s called exploiting a “gap.” In this case, the gap is not a physical hole in the enemy lines as in a linear war. It is an opening, an opportunity that has been created by the actions of tribal leaders and the Iraqi Prime Minister. Their actions have opened a hole in the defenses and game plan of the problems in Iraq to be exploited, to surge through.
If the timing wasn’t right for striking by reinforcing those two successes when the President gave his speech for the new strategy, it most certainly is now. It is time to exploit the opening, not run and hide.
But Chuck Hagel has joined the leftist Democrats and disgraced a growing number of Nebraskans by very publicly refusing to reinforce success, support the momentum, to pursue victory.
Chuck's irresponsibility in this war never seems to end. Not only is he irresponsible by providing a weekly morale boost to the enemy in Iraq, but he is also irresponsible for not offering intelligent, detailed solutions to the challenges in Iraq. Nor does he address any of the consequences that we are sure to experience, both at home and abroad, should we lose in Iraq.
It seems ironic to me that someone who touts himself as such a foreign policy guru, a self-proclaimed realist, condemning conservative views and scoffing at liberal ones, lacks a plausible position when or plan when it comes to the consequences of his proposed actions and preferred course (defeat) in Iraq. He fails to provide answers to the turmoil and consequences to other nations in the region that are sure to arise if we fail. He fails to provide answers to a militarily weak perception other countries are sure to have of us if we pursue his course for surrender. He fails to address the potential, if not likely, energy crisis that would arise from mass destabilization of the area. He fails to address the likely open genocide that would occur among different factions there. He fails to address how to deal with Iran which would be catapulted into the power broker’s seat for the area. He fails to address how we could ever look the leader of another country in the eye and have him know that they could count on the U.S. for support in any democratic endeavor or pursuit of freedom.
He is long on criticism and incredibly short on answers. Just what the Jihadists ordered in their pursuit of demoralizing the enemy.
Senator Hagel’s justifications for his actions go beyond puzzling to almost laughable. He was on an Omaha radio station this morning and discredited his very own arguments multiple times. But the worse came with his justification for his stand on the war. It happened when the radio personality pushed him on whether or not he was actually representing Nebraskan's with his view (I gathered from the tone of the radio personality that he himself does not think Chuck Hagel’s stand represents that of most Nebraskan’s). Hagel cited the national polls and the results of the elections at a national level as reasons to send his already leftist/defeatist views even farther to the left. But that’s not how Nebraskan’s voted making his argument intellectually bankrupt because Nebraskan's did not swing left in the elections. Sure some Democratic candidates got more votes than Democrats usually do, but at the end of the day we still had three Conservative Republican Congressmen, a Republican Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor, etc, etc, etc. We’re still a pretty conservative state. If using the results of the election as he stated is justification for ones words and actions, then Chuck Hagel is not acting in accordance with the election results of the state he is supposed to represent. His views may represent other states, blue ones, but they don’t represent Nebraska. Ultimately his answer which so willingly dismissed the attitudes and voting record of Nebraskans answered the radio personality’s question…”No, he is not representing most of his constituents.”
Simply ask Nebraskan’s if they want to lose the war in Iraq. I’ve been around enough to know they don’t. But Chuck Hagel refuses to represent that view.
His presence, his place in the Republican party hurts us here and across the nation. Hugh Hewitt, on Townhall.com recently did a fine piece on the baggage and damage Senators like Chuck Hagel bring to the party and more importantly conservative ideas.
The damage was apparent in the last election. Many Nebraskan's didn't vote for Republican Pete Ricketts (running against Ben Nelson) in the election because Hagel endorsed him and Pete accepted. There were other issues for the Ricketts campaign, but Hagel’s endorsement didn’t help the cause. As I’ve learned in visiting with many people over the last week, my fellow Nebraskans are now admitting they did not vote Republican, specifically for Ricketts, because of his association with Hagel. I guess my dad wasn’t the only one. He told me, as soon as Chuck went public with his support for Pete that he could no longer vote for Pete, or anyone else who would associate themselves that closely with Chuck Hagel.
Our hope is that the general distaste in the state for Chuck Hagel’s politics comes to a head when it comes to the ’08 election and that the Nebraska GOP sees fit to push him aside. It’s a tall order given his influence in Omaha, but not impossible. The best hope is that he doesn’t seek re-election and one of our two senior Congressmen, Attorney General, or imminently qualified, yet presently unknown candidate run for the seat.
He’s really at it now, trying to make the job in Iraq harder for our troops. His continued stand against this war and pursuit of defeat is exactly the morale boost the enemy in Iraq and abroad needs. It is exactly the propaganda they need to muster their own troops and the element needed for winning an insurgency campaign – don’t defeat the opponent’s military, defeat the will of the opponent’s populace. Thus, Chuck Hagel forces our troops to fight an ever-emboldened enemy who keeps being given reasons to fight.
He loves to liken this war to the war he fought in Vietnam and I’m sure the plan to add troops in Iraq makes his heart leap with joy at the opportunity to make the comparison to an escalation during Vietnam.
What he should be thinking about is why we lost Vietnam. He and the others who spilled their blood did not lose the war in Vietnam. The anti-war movement here lost Vietnam for us. Yet he finds himself in their shoes, repeating their performance, demanding surrender for the U.S. as they did, pursuing defeat as they did. He should be at the top of the list of those who should know better than to let that act be repeated. But instead he leads the charge to repeat the process for defeat.
His co-sponsorship of a resolution to cap the number of troops in Iraq is the latest example. He may try to argue that it does not endorse a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, but every position he has taken to this point leads there, as does the ultimate outcome of this position because it eventually leads to our defeat. If Chuck Hagel believes we shouldn’t pursue victory, then the only course left for him to advocate is defeat.
He continues to offer rhetoric and actions toward that very thing, either directly as he did with his embarrassing comments to Condoleezza Rice, or in a disguised manner, such as with this resolution.
He fails to comprehend and misses the opportunity at hand.
As of today, the two centers of violence in Iraq, Al Anbar and Baghdad, have momentum heading in the right direction. The tribal leaders in Anbar are fighting alongside us in the pursuit of Al Qaeda, the protagonists of the Sunni insurgency, as well as sending their young men to join the police and security forces in the fight against Al Qaeda. Iraqi Prime Minister al Maliki has finally decided to take on Muqtada al Sadr, catalyst for the sectarian violence and has arrested over 400 members of al Sadr’s Mahdi Army and several members of its leadership in the last week.
In a military campaign you reinforce success, you reinforce momentum. It’s called exploiting a “gap.” In this case, the gap is not a physical hole in the enemy lines as in a linear war. It is an opening, an opportunity that has been created by the actions of tribal leaders and the Iraqi Prime Minister. Their actions have opened a hole in the defenses and game plan of the problems in Iraq to be exploited, to surge through.
If the timing wasn’t right for striking by reinforcing those two successes when the President gave his speech for the new strategy, it most certainly is now. It is time to exploit the opening, not run and hide.
But Chuck Hagel has joined the leftist Democrats and disgraced a growing number of Nebraskans by very publicly refusing to reinforce success, support the momentum, to pursue victory.
Chuck's irresponsibility in this war never seems to end. Not only is he irresponsible by providing a weekly morale boost to the enemy in Iraq, but he is also irresponsible for not offering intelligent, detailed solutions to the challenges in Iraq. Nor does he address any of the consequences that we are sure to experience, both at home and abroad, should we lose in Iraq.
It seems ironic to me that someone who touts himself as such a foreign policy guru, a self-proclaimed realist, condemning conservative views and scoffing at liberal ones, lacks a plausible position when or plan when it comes to the consequences of his proposed actions and preferred course (defeat) in Iraq. He fails to provide answers to the turmoil and consequences to other nations in the region that are sure to arise if we fail. He fails to provide answers to a militarily weak perception other countries are sure to have of us if we pursue his course for surrender. He fails to address the potential, if not likely, energy crisis that would arise from mass destabilization of the area. He fails to address the likely open genocide that would occur among different factions there. He fails to address how to deal with Iran which would be catapulted into the power broker’s seat for the area. He fails to address how we could ever look the leader of another country in the eye and have him know that they could count on the U.S. for support in any democratic endeavor or pursuit of freedom.
He is long on criticism and incredibly short on answers. Just what the Jihadists ordered in their pursuit of demoralizing the enemy.
Senator Hagel’s justifications for his actions go beyond puzzling to almost laughable. He was on an Omaha radio station this morning and discredited his very own arguments multiple times. But the worse came with his justification for his stand on the war. It happened when the radio personality pushed him on whether or not he was actually representing Nebraskan's with his view (I gathered from the tone of the radio personality that he himself does not think Chuck Hagel’s stand represents that of most Nebraskan’s). Hagel cited the national polls and the results of the elections at a national level as reasons to send his already leftist/defeatist views even farther to the left. But that’s not how Nebraskan’s voted making his argument intellectually bankrupt because Nebraskan's did not swing left in the elections. Sure some Democratic candidates got more votes than Democrats usually do, but at the end of the day we still had three Conservative Republican Congressmen, a Republican Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor, etc, etc, etc. We’re still a pretty conservative state. If using the results of the election as he stated is justification for ones words and actions, then Chuck Hagel is not acting in accordance with the election results of the state he is supposed to represent. His views may represent other states, blue ones, but they don’t represent Nebraska. Ultimately his answer which so willingly dismissed the attitudes and voting record of Nebraskans answered the radio personality’s question…”No, he is not representing most of his constituents.”
Simply ask Nebraskan’s if they want to lose the war in Iraq. I’ve been around enough to know they don’t. But Chuck Hagel refuses to represent that view.
His presence, his place in the Republican party hurts us here and across the nation. Hugh Hewitt, on Townhall.com recently did a fine piece on the baggage and damage Senators like Chuck Hagel bring to the party and more importantly conservative ideas.
The damage was apparent in the last election. Many Nebraskan's didn't vote for Republican Pete Ricketts (running against Ben Nelson) in the election because Hagel endorsed him and Pete accepted. There were other issues for the Ricketts campaign, but Hagel’s endorsement didn’t help the cause. As I’ve learned in visiting with many people over the last week, my fellow Nebraskans are now admitting they did not vote Republican, specifically for Ricketts, because of his association with Hagel. I guess my dad wasn’t the only one. He told me, as soon as Chuck went public with his support for Pete that he could no longer vote for Pete, or anyone else who would associate themselves that closely with Chuck Hagel.
Our hope is that the general distaste in the state for Chuck Hagel’s politics comes to a head when it comes to the ’08 election and that the Nebraska GOP sees fit to push him aside. It’s a tall order given his influence in Omaha, but not impossible. The best hope is that he doesn’t seek re-election and one of our two senior Congressmen, Attorney General, or imminently qualified, yet presently unknown candidate run for the seat.
A List of Good News From Iraq
Here are some excerpts from a speech I gave recently. Of most interest may be the list it took just one half hour to compile from two sources for the speech - A Newsweek International article and the MNF-Iraq website. I made note of the number of remains recovered from mass graves. I'd have to go back and find the source on that again. I know the list does not fully represent the totality of what our Armed Forces have accomplished, but at least it's a start.
The speech focused on what the fight is like in Iraq and all the positive things our troops have accomplished.
"...Although they never do, nor would they ask for recognition for their service, they are certainly worthy of it, and even more worthy to have their stories and accomplishments made known as they (and their families) make the sacrifice in the war on terror for the rest of us.
They wouldn’t and don’t ask for recognition. But I’m in a position now where I can be sure to spread the message about all they’ve accomplished..."
"...it’s not a cake walk there and we’re foolish to expect rapid results in such a place against such an enemy.
It’s a tough fight. There are Islamic extremists who want us to die. They want the United States to cease to exist.
In Iraq we have to overcome tendencies of Arab culture not to do the “dirty” work. There are tribal and religious ideologies to work through. There is what we would describe as “apathy” among many Iraqi’s not to act or take initiative because everything will or will not happen because of Allah’s will. There is an entire generation, everyone my age who should be stepping to the plate to lead who still hesitate because they don’t know how. All they know is repressive dictatorship. The obstacles are huge, but still our servicemen and women find ways to overcome them and make things happen for the better.
Working with the Iraqi’s, walking the streets day and night, running up and down the roads, and rebuilding a nation our servicemen and women have achieved great things we don’t get to hear about, don’t get touted on the nightly news, and aren’t part of the debate about Iraq. Consider some of these things our troops have done and the impact they surely have on the Iraqi people themselves. I compiled the following in just a half hour on Monday, using just two sources, Newsweek International and the website of the Multi-National Forces-Iraq. For the Iraqi people and our security, our troops (maybe your sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, or grandchildren) have personally done or created the environment for:
Ø The rehabilitation or rebuild of 4,544 schools
Ø Brought running water to 2.7 million people who didn’t have it before
Ø Allowed three sets of democratic elections and development of a national constitution to occur
Ø Opened up the door for women to go to school and participate in politics – 25% of the parliament is made up of women; that’s the highest percentage of any Arab country
Ø Provided the environment for more than 33,000 new businesses to be established
Ø That in turn has led to what has been called a “booming economy” by Newsweek
Ø The economic growth is broad-based which gives it stability. It is growing in the areas of real estate, construction, retail, wholesale trade, and second-hand sales
Ø Cell phone usage has increased from 1.4 million to 7.1 million people over the last two years and the largest provider, Iraqna has profited $333 million in ’05 and $520 million for ’06 which in turn has created countless jobs
Ø Provided them the environment to allow a 17% GDP growth in 2005 and 13% in 2006; by contrast, ours grows at about 3% to 4%
Ø Allowed the conditions for the average Iraqi salary to increase 100% since ‘03
Ø “Succeeded in creating conditions for small-scale enterprise to succeed” according to Newsweek International
Ø Through our support, the International Monetary Fund, and other countries, our soldiers have completed the water and school projects noted above as well as built or rehabbed 150 primary care clinics and 12 hospitals including the Basrah Children’s Hospital with 8 more planned
Ø They’ve completed 300 electricity projects to restore and provide first time power to many residents there
Ø A railroad maintenance center has been built to support the country’s infrastructure.
Ø They’ve turned Fallujah from a terrorist safe-haven into one of the most peaceful places in the country with a booming local economy
Ø They’ve found a way to work with tribal leaders in Ramadi, one of the most dangerous places in Iraq, maybe even the world, and began eliminating Al Qaeda from there while starting bridge, school, water treatment facilities, community center, and local government reconstruction. It’s become safe to walk down more and more of the streets there everyday.
Ø They’ve paved the way for the Iraqi’s to take full control and responsibility for 3 of 15 provinces now which average less than 1 attack per day, less than crime rates in our own big cities.
Ø They’ve trained 325,000 Iraqi Security Force members and now 80% of all Iraqi Divisions require only limited support from us
Ø They’ve helped the Iraqi’s establish their own Joint HQ Operation Center for control of their Army, Navy, and Air Force
Ø Unearthed and returned to their families over 300,000 sets of human remains from Saddam’s mass graves
Ø And they’ve done all this by and while catching hundreds and thousands of bad guys, securing neighborhoods, finding weapons caches, and killing international terrorists
Ø They’ve done this while trying to positively impact many Iraqi lives at a personal level through personal assistance in off-duty times, school supply, clothing, and toy drives from home, healthcare by Corpsman for sick Iraqi children. Corpsman Chris Walsh from 3/2 as an example started the process to get a sick child with surgical needs back to the states before his death there.
And the list goes on and on. The list of their sacrifices, hard work, and accomplishments continues to grow every day and we should all be proud of everything they’ve accomplished in such an austere environment.
So, no matter your thoughts on the war on terror, please don’t ever short-change those who fight it. Keep their accomplishments on the front-burner, in the forefront of your mind. They don’t ask for the recognition or support, although I know they appreciate it. But don’t ever hesitate to recognize their endeavors and the fruits of their labor and then factor it into your views of our fight against those who wish to destroy us."
The speech focused on what the fight is like in Iraq and all the positive things our troops have accomplished.
"...Although they never do, nor would they ask for recognition for their service, they are certainly worthy of it, and even more worthy to have their stories and accomplishments made known as they (and their families) make the sacrifice in the war on terror for the rest of us.
They wouldn’t and don’t ask for recognition. But I’m in a position now where I can be sure to spread the message about all they’ve accomplished..."
"...it’s not a cake walk there and we’re foolish to expect rapid results in such a place against such an enemy.
It’s a tough fight. There are Islamic extremists who want us to die. They want the United States to cease to exist.
In Iraq we have to overcome tendencies of Arab culture not to do the “dirty” work. There are tribal and religious ideologies to work through. There is what we would describe as “apathy” among many Iraqi’s not to act or take initiative because everything will or will not happen because of Allah’s will. There is an entire generation, everyone my age who should be stepping to the plate to lead who still hesitate because they don’t know how. All they know is repressive dictatorship. The obstacles are huge, but still our servicemen and women find ways to overcome them and make things happen for the better.
Working with the Iraqi’s, walking the streets day and night, running up and down the roads, and rebuilding a nation our servicemen and women have achieved great things we don’t get to hear about, don’t get touted on the nightly news, and aren’t part of the debate about Iraq. Consider some of these things our troops have done and the impact they surely have on the Iraqi people themselves. I compiled the following in just a half hour on Monday, using just two sources, Newsweek International and the website of the Multi-National Forces-Iraq. For the Iraqi people and our security, our troops (maybe your sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, or grandchildren) have personally done or created the environment for:
Ø The rehabilitation or rebuild of 4,544 schools
Ø Brought running water to 2.7 million people who didn’t have it before
Ø Allowed three sets of democratic elections and development of a national constitution to occur
Ø Opened up the door for women to go to school and participate in politics – 25% of the parliament is made up of women; that’s the highest percentage of any Arab country
Ø Provided the environment for more than 33,000 new businesses to be established
Ø That in turn has led to what has been called a “booming economy” by Newsweek
Ø The economic growth is broad-based which gives it stability. It is growing in the areas of real estate, construction, retail, wholesale trade, and second-hand sales
Ø Cell phone usage has increased from 1.4 million to 7.1 million people over the last two years and the largest provider, Iraqna has profited $333 million in ’05 and $520 million for ’06 which in turn has created countless jobs
Ø Provided them the environment to allow a 17% GDP growth in 2005 and 13% in 2006; by contrast, ours grows at about 3% to 4%
Ø Allowed the conditions for the average Iraqi salary to increase 100% since ‘03
Ø “Succeeded in creating conditions for small-scale enterprise to succeed” according to Newsweek International
Ø Through our support, the International Monetary Fund, and other countries, our soldiers have completed the water and school projects noted above as well as built or rehabbed 150 primary care clinics and 12 hospitals including the Basrah Children’s Hospital with 8 more planned
Ø They’ve completed 300 electricity projects to restore and provide first time power to many residents there
Ø A railroad maintenance center has been built to support the country’s infrastructure.
Ø They’ve turned Fallujah from a terrorist safe-haven into one of the most peaceful places in the country with a booming local economy
Ø They’ve found a way to work with tribal leaders in Ramadi, one of the most dangerous places in Iraq, maybe even the world, and began eliminating Al Qaeda from there while starting bridge, school, water treatment facilities, community center, and local government reconstruction. It’s become safe to walk down more and more of the streets there everyday.
Ø They’ve paved the way for the Iraqi’s to take full control and responsibility for 3 of 15 provinces now which average less than 1 attack per day, less than crime rates in our own big cities.
Ø They’ve trained 325,000 Iraqi Security Force members and now 80% of all Iraqi Divisions require only limited support from us
Ø They’ve helped the Iraqi’s establish their own Joint HQ Operation Center for control of their Army, Navy, and Air Force
Ø Unearthed and returned to their families over 300,000 sets of human remains from Saddam’s mass graves
Ø And they’ve done all this by and while catching hundreds and thousands of bad guys, securing neighborhoods, finding weapons caches, and killing international terrorists
Ø They’ve done this while trying to positively impact many Iraqi lives at a personal level through personal assistance in off-duty times, school supply, clothing, and toy drives from home, healthcare by Corpsman for sick Iraqi children. Corpsman Chris Walsh from 3/2 as an example started the process to get a sick child with surgical needs back to the states before his death there.
And the list goes on and on. The list of their sacrifices, hard work, and accomplishments continues to grow every day and we should all be proud of everything they’ve accomplished in such an austere environment.
So, no matter your thoughts on the war on terror, please don’t ever short-change those who fight it. Keep their accomplishments on the front-burner, in the forefront of your mind. They don’t ask for the recognition or support, although I know they appreciate it. But don’t ever hesitate to recognize their endeavors and the fruits of their labor and then factor it into your views of our fight against those who wish to destroy us."
The New Strategy
For those of you awaiting my thoughts on Chuck Hagel's recent comments and actions, they are forthcoming. I'll try to publish those tonight! Here's my regular column for the week.
The Strategy
The President’s new strategy for Iraq addresses at least 10 aspects of the fight in Iraq that can lead to victory: the rules of engagement, confronting external antagonists, working with positive neighbors, our military’s support, eliminating all militias, training Iraqi Security Forces, focusing on trouble spots, benchmarks for progress, a sense of urgency, and force to space ratios. It is far more than just throwing more troops at a problem as its critics would have us believe. It’s a comprehensive plan for victory that addresses the challenges we face in Iraq.
First it changes the rules of engagement in Iraq. Our troops have been asking for such a change for some time. Stopping combat operations to seek permission to act from higher headquarters, not being permitted into areas the enemy has fled, and exempting others from justice have hindered the efforts of both our troops and the Iraqi Security Forces. The Iraqi Prime Minister has agreed and is already supporting the change.
The new strategy addresses the turmoil created by Iran. The President has finally, publicly told them to stop meddling in Iraq. Over the last week we’ve now seen arrests of several Iranian agents with ties to terror groups in Iraq and an increasing naval presence in the region. Eliminating the Iranian influence will bring increased safety to our own troops and aid in quelling the sectarian violence.
The President proposed the engagement of Iraq’s neighbors and others in the region, except for Iran and Syria, in assisting with the development of Iraq. Many countries have a stake in a strong and stable Iraq. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have particular interests in a stable neighbor and in Iraq’s ability to deny Iran the power it seeks in the region.
The President pointed out that those still fighting the Iraqi aspect of the war on terror still believe it is a fight we can win. The input of many high level military officials was sought during the development of the new strategy. They seek victory. Additionally, we continue to see reenlistments at record rates by those fighting this war. I know they wouldn’t do so if they thought their efforts were fruitless.
As with the change to the rules of engagement, the President has convinced Prime Minister al Maliki to address all militias in Iraq, not just the Sunni’s. If an end to the sectarian violence is to be reached, all antagonists must be dealt with. This includes Muqtada al Sadr whom he has told to become part of the solution or suffer as part of the problem.
The new strategy calls for acceleration in the training and development of Iraqi Security Forces. Increasing the training tempo will allow Iraq more and more autonomous security and eventually decrease the need for our troops in that arena.
It focuses troops where there’s violence. There are two major centers of violence in Iraq: Al Anbar Province and Baghdad. The fight in Al Anbar is still a fight against Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, either directly or by their stirring up Sunni’s into an insurgency. In and around Baghdad, sectarian violence has persisted because there have been neighborhoods where militias were free to hide and/or operate. We will confront those two troubled areas head on.
Our officials have been working with the Iraqi government to establish benchmarks for their government and the rest of the country. This gives them a direction for assumption of their own affairs and something by which to measure their progress and success.
Those benchmarks are part and parcel to their understanding of the urgency by which their actions need to be dictated. In his speech the President put them on notice that our patience and commitment was not open-ended or endless, and that their government must be willing to stand strong and address all problems. It was the first public proclamation that they need to get their own affairs in order and need to do it quickly.
Lastly, it provides the force to space ratios which have been needed for at least two years. The increase in troops allows us to address the two main trouble areas in Iraq and gives specifics for their mission there. The increase in Marines will allow us to capitalize on the success we’re having against the threat of Al Qaeda in Al Anbar. Over the last few months Al Anbar’s tribal leaders have been fighting with us against Al Qaeda. Reinforcing that momentum and success is warranted. The increase in U.S. and Iraqi soldiers to the Baghdad area, along with the change to the rules of engagement, will allow us to implement the plan for bringing sectarian violence under control in all neighborhoods.
But the success of this plan now depends on us as much as it does the ability of our Armed Forces to implement it and the Iraqi’s to act upon it. Will we let the defeatists like Chuck Hagel and John Murtha convince us to cower with our tails between our legs, run home, and hope against hope for exemption from the consequences of doing so? Or will we support our troops to victory and bring greater insurance of security for our country by being a bold, victorious world leader?
The President’s new strategy for Iraq addresses at least 10 aspects of the fight in Iraq that can lead to victory: the rules of engagement, confronting external antagonists, working with positive neighbors, our military’s support, eliminating all militias, training Iraqi Security Forces, focusing on trouble spots, benchmarks for progress, a sense of urgency, and force to space ratios. It is far more than just throwing more troops at a problem as its critics would have us believe. It’s a comprehensive plan for victory that addresses the challenges we face in Iraq.
First it changes the rules of engagement in Iraq. Our troops have been asking for such a change for some time. Stopping combat operations to seek permission to act from higher headquarters, not being permitted into areas the enemy has fled, and exempting others from justice have hindered the efforts of both our troops and the Iraqi Security Forces. The Iraqi Prime Minister has agreed and is already supporting the change.
The new strategy addresses the turmoil created by Iran. The President has finally, publicly told them to stop meddling in Iraq. Over the last week we’ve now seen arrests of several Iranian agents with ties to terror groups in Iraq and an increasing naval presence in the region. Eliminating the Iranian influence will bring increased safety to our own troops and aid in quelling the sectarian violence.
The President proposed the engagement of Iraq’s neighbors and others in the region, except for Iran and Syria, in assisting with the development of Iraq. Many countries have a stake in a strong and stable Iraq. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have particular interests in a stable neighbor and in Iraq’s ability to deny Iran the power it seeks in the region.
The President pointed out that those still fighting the Iraqi aspect of the war on terror still believe it is a fight we can win. The input of many high level military officials was sought during the development of the new strategy. They seek victory. Additionally, we continue to see reenlistments at record rates by those fighting this war. I know they wouldn’t do so if they thought their efforts were fruitless.
As with the change to the rules of engagement, the President has convinced Prime Minister al Maliki to address all militias in Iraq, not just the Sunni’s. If an end to the sectarian violence is to be reached, all antagonists must be dealt with. This includes Muqtada al Sadr whom he has told to become part of the solution or suffer as part of the problem.
The new strategy calls for acceleration in the training and development of Iraqi Security Forces. Increasing the training tempo will allow Iraq more and more autonomous security and eventually decrease the need for our troops in that arena.
It focuses troops where there’s violence. There are two major centers of violence in Iraq: Al Anbar Province and Baghdad. The fight in Al Anbar is still a fight against Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, either directly or by their stirring up Sunni’s into an insurgency. In and around Baghdad, sectarian violence has persisted because there have been neighborhoods where militias were free to hide and/or operate. We will confront those two troubled areas head on.
Our officials have been working with the Iraqi government to establish benchmarks for their government and the rest of the country. This gives them a direction for assumption of their own affairs and something by which to measure their progress and success.
Those benchmarks are part and parcel to their understanding of the urgency by which their actions need to be dictated. In his speech the President put them on notice that our patience and commitment was not open-ended or endless, and that their government must be willing to stand strong and address all problems. It was the first public proclamation that they need to get their own affairs in order and need to do it quickly.
Lastly, it provides the force to space ratios which have been needed for at least two years. The increase in troops allows us to address the two main trouble areas in Iraq and gives specifics for their mission there. The increase in Marines will allow us to capitalize on the success we’re having against the threat of Al Qaeda in Al Anbar. Over the last few months Al Anbar’s tribal leaders have been fighting with us against Al Qaeda. Reinforcing that momentum and success is warranted. The increase in U.S. and Iraqi soldiers to the Baghdad area, along with the change to the rules of engagement, will allow us to implement the plan for bringing sectarian violence under control in all neighborhoods.
But the success of this plan now depends on us as much as it does the ability of our Armed Forces to implement it and the Iraqi’s to act upon it. Will we let the defeatists like Chuck Hagel and John Murtha convince us to cower with our tails between our legs, run home, and hope against hope for exemption from the consequences of doing so? Or will we support our troops to victory and bring greater insurance of security for our country by being a bold, victorious world leader?
Friday, January 12, 2007
Add Hagel to the Mix
In my last column, "Seeking Defeat or Giving Up" I felt good having predicted exactly where the liberals would be heading with regard to Iraq. I knew they had to have fallen into 1 of 2 camps: having given up or wanting us to lose. But I forgot to include among the other liberals, our own Senator, Chuck Hagel, with the likes of Biden, Pelosi, Boxer, Kennedy, Durbin, et. al. Time to write about Chuck again in the very near future.
Seeking Defeat or Giving Up?
War should never be the answer, but sometimes it has to be. And when you’re in one, you’d better fight to win. Thousands and thousands of our troops have done that.
The same can’t be said for everyone here at home. The liberal take over of Congress has highlighted and amplified the defeatist philosophy which exists among us.
The so called “conservative and moderate Democrats” who were said to now comprise the majority of their party, are predictably silenced by the leading leftist wing of the party. Among all Democrats, right now only Joe Lieberman seems courageous enough to stand in the gap for his nation’s success now that a new strategy for victory in Iraq is imminent.
When writing this column the President had scheduled, but not yet delivered this new strategy. But plenty has been leaked out about it to get a feel for his direction. And enough has already been said about it by the opposition to understand theirs.
One seeks victory, the other seeks defeat.
If the leaks are accurate and the President is leaning toward an increase in troop levels as well as more defined conditions for the Iraqi’s, his philosophy will be described as one that seeks victory.
An increase in troops would be well overdue. Securing Baghdad, securing borders, and increasing the tempo of training for Iraq’s forces should all be areas on which to focus. A surge to accomplish those things while the Iraqi government gets themselves to a point where they can begin to look after their own affairs would secure victory and should have us starting out of the country on a timeline I believe we’d be on and one the Iraqi’s have expressed a desire to accomplish.
When I returned from Iraq in the fall of 2004, my publicly proclaimed assessment given history’s examples for rebuilding countries, the difficulties of fighting an insurgency, overcoming cultural barriers, starting a paradigm shift toward self-determination, and the condition Saddam had left that country in, was that we were going to be needed there for another 3 years. The Iraqi’s have repeatedly expressed a desire to take over their security by this summer.
A strategy which includes a temporary surge should help them do that while providing us a victorious position from which to begin heading home.
But the defeatists, with Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi leading the charge, are already talking about ways to fight that strategy, micromanage it, control it, or flat out prevent it from happening. Why would they fight a strategy for victory? Why not try to win? The only answers can be that either they have accepted defeat or specifically seek defeat.
On last Sunday’s talk shows Joe Biden touted a political solution. Notice that he neither provides the details of what one would be, nor does he speak about finding a way to win.
Obviously he’s given up the fight.
In the continuum of warfare, diplomacy and politics are ongoing. But when you’ve given up the fight, the continuum leads you to surrender, either conditional or unconditional.
So, let’s call his solution, and that of many of his cohorts including Ms. Pelosi, what it really is: pursuit of conditional surrender by the U.S.
Interesting concept; even after victory in the elections they still seek defeat for our nation.
I thought going into the elections Nancy and Joe were just partisans, willing to say anything, take any position simply to be 180 degrees opposite the President in the hopes of gaining a political edge. Maybe they’re eyeing the ’08 elections and pursuing the same game plan. But I think now it has more to do with not having the will to fight the hard and dirty parts of the war on terror.
If they would offer anything other than criticism, resignation, and nebulous concepts I might think differently about them on both the defeatism and political ambitions fronts. But aside from Nancy Pelosi wanting more troops back in ’04, something she now opposes, they’ve been slim on positive suggestions and hints of supporting victory.
Her support for troops then but not now is reminiscent of how she was as minority leader in Congress with her “oppose the Republicans at all costs” strategy. This is the same strategy. Simply oppose the President at all costs, even to the national security of this nation.
But they continue their strategy of never offering any answers, just criticism. There is the “surrender, cut, and run” strategy they keep proposing, but we don’t hear anything about victory from them. I incorrectly assumed after the elections they would have to face the realities of our national security position, the reality of the war on terror, and come to the table with some sort of ideas and willing cooperation for a U.S. victory.
I was wrong. I underestimated their partisanship and defeatism.
If they could offer a solution for victory, if they could define what a political solution is and how it would be achieved, if they could address the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal (surrender) from Iraq, if they’d quit giving the enemy exactly what he needs to motivate his continued fighting they’d have some credibility in the arena of national security. But they refuse to, or are incapable of doing so.
The same can’t be said for everyone here at home. The liberal take over of Congress has highlighted and amplified the defeatist philosophy which exists among us.
The so called “conservative and moderate Democrats” who were said to now comprise the majority of their party, are predictably silenced by the leading leftist wing of the party. Among all Democrats, right now only Joe Lieberman seems courageous enough to stand in the gap for his nation’s success now that a new strategy for victory in Iraq is imminent.
When writing this column the President had scheduled, but not yet delivered this new strategy. But plenty has been leaked out about it to get a feel for his direction. And enough has already been said about it by the opposition to understand theirs.
One seeks victory, the other seeks defeat.
If the leaks are accurate and the President is leaning toward an increase in troop levels as well as more defined conditions for the Iraqi’s, his philosophy will be described as one that seeks victory.
An increase in troops would be well overdue. Securing Baghdad, securing borders, and increasing the tempo of training for Iraq’s forces should all be areas on which to focus. A surge to accomplish those things while the Iraqi government gets themselves to a point where they can begin to look after their own affairs would secure victory and should have us starting out of the country on a timeline I believe we’d be on and one the Iraqi’s have expressed a desire to accomplish.
When I returned from Iraq in the fall of 2004, my publicly proclaimed assessment given history’s examples for rebuilding countries, the difficulties of fighting an insurgency, overcoming cultural barriers, starting a paradigm shift toward self-determination, and the condition Saddam had left that country in, was that we were going to be needed there for another 3 years. The Iraqi’s have repeatedly expressed a desire to take over their security by this summer.
A strategy which includes a temporary surge should help them do that while providing us a victorious position from which to begin heading home.
But the defeatists, with Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi leading the charge, are already talking about ways to fight that strategy, micromanage it, control it, or flat out prevent it from happening. Why would they fight a strategy for victory? Why not try to win? The only answers can be that either they have accepted defeat or specifically seek defeat.
On last Sunday’s talk shows Joe Biden touted a political solution. Notice that he neither provides the details of what one would be, nor does he speak about finding a way to win.
Obviously he’s given up the fight.
In the continuum of warfare, diplomacy and politics are ongoing. But when you’ve given up the fight, the continuum leads you to surrender, either conditional or unconditional.
So, let’s call his solution, and that of many of his cohorts including Ms. Pelosi, what it really is: pursuit of conditional surrender by the U.S.
Interesting concept; even after victory in the elections they still seek defeat for our nation.
I thought going into the elections Nancy and Joe were just partisans, willing to say anything, take any position simply to be 180 degrees opposite the President in the hopes of gaining a political edge. Maybe they’re eyeing the ’08 elections and pursuing the same game plan. But I think now it has more to do with not having the will to fight the hard and dirty parts of the war on terror.
If they would offer anything other than criticism, resignation, and nebulous concepts I might think differently about them on both the defeatism and political ambitions fronts. But aside from Nancy Pelosi wanting more troops back in ’04, something she now opposes, they’ve been slim on positive suggestions and hints of supporting victory.
Her support for troops then but not now is reminiscent of how she was as minority leader in Congress with her “oppose the Republicans at all costs” strategy. This is the same strategy. Simply oppose the President at all costs, even to the national security of this nation.
But they continue their strategy of never offering any answers, just criticism. There is the “surrender, cut, and run” strategy they keep proposing, but we don’t hear anything about victory from them. I incorrectly assumed after the elections they would have to face the realities of our national security position, the reality of the war on terror, and come to the table with some sort of ideas and willing cooperation for a U.S. victory.
I was wrong. I underestimated their partisanship and defeatism.
If they could offer a solution for victory, if they could define what a political solution is and how it would be achieved, if they could address the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal (surrender) from Iraq, if they’d quit giving the enemy exactly what he needs to motivate his continued fighting they’d have some credibility in the arena of national security. But they refuse to, or are incapable of doing so.
Why Hide the Good News?
Our Marines and soldiers along with an increasing number of willing Iraqi’s continue to accomplish great things we don’t hear about on the evening newscasts. These successes deserve recognition. Their accomplishments deserve at least as much air time as any of the setbacks in Iraq.
But, the lack of thorough and objective, and at times accurate, coverage of events in Iraq continues.
Lieutenant General James Mattis recently described a conversation with a Lieutenant in Haditha, site of the alleged war crimes incident against Iraqi civilians. His comments, during a North County Times interview, are illustrative of the way “news” is obtained from Iraq.
Over the last few months we’ve been presented with many news stories that were supposedly from Haditha about the allegations and upcoming trials of the Marines involved in that incident. But the Lieutenant pointed out to the General that during this same time frame “…there has not been a reporter in Haditha in my last two and a half months here.”
So how can that be? No reporters in Haditha, but yet we get plenty of news stories from Haditha?
I’m guessing the Lieutenant and the General probably have doubts about the validity and accuracy of those stories. I know I do.
The use of “stringers,” Iraqi civilians paid to find out the latest and greatest in town and then return the information to a reporter, has become common practice for our press to obtain what are then relayed to us as hard news stories. News we’re supposed to swallow as truthful and objective.
It’s akin to heading to the local cafe for morning coffee to find out what’s happening in town. Anyone who’s been baptized by the morning coffee crowd knows the accuracy of the facts spun there.
Yet, this is the kind of news we’re supposed to depend on and from which our politicians obviously make decisions. But we ignore news and facts from our Generals and military correspondents.
We’re supposed to trust, as objective and factual, the collection of that which may very well be town gossip and rumors from a guy who could have ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq and be relaying their propaganda? But we don’t publish information provided to us by military spokesmen like Major General William Caldwell or military correspondents like Gunnery Sergeant Mark Oliva?
I know Gunny Oliva. I met him when he was Sergeant Oliva. I trust him far more than I trust an anonymous Iraqi who relays information or the anonymous reporter the Iraqi relays it to. I’ll caveat that by saying I’d trust another Marine before I trusted just about anyone else though.
A December 31st, Multi-National Force - Iraq news story from Gunny Oliva showed us a picture of progress in Fallujah that has otherwise gone unreported.
Fallujah, once the home to a hornet’s nest of insurgents and terrorists, has instead become a more peaceful and growing city. It still has challenges, but its turn around is noteworthy. In fact, it has now become a safe haven for Sunni Iraqis who flee from the sectarian violence elsewhere.
Recruiting drives in Fallujah have produced hundreds of Sunni’s for the Iraqi Security Forces. The city has its own police force, a growing economy, and has become a “boomtown for construction.” I suspect that was needed after the two major battles there.
But none the less, the city is rebuilding, moving forward productively, and is doing well enough to allow its citizens to afford and demand “air conditioners, satellite TVs, freezers, and fridges” with a “First World appetite.” This of course leads to a need for updating an electrical grid which became antiquated under rule of the recently deceased Saddam Hussein. But that is being addressed as our forces work side by side with Iraqis toward a better future for Fallujah.
Elsewhere in Al Anbar province, as reported by Major General Caldwell on December 27, there were 1,115 recruits to the Iraqi Security Forces last month. That number is up from zero just eight months ago. Six hundred of them were from Ramadi alone, a city previously known for its high level of violence, but which is now turning a corner for the better.
The number of tips from Iraqis about criminal behavior and terrorist activity rose from about 4500 per month during January through September up to 7600 per month in October and November. It was on pace for 8700 tips in December. This is a good sign of a growing number of Iraqi citizens trying to make their country a better place. In turn, this type of activity by the Iraqis has accelerated some of our plans to turn over more of the leadership, policing, and security responsibilities to the Iraqi’s themselves.
Najaf, one of 9 provinces to average less than one attack per day, became the 3rd province to have its leadership, police, and Iraqi Security Forces assume responsibility for the province back on the 20th of December.
It’s these stories and hard facts which go unreported or unpublished by the national press. All we can do is to keep asking “why?” and for me to keep sharing them with you.
But, the lack of thorough and objective, and at times accurate, coverage of events in Iraq continues.
Lieutenant General James Mattis recently described a conversation with a Lieutenant in Haditha, site of the alleged war crimes incident against Iraqi civilians. His comments, during a North County Times interview, are illustrative of the way “news” is obtained from Iraq.
Over the last few months we’ve been presented with many news stories that were supposedly from Haditha about the allegations and upcoming trials of the Marines involved in that incident. But the Lieutenant pointed out to the General that during this same time frame “…there has not been a reporter in Haditha in my last two and a half months here.”
So how can that be? No reporters in Haditha, but yet we get plenty of news stories from Haditha?
I’m guessing the Lieutenant and the General probably have doubts about the validity and accuracy of those stories. I know I do.
The use of “stringers,” Iraqi civilians paid to find out the latest and greatest in town and then return the information to a reporter, has become common practice for our press to obtain what are then relayed to us as hard news stories. News we’re supposed to swallow as truthful and objective.
It’s akin to heading to the local cafe for morning coffee to find out what’s happening in town. Anyone who’s been baptized by the morning coffee crowd knows the accuracy of the facts spun there.
Yet, this is the kind of news we’re supposed to depend on and from which our politicians obviously make decisions. But we ignore news and facts from our Generals and military correspondents.
We’re supposed to trust, as objective and factual, the collection of that which may very well be town gossip and rumors from a guy who could have ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq and be relaying their propaganda? But we don’t publish information provided to us by military spokesmen like Major General William Caldwell or military correspondents like Gunnery Sergeant Mark Oliva?
I know Gunny Oliva. I met him when he was Sergeant Oliva. I trust him far more than I trust an anonymous Iraqi who relays information or the anonymous reporter the Iraqi relays it to. I’ll caveat that by saying I’d trust another Marine before I trusted just about anyone else though.
A December 31st, Multi-National Force - Iraq news story from Gunny Oliva showed us a picture of progress in Fallujah that has otherwise gone unreported.
Fallujah, once the home to a hornet’s nest of insurgents and terrorists, has instead become a more peaceful and growing city. It still has challenges, but its turn around is noteworthy. In fact, it has now become a safe haven for Sunni Iraqis who flee from the sectarian violence elsewhere.
Recruiting drives in Fallujah have produced hundreds of Sunni’s for the Iraqi Security Forces. The city has its own police force, a growing economy, and has become a “boomtown for construction.” I suspect that was needed after the two major battles there.
But none the less, the city is rebuilding, moving forward productively, and is doing well enough to allow its citizens to afford and demand “air conditioners, satellite TVs, freezers, and fridges” with a “First World appetite.” This of course leads to a need for updating an electrical grid which became antiquated under rule of the recently deceased Saddam Hussein. But that is being addressed as our forces work side by side with Iraqis toward a better future for Fallujah.
Elsewhere in Al Anbar province, as reported by Major General Caldwell on December 27, there were 1,115 recruits to the Iraqi Security Forces last month. That number is up from zero just eight months ago. Six hundred of them were from Ramadi alone, a city previously known for its high level of violence, but which is now turning a corner for the better.
The number of tips from Iraqis about criminal behavior and terrorist activity rose from about 4500 per month during January through September up to 7600 per month in October and November. It was on pace for 8700 tips in December. This is a good sign of a growing number of Iraqi citizens trying to make their country a better place. In turn, this type of activity by the Iraqis has accelerated some of our plans to turn over more of the leadership, policing, and security responsibilities to the Iraqi’s themselves.
Najaf, one of 9 provinces to average less than one attack per day, became the 3rd province to have its leadership, police, and Iraqi Security Forces assume responsibility for the province back on the 20th of December.
It’s these stories and hard facts which go unreported or unpublished by the national press. All we can do is to keep asking “why?” and for me to keep sharing them with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
