Current Status in Iraq

[docbyers]

The following article is an op-ed written by Senator Joseph Lieberman....Democrat from Connecticut.  It was originally published in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, November 29, 2005.  Here are the words from a man who is putting his country in front of partisan politics.  I will always support what is right for this country whether it comes from a Democrat or a Republican.  I offer Sen. Lieberman my congratulations and respect for putting the truth about this war out there for all to see.  We are winning in Iraq and we will win in Iraq.  Don't let Howard Dean fool you!
 
We can't leave 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists
By Sen. Joseph Lieberman

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood — unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al-Qaida foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

Middle East progress

Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, 8 million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

Much to lose

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82 percent are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

Clear, hold, build

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "Clear, Hold and Build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in clearing and holding is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being held secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to lead the fight themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan — Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the build part of the clear, hold and build strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future — and why the American people should be, too.

Carrying the fight

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.

Joseph Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.

[PMEL_DEVIL-DOG]

I tell ya what, this freakin war is really pissing me off. And it breaks my heart to hear all these world-peace loving libreal hippies out there running their sucks, when if it wasn't for the young men and women of the American armed forces, this country would be nothing more than a 3rd world country. War ain't pretty, and it's diffently not easy. We are way too concerned with what the rest of the world thinks, while in the meantime, these muslim-extremist cowards are killing our boys by the dozens. This war is making young men, 18 and 19 years old, harden killers who seen and done things many, many, Americans will never see, go through, or do. We should just let the doggs loose in Iraq and let these young Marines and soldiers kill as many of them SOB's and have fun doing it. Afterall, war can be fun, depending on how sick and demented you are. Semper Fi! OOHRAH....

[Hoopty]

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud.

While eating at TGI Fridays last night, I was sitting next to a table of young guys who were obviously military.  One was wearing a T-shirt from his time in Kandahar and my guess is that they were either Army or Marine.  They couldn't have been much more than 20 years old.

After awhile, I noticed that one of the guys was using a prosthetic hand (more of a hook really) to eat with.  He was pretty good at using his utensils and seemed at ease with his handicap.  I thought, "man, that would suck to lose one of your hands", but if you've at least got the other one, it wouldn't be so bad.  I didn't really give much thought to how he might have lost it.

It was not until the group was leaving, that I noticed that he was actually missing both of his hands.  It was at that moment that it hit me, that he probably lost them in Iraq. 

I can't even imagine having the majority of your life ahead of you, and no hands.  And he is among a growing number of crippled and handicapped soldiers coming back from the Middle East.  I guess they're better off than the roughly 2,150 that came home wrapped in the American flag, though.

I don't really have a stand on this war, other than I try to take an optimistic outlook.  Ultimately, I just hope that the lives we have given for that country, really end up standing for something.  I hope that 20 yrs from now, we can look at that region and see the fruits of our labor and know that we made a difference.

Anyway, last night was very sobering for me and hopefully for my children as well.  It's because those guys give their lives, their arms, and their legs, that I can raise my family in a nice, safe, and secure country.  Even though I'm just a PMEL wenie and the closest thing we have in common is our uniform, I'm proud to just be associated with them.

[PMEL_DEVIL-DOG]

I couldn't said it better myself, Hoopty...

[docbyers]

No TV Time for Heroism and Victories
by L. Brent Bozell III

Our media today seem absolutely allergic to good news, especially when it comes to Iraq.

In the early morning of June 8, the story broke that American forces had killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, our most infamous terrorist enemy in Iraq. This was terrific news, a time for rejoicing in America. A man who viciously caused the death of thousands, and killed Americans like Nicholas Berg by personally sawing off their heads, would kill no more.

This should have been a time for national euphoria, and for most, it was. But the media's hearts clearly weren't in it. Within just a few minutes of the "Today" show announcement, a viewer could draw the clear sense that the poor-mouthing had begun. Matt Lauer began by noting the "timing" was certainly right for a Pentagon dragged down by allegations of a Marine massacre at Haditha. NBC invited Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) to describe how President Bush has been "basically crippled at home and abroad because of the incompetence of the way his administration has operated at home and abroad." We're going to discuss Bush incompetence -- minutes after we learn Zarqawi was located and eliminated?

Tim Russert sealed it as NBC ran a "special report" allowing Bush a stern-faced we-got-him speech laced with warnings that the war effort continues. The special didn't end until Russert was interviewed to pour some salt on the victory by declaring that "this is very, very good news today, but as we have learned over the last three years things can turn dramatically worse in Iraq within a moment's notice."

It's at moments like these when millions of Americans want to throw their TVs out the living-room window.  When the news is bad, we get bad news for hours, day, weeks, months on end. When the news is good, within 15 minutes, we have these partisans in the media speculating that things will go bad again "within a moment's notice." Well, good news just happened this moment. Can we have a stinking moment? Can we have 15 minutes to feel good about our troops and their achievements?

NBC expects viewers to endure three obsequious hours of glorious tributes to Katie Couric for successfully handling cooking segments, but we can't get five minutes of praise for American soldiers risking their lives to keep us all safe from terrorism.

How can media stars like Russert not understand how partisan they sound at a moment like this? Eliminating Zarqawi was not just a victory for President Bush, but a victory for America, and for Iraq. But Russert proclaimed the White House would talk of a "turning point," and "that's what people are hopeful for this morning in the administration." But wait, doesn't all of America, not just the occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, want a turning point toward victory in Iraq, for stability and democracy and an end to the terrorist insurgency? Who's rooting for chaos and a terrorist victory?

After Mary Mapes and Bush-loathing CBS first broke the Abu Ghraib story, the coverage was endless, with hundreds of stories, for months, focused on American offenders and their offenses. But the brave and talented Special Forces that tracked down Zarqawi in his "safe house" will never be famous. The same media now can't stand the idea of giving them a piddling fraction of the time they spent on outrageous dog handlers and naked-pyramid-builders, who were the emblematic American soldiers in Iraq, if you believe our partisan national press.

In the last few weeks, we've seen the same ravenous media hunger for the worst news about our troops in the ongoing investigation into a possible Marine killing of civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha. The story of a Pentagon probe broke in March, but NBC began a feeding frenzy on May 17, when anchor Brian Williams breathlessly declared anti-war Congressman John Murtha was "in the news again, and in a big way, accusing U.S. Marines of killing innocent civilians in cold blood." Since that day, The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes found, the networks have aired 99 stories or segments on ABC, CBS, and NBC suggesting U.S. military misconduct -- three and a half hours of coverage in three weeks.

Now put that in perspective. The same three networks have provided -- ready for this? -- just 52 minutes to the heroic deeds of the 20 members of the U.S. military who have received the highest recognition for bravery in combat since the war on terror began -- over almost five years. In fact, 14 of the country's top 20 medal recipients have gone unmentioned by ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Honk if you rejoice at the elimination of Zarqawi. And blow up your TV.

[flew-da-coup]

This whole media blitz is treasonous. Let's jail the Media. I am not talking about freedom of the press. I'm talking about causing our young men to die by encouraging the enemy to continue to fight. I would love to kick those network anchors in the balls if they had them. They are all BITCHES.

[cobychuck]

I catch Rush Limbaugh every now and again and one thing that he has hit on, and that a lot of other people have hit on, is that these anchors see themselves as an elevated class.  They are above all of the "common" people.  These people were born into their riches and it has put them into the mindset that they are the pinnacle of knowlege and wisdom so whatever they decide to report on is what the public needs to hear.  Hell, I wish I could remember what the whole interview was about with John Kerry's wife (whatever her name is), but during part of the interview there was a great amount of disdain and disgust towards the averge american working citizen.  We, for all intents and purposes, are below these people.  Since they see themselves above us in all areas, including morals (in which they are probably the worst of any of us) they think they can smear and slander the good name of our military based on the actions of a few.  Nevermind that we've managed to turn a country from a hellhole into a fledging democracy that is scrambling tooth and nail to get on it's feet with it's new found freedom.  No, we shouldn't be there.  We should have "talked" more.  They don't understand that the only "talk" some people understand or will yield to is at the end of a Marine or Army rifle, a 20mm A-10 cannon, or an incomming cruise missile.  Having peace means enforcing the rules, and telling them "Stop, or I'll say stop again"  only results in the recipient laughing at us from behind his army.  So to hell with these news anchors and their slander.  Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if someone could find a subcontract from Al-Jizera (or however the hell you spell it) to undermind the spirit and will of the American people.  God knows they certainly have no love for the country they live in, the effort it took to create it, or the effort we the military now put forth to secure it for someone else.

[docbyers]

Well said!

[cobychuck]

Thanks Doc.

[flew-da-coup]

Here...Here..

[docbyers]

Where is the Weapons Story?
by L. Brent Bozell III
Posted Jun 28, 2006

While the Bush Administration focuses on the elimination of the terrorist threat in Iraq, the Saddam-was-no-threat left has remained obsessed with the pre-war months, not only harping on the failures of Western intelligence, but more importantly, advancing a hardened historical narrative. They would have the world believe the Bush Administration was not only wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but also lied intentionally and went to war for some unstated cynical reason -- oil, enriching war profiteers, avenging Daddy Bush.

To a large degree, they are succeeding with their revisionist history lesson, and the proof is in the pudding of the polls. Not only does a majority declare that the war wasn't worth the cost to our troops and our treasury, but a majority believes George W. Bush is not honest or trustworthy. When the USA Today-Gallup poll asked if the words "honest" and "trustworthy" applied to Bush in February of 2001, 64% said he was honest, while 29% said the words did not apply. By April of 2006, the numbers were 41% honest, 56% dishonest. It's an easy guess that a lot of that turnaround is our failure to find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

So it was surprising to Sen. Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R.-Mich.) who were investigating whispers that weapons of mass destruction have actually been found by American troops in Iraq, to learn the rumors were true. After badgering administration officials for several months, the government gave the legislators a declassified memo stating that some 500 weapons of mass destruction have been found by coalition forces in Iraq, mostly sarin and mustard-gas agents, some of which "remain hazardous and potentially lethal."
But when the legislators released this information, some Bush administration officials poor-mouthed the findings, noting that these old WMDs were hardly evidence of an ongoing post-Gulf War WMD program by Saddam, the fearful scenario that dominated the pre-war debate. Others, like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, emphatically declared that this was hard evidence. Regardless, this memo packs an important rhetorical punch. How many hundreds of times have our major media told us there were "no weapons of mass destruction" found? And how many thousands of times have leftists jumped off that springboard to an elaborate Bush-lied-people-died jeremiad?

This discovery should be a crucial, corrective turning point to the stuck-in-2003, pre-war obsessives. The hardened historical narrative needs to be amended. There were WMDs in Iraq that could have been used against our troops or acquired by terrorists.

An honest, nonpartisan news media that cared about the facts without political calculation would have taken care to correct the record, even if the findings were comparatively underwhelming to the pre-war scenarios. A fair and balanced story could be done. But the reception of this declassified memo shows we do not have an honest, nonpartisan news media, and political calculation is everything.

Here's how the news of the WMD finds in Iraq was filtered by the so-called "mainstream media." Fox News treated it as an important story. NBC reported on it with one "Nightly News" story, with pros and cons, noting that unnamed sources at the Pentagon "poured cold water" on the scoop's importance. ABC and CBS did nothing. CNN mentioned it in passing, heavy on the skepticism. On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann howled at the moon, mocking the find as "weapons of minor discomfort" and suggesting Sen. Santorum was like Sen. Joe McCarthy, holding up a "blank page" of supposed communists in the government.

Our major newspapers were also foot-draggers. The Washington Post ran five paragraphs of dismissive tone on page A-10. The New York Times skipped it for a day, then put it on A-20 with the headline "For Diehards, Search for Iraq's WMD Isn't Over." (The liberal diehards at the Times were saving Page One for their infamous scoop disclosing to the public, including terrorists, our government's financial tracking methods for terrorist groups.) The news magazines weren't interested in the WMD scoop, either. Time and U.S. News ran nothing, and Newsweek dismissed it with another headline about "trumped-up threats" in Iraq.

The largest remaining mystery is why Team Bush seems allergic to releasing more information on the missing weapons in Iraq, and more facts out of the archives of Hussein's heinous regime. If they are acting, or better put, not acting out of intimidation by the media, who don't want any new information to change their tilted first draft of history, the polls suggest that inaction has damaged them dramatically.

[PMEL_DEVIL-DOG]

Update statsus in Iraq: FUBAR!!!!

[flew-da-coup]

I thought you Marines enjoy FUBAR?

I guess that means you want to go back?

[PMEL_DEVIL-DOG]

I'll go back but only if I can use hollow points...

F*ucked up beyond all recognization=FUBAR
A Marine's fav situation

[clacoste]

It's time...for the Final Crusade.