Surge Offensive Begins in Diyala
This AP article disputes the validity of Harry Reid’s opinion. A topnotch military strategist, he isn’t. Let’s get straight to the facts rather than accept Reid’s opinion:
About 10,000 U.S. soldiers launched an offensive against al-Qaida in Iraq northeast of Baghdad early Tuesday, killing at least 22 insurgents, the U.S. military said.
The raids, dubbed “Operation Arrowhead Ripper,” took place in Baqouba, the capital of Diyala province, and involved air assaults under the cover of darkness, the military said in a statement. The operation was still in its opening stages, it said.
On Monday, military officials said U.S. and Iraqi forces had launched attacks on Baghdad’s northern and southern flanks to clear out Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida fighters and Shiite militiamen who had fled the capital and Anbar during a four-month-old security operation.
It’s obvious that Harry Reid’s statements that the surge had failed and that the war is lost are purely political statements. Based on recent polling, he’s paid a steep political price for expressing those opinions. That’s as it should be.
We can’t stop Reid from making such stupid comments. What we can do is make him and Democrats pay a steep political price for saying them. If they were smart, Democrats would shut up and let the surge play out. That said, we know that that isn’t what will happen.
Democrats keep moving the yardsticks in determining whether the surge is working and whether we’re winning the war. First they said that Baghdad was a war zone. About that, they were right. Then the first surge troops arrived and Gen. Petraeus put them to use in cleaning out some of the worst neighborhoods.
Then Democrats said that there were other neighborhoods in Baghdad that were hotbeds of insurgency. Again, Gen. Petraeus focused troops on those neighborhoods, sending Muqtada al-Sadr fleeing to Tehran and al-Qa’ida terrorists and Sunni insurgents fleeing to Anbar and Diyala provinces. The al-Qa’ida terrorists and Sunni insurgents that fled to Anbar were greeted with a hail of bullets and fierce resistance. Those that fled to Diyala were greeted with less hostility.
Until now, that is. Now that Gen. Petraeus has the full complement of surge troops in theater, he’s using them in this major offensive to destroy their capabilities, kill insurgents and terrorists while diminishing their firepower. Based on these early reports, I’d say that they’re off to a strong start. I suspect that that trend will continue.
I’m basing that opinion on the fact that every article I’ve read about Gen. Petraeus says that he’s the expert on waging counterinsurgency war. As Fred Thompson notes, Gen. Petraeus “literally wrote the book” on fighting counterinsurgencies. Let’s also look at the underlying principles behind the Democrats’ talking the war down.
Let’s start by saying that Democrats have to talk this war down if their presidential candidates are to stand any chance of winning in 2008. Let’s also say that their Nutroots base demands that they talk negatively about the war. If they don’t talk Iraq down, the campaign contribution spigot shuts off.
“We are going into the areas that have been sanctuaries of al-Qaida and other extremists to take them on and weed them out, to help get the areas clear and to really take on al-Qaida,” the senior official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the operation. “Those are areas in the belts around Baghdad, some parts in Anbar province and specifically Diyala province.”
It sounds like the initial surge was successful in driving the terrorists and insurgents out of Baghdad and its suburbs. It also sounds like Gen. Petraeus is taking a methodical approach by cleaning out the sanctuaries to which the remaining terrorists fled.
Some Sunni tribes, which had fought with or offered sanctuary to al-Qaida in Anbar province, have risen up against the group and are now receiving arms and training from U.S. forces. American military officials are trying to spread that success to al-Qaida areas now under attack.
Suffice it to say that AQI terrorists are having a difficult time finding cities that will provide them sanctuary. If that pattern continues from now until September, the Iraqi landscape will have changed dramatically. That means that the political climate on Capitol Hill is likely to have changed, too. If Iraq actually improves, I suspect Democratic presidential candidates will be dodging questions about why they talked down the war effort.
When that day comes, we’ll know that we’ve won the war in Washington and the war in Iraq. That can’t happen soon enough.
Technorati Tags: al-Qaeda, Insurgents, Terrorists, Baghdad, Diyala, Anbar Province, Counterinsurgency, David Petraeus, Harry Reid, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
June 19th, 2007 at 7:15 am
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Military, Iraq, Terrorism, President Bush, Pelosi, Harry Reid, Subversives, Radical Islam, Election 2008, Defeatocrats | [...]
June 19th, 2007 at 7:53 am
[...] Original post by Gary Gross and software by Elliott Back [...]
June 19th, 2007 at 11:42 am
What an interesting piece of spin, this article is. At first glance, you take aim at Sen. Reid, but as you lay out your argument, it seems that the Majority Leader is directing the armed forces (which we know he isn’t), as first he says there’s a problem in Baghdad, so Petraeus focuses there; then the Senator says there’s a problem in suburbs, so Petraeus moves the fight outward…
But after reading the AP article, which among other gems includes “There is no guarantee that driving the organization out of current sanctuaries would prevent it from migrating to other regions to continue the fight,” you really can’t help but wonder what you’re talking about. “If they were smart,” you suggest, “Democrats would shut up and let the surge play out.” Well, are Democrats stopping the surge? No. They caved and let Bush have everything he asked for, no strings attached. And Congress’ poll numbers plummeted as a result, not, as you suggest, because Sen. Reid made some strong statements. Democrats, especially the liberal blogosphere, are furious with Congress, having promised to rein in the Adminsitration on the War.
I’d like to see your source for your claim that the poll numbers reflect Sen. Reid’s comments, and not the caving in to the presnit.
But your house of cards falls completely apart on “Democrats keep moving the yardsticks in determining whether the surge is working and whether we’re winning the war.” Hardly. The problem is, as The Sydney Morning Herald succintly states,
So, I guess if our great friends and allies, the Iraqis, can’t manage to meet even the most basic of benchmarks, the easiest thing to do is obsfucate the issue and blame the Democrats. Exactly what we’d expect from the radical right. Afterall, its not incompetance, mismanagement, and failure of the administration; it’s Harry Reid pointing out the failures and giving voice to the country’s frustration (in case you haven’t noticed, the real polls say that the American people are fed up with the Iraq mess and want a way out, now.)
But back to moving yardsticks. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, the US Ambassador to Iraq appeared and floated the administration’s trial balloon for how to deal with the coming September masssacre (with thanks to the HuffPo for the translations):
In the end, Reid and the Democrats are not stupid. Have you ever heard the saying Give them enough rope, and they’ll hang themselves?