No Drop In Violence
Apparently it’s not only supposed to be impossible to stabilize Iraq, it’s also supposed to easy and immediate. Pentagon report cites no overall drop in violence.
Wait a minute, if its failing, then how come it’s working?
Of course, violence dropped before it climbed, and violence is actually down in the primary surge areas of Anbar and Baghdad. It predictably shifted elsewhere. This was the result of the enemy reacting to a threat to its existence.
“The escalation has failed to produce the intended results,” wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.).
Who have done everything in their power to undermine it, to the delight of the enemy.
Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, emphasized the continued high overall level of violence in Iraq, saying he had expected it to drop 10 percent as a result of the increase in U.S. troops. “It bodes very badly for the political sustainability of this mission in Iraq,” he said.
But no remarks on military viability. Here’s an idea. An accelerated and long-overdue expansion of the U.S. military and more resources to improve the Iraqi military, “most” of which is performing to expectations. Deal with “some” commanders who use the Iraqi security forces as Shiite death squads. Because, short-term Democratic political goals notwithstanding, failure in Iraq is not in our national interest and is not an option.
CQ: News from Iraq not good, not final, either.
Heading Right: Underreported caveat, it’s to soon to judge progress.
Carpetbagger Report: Yippie!
Left Field: Maybe now they’ll understand they must talk to terrorists.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:03 am on Thursday, June 14, 2007
10 Responses to “No Drop In Violence”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Why do I get the impression that the more US casualties, the happier Reid, Pelosi and Kennedy get. Don’t you guys have laws on treason!!
June 14th, 2007 at 11:00 am
If the violence stopped altogether, Pelosi and Reid would find a way to twist the news into something negative. They’ve got their eye on the really important stuff, like votes from the power base, and nothing must be allowed to get in the way of that.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:34 am
“Because, short-term Democratic political goals notwithstanding, failure in Iraq is not in our national interest and is not an option.”
This is good. Because if the Democrats’ efforts to stop the war are only “impotent overreaching” and “the Iraq war is something on which Bush has repeatedly faced his accusers, and as recently as the last couple of weeks, has compelled them to back down”.
So if there is failure, we know that the Democrats shouldn’t be blamed because it’s all the Republicans’ deal.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:39 am
So if there is failure, we know that the Democrats shouldn’t be blamed because it’s all the Republicans’ deal.
That depends on if the Democrats finally force a precipitous withdrawal.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
RH,
Yes, but according to Jules, the Democrats can’t, because they’re “impotent.” You can’t have it both ways. Either they have the power or they don’t.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
You can’t have it both ways.
Sure we can, corndog. Their bumbling around to pass a budget for Iraq came pretty close to screwing things up. They had to shovel so much pork into the budget because the Dhimmicrat leadership had no plan, no message, and had to buy votes. That near failure is a direct result of their impotence…..which is caused by their incompetence. They can’t get it on because they don’t know what they are doing.
I have no doubt of their ability for a repeat performance. Er, so to speak, anyway.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Jeffy,
Ok, fine, we’ll go with your scenario: “they can’t get it on because they don’t know what they are doing” and you “have no doubt of their ability for a repeat performance.” (Funny joke, by the way). But that can only mean that the poor, hapless Democrats cannot, by definition, have any effect on the Great Leader’s will to keep the war going.
As I say, either the Democrats have the power, or, as you say, they are impotent, and don’t. But if they are, indeed, impotent, as you say, then the baby over in Iraq is all yours (returning the funny).
June 14th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
The Dhimmicrats have the power, but they lack the will. This is the root cause of their impotence. Will is the ability of people to stay the course, a measure of their determination to stand by what they believe in. That determination is formed by the leadership, working within the values of the society, towards a common goal.
So it’s important to realize that Congress has the power of the purse, and the White House has the power of the executive (within the limits of the law). Congress, through the Dhimmicrats attempting to ursurp that arrangement (as set forth by the Constitution) has rendered themselves impotent because they lack a common goal, as the values offered by their leadership is (speaking kindly) chaotic, confused, and vague.
In that sort of situation, people tend to fend for themselves, rather than standing by their comrades. Such a group becomes non-functional, i.e., impotent. And they did it to themselves.
And such is the case for Congress. And only they can pull themselves out of the muck, by getting serious about their duties. Or Americans start voting those cretins out of office. This Democrat-led Congress has collectively shot themselves in the foot.
You want to blame Bush? Do so where executive powers are at fault. Just don’t apologize away the contributions of the Dhimmicrats towards failure in Iraq…..which have been out of proportion to what the Administration has contributed.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Jeffy,
Please read me right. I’m letting you have your way. Let’s just say that this is correct: “The Dhimmicrats have the power, but they lack the will. This is the root cause of their impotence.”
The rest of your point is “impotence”, “non-functional,” “chaotic,” “shooting themselves in the foot,” and any other kind of fecklessness you want to put in here. Fine, Jeffy, the Democrats are feckless, moronic cretins who can’t put their socks on the right foot. Now here is my point:
Given that, they cannot be “functional” or “potent” enough to have any effect on Iraq. Therefore, it’s all the Republicans’ deal. Heck of a job.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
As for the political the Iraqi parliament has passed a binding resolution claiming for itself the say in whether the government asks the UN to renew the mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Unless Maliki vetoes the bill - which would lead to even more violence - they essentially are going to ask the UN to lift it’s stamp of legitimacy for the occupation.
They claim they had the votes to do this last year when Maliki undercut them by going to the UN 10 days before they were scheduled to vote.
Sure they haven’t met any our benchmarks but it’s not like they’re getting nothing done.