Not that the anti-war crowd really gives a damn what the troops think, but it might be useful to hear what they have to day. Somehow, though, I doubt that "supporting the troops" will include following the advice of those who know the war best.

· A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise. Levin thinks we ought to pressure Iraq's government with a warning tantamount to saying: "You better fix the situation before we leave and your country descends into chaos." He should consider the more likely result: an American exit date crushing any incentive for Iraqi leaders to cooperate and instead prompting rival factions to position themselves to capitalize on the looming power void.

My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council -- built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation -- did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.

· We can bring the war to a "responsible end" but still conduct counterterrorism operations. The problem with this argument is what a "responsible end" would mean. What is "responsible" about the large-scale bloodshed that would surely occur if we left the Iraqis behind with insufficient security forces? What is "responsible" about proving al-Qaeda's thesis that America can be defeated anywhere with enough suicide bombings?

The senator also seems to believe that America will have success fighting terrorists in Iraq with a minimal troop presence, despite the fact that 150,000 troops have their hands full right now doing precisely that.

· We are "supporting the troops" by demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Levin says that "our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them." He explains his vote to fund and "support" the troops while simultaneously trying to legislate the war's end. But what kind of "support" and "unequivocal message" do the troops hear from leaders in Congress who call their commanders "incompetent" or declare the war "lost"?

Such statements provide nearly instant enemy propaganda to every mud hut with a satellite dish in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. These messages do not spell support, no matter how you spin them. And they could inspire insurgents, making the situation more dangerous for our soldiers and Marines.

Veterans know firsthand that numerous mistakes have been made in the war. But that does not change the unfortunate reality: Iraq today is the front line of a global jihad being waged against America and its allies. Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have said so.

Those who seek withdrawal from Iraq are really proposing a policy of surrender that devalues every sacrifice made by the troops fighting against the forces of Islamofascist terrorism. Far from supporting the troops, such anti-war activists who back such a policy spit in the face of men and women in uniform just as surely as they did during the Vietnam war.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 3 kb.

But we don't get reports like this one from the mainstream media -- you have to go to Michael Yon's website instead for the real cutting-edge journalism about Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

Our guys are tough. The enemy in Baqubah is as good as any in Iraq, and better than most. ThatÂ’s saying a lot. But our guys have been systematically trapping them, and have foiled some big traps set for our guys. I donÂ’t want to say much more about that, but our guys are seriously outsmarting them. Big fights are ahead and we will take serious losses probably, but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered. Nobody is dropping leaflets asking them to surrender. Our guys want to kill them, and thatÂ’s the plan.

A positive indicator on the 19th and the 20th is that most local people apparently are happy that al Qaeda is being trapped and killed. Civilians are pointing out IEDs and enemy fighters, so thatÂ’s not working so well for al Qaeda. Clearly, I cannot do a census, but that says something about the locals.

Yon is on the scene, while the MSM reports from press releases given to them in the Green Zone -- and the NY Times report buries reports of the success of the operation in an article detailing terrorist attacks in different parts of the country. I guess that is what passes for "supporting the troops" in New York -- give the terrorists top billing and make them appear more successful by playing up their murders of civilians instead of the American fighting man's righteous efforts to wipe out the forces of Islamofascism.

H/T Captain's Quarters

UPDATE: I just got pointed to this NY Times story that deals with Operation Arrowhead Ripper more directly -- and more positively.

Posted by: Greg at 12:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Following WWII, American troops stayed in Germany for a half century. We still have US troops in Japan, as well as Korea. I guess I've always sort of assumed that we would have a US troop presence in Iraq for the rest of my lifetime, and well beyond that. Indeed, my question is why anyone would be surprised.

U.S. military officials here are increasingly envisioning a "post-occupation" troop presence in Iraq that neither maintains current levels nor leads to a complete pullout, but aims for a smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years.

This goal, drawn from recent interviews with more than 20 U.S. military officers and other officials here, including senior commanders, strategists and analysts, remains in the early planning stages. It is based on officials' assessment that a sharp drawdown of troops is likely to begin by the middle of next year, with roughly two-thirds of the current force of 150,000 moving out by late 2008 or early 2009. The questions officials are grappling with are not whether the U.S. presence will be cut, but how quickly, to what level and to what purpose.

One of the guiding principles, according to two officials here, is that the United States should leave Iraq more intelligently than it entered. Military officials, many of whom would be interviewed only on the condition of anonymity, say they are now assessing conditions more realistically, rejecting the "steady progress" mantra of their predecessors and recognizing that short-term political reconciliation in Iraq is unlikely. A reduction of troops, some officials argue, would demonstrate to anti-American factions that the occupation will not last forever while reassuring Iraqi allies that the United States does not intend to abandon the country.

The planning is shaped in part by logistical realities in Iraq. The immediate all-or-nothing debate in Washington over troop levels represents a false dilemma, some military officials said. Even if a total pullout is the goal, it could take a year to execute a full withdrawal. One official estimated that with only one major route from the country -- through southern Iraq to Kuwait -- it would take at least 3,000 large convoys some 10 months to remove U.S. military gear and personnel alone, not including the several thousand combat vehicles that would be needed to protect such an operation.

"We're not going to go from where we're at now to zero overnight," said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the U.S. commander for day-to-day operations in Iraq.

Indeed, what we are talking about is a force that will be equal to what we had in Korea for decades -- around 40,000. Of the proposed force remaining in Iraq, 10,000 would be there to help train the Iraqi military, and I would imagine that these troops would be removed within 5-10 years as the Iraqis gain enough experience to train their own. Indeed, I suspect that the US force will be drawn down by 40-50% within 20 years -- but that we will maintain bases in the region for decades for strategic reasons.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone is surprised by the information in this story, and cannot imagine any but the most extreme members of the Left objecting -- you know, the US Out Of San Francisco crowd. For the rest of America -- those who believe in a sound military policy -- this news should be comforting.

Posted by: Greg at 06:51 AM | Comments (174) | Add Comment
Post contains 588 words, total size 4 kb.

The NY Times is right about supporting wounded troops after they get home -- too bad they are constantly seeking to undermine their mission and impose defeat upon them.

Congress is taking the lead in prodding the Bush administration, which shamefully underestimated the cost of treating the wounded. The House is sensibly budgeting $6.6 billion more than last year for veterans health care and processing claims. A series of other measures approved by the House tackle only some of the problems but point in the right direction. The Senate should act quickly on these proposals, which include:

¶Creation of up to five new brain trauma research centers to create comprehensive treatment programs. This is a whole new field of intensive care prompted by the signature injury of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, inflicted in roadside bomb attacks.

¶Extending open-ended care for combat veterans to the first five years after their return, from the current two years. This is needed not only because of the backlog in claims and appeals but also because of the slower-evolving nature of postwar stress trauma and other illnesses.

¶A more intensive program to contact veterans who need to know about their rights.

Nothing to disagree with here. Too bad the paper's editors are unwilling to support the troops where they most need it now -- on the field of battle.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, for starters, it isn't Iraqis who are the problem.

It is what's wrong with this story, however, that makes it so irresponsible. The fact is that, contrary to so many predictions, Iraq has not descended into civil war. Political bargaining continues. Signs of life are returning to Baghdad and elsewhere. Many Sunnis are fighting al-Qaeda terrorist groups, not their Shiite neighbors. And sectarian violence is down by about 50 percent since December.

By far the biggest problem, and the source of most of the violence reported every day, has been al-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Qaeda's strategy is to foment sectarian violence by killing both Shiites and Sunnis. How come? If sectarian violence were out of control already, why would al-Qaeda have to stir it up? In fact, it is precisely fear that things will calm down in Iraq that has al-Qaeda working overtime to blow things and people up.

Al-Qaeda's penetration in Iraq is not the fault of the Iraqis, some of whom are mustering the extraordinary courage to fight back. Nor are the Iraqi people to blame for al-Qaeda-manufactured car bombs that go off in markets where Sunnis and Shiites are shopping together. According to Gen. David Petraeus, upward of 80 percent of the suicide bombers are not Iraqis. Al-Qaeda's inhuman violence, including the use of small children as "suicide" bombs, cannot be written off as just part of that whole Iraqi cultural thing, however convenient that might be for the American conscience. As for the United States, if we are driven out of Iraq, it will be by al-Qaeda, not by the flaws of the Iraqi people.

And, of course, an al-Qaeda victory in Iraq does not merely implicate the future and security of the Iraqi people -- who will then in fact be facing a foreign occupying power intent upon controlling their destiny in perpetuity.

There is another problem with the cover story. We didn't intervene in Iraq primarily to save the Iraqi people. We went in mostly for reasons of our own, to protect our interests and our allies from the menace of a serial aggressor whose domestic repression was of a piece with his desire for regional domination. And now that we are in Iraq, the United States, not just the Iraqi people, will suffer the consequences of our failure. If Iraq implodes, if the region explodes, if al-Qaeda gains a victory and a foothold in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, it will be our interests that have suffered.

In other words, getting out of Iraq without a clear and substantive victory not only allows for an al-Qaeda victoey that harms the Iraqi people, it also causes a substantive American loss that undermines the entire Middle East and, ultimately, American interests and security. Regardless of he war's popularity, America will suffer much more greatly as a nation if we accept anything less than the crushing of al-Qaeda there.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.