If the spineless don't prevent it. At least that is what a couple of scholars from the definitely-not-conservative Brookings Institution have to say on the matter

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administrationÂ’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

And then Michael E. OÂ’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack go on to point to the real progress in Iraq that tends to get glossed over in favor of bad news stories. Things are, in fact, getting better in Iraq, and the US effort there is showing great success. Indeed, it is only on the political front that there is weakness.

What needs to be done?

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

But that isn't what the Democrats want. They seek to begin withdrawing troops within 90 days, and to have the American military essentially out of Iraq by spring. Even the plans for a slow withdrawal have all the troops home within a year. Such plans, however, surrender American and Iraqi success to violence and bloodshed on an unspeakable level. And while the New York Times and liberal elites don't seen preventing genocide as a value to be upheld, those with a moral compass do -- especially when we are on the verge of ensuring that such a Holocaust does not come to pass.

UPDATE: Fortunately, the American people are beginning to see the truth in Iraq, even if it bugs the crap out of the NY Times. H/T Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 4 kb.

One has to wonder what qualifications the editors of the New York Times have that make them more qualified than our generals and the president to determine what is responsible military policy.

The American people have only one question left about Iraq: What is President BushÂ’s plan for a timely and responsible exit? That is the essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And it is exactly the question that Mr. Bush, his top generals and his diplomats so stubbornly and damagingly refuse to answer.

* * *

Mr. Bush proposed no realistic new plan for more effectively fighting Al Qaeda in its heartland or for exiting from the tragic misadventure in Iraq. Instead he offered the familiar, simplistic and misleading arguments that he used to drag the country into this disastrous war to start.

Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists. If Mr. Bush’s advisers can’t tell him that, Congress will have to — with a veto-proof majority.

Of course, the Surge is working, recent polling data shows increasing public support for the war, and the Congress does not have veto-proof majority. The New York Times, however, considers anything that disagrees with it to be "irresponsible" and "unrealistic". It may come as a shock to them, but the military ant the president are Constitutionally charged with determining the conduct of the war -- nowhere does the Constitution require that a once-great newspaper, noted for its bias and hackery, be given deference in making that policy.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

While the Democrats try to cut-&-run-&-surrender, the Bush Administration ahas created a plan that will lead to an orderly withdrawal from Iraq after certain key goals have been met -- expected in the summer of 2009.

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security.

That new approach put a premium on protecting the Iraqi population in Baghdad, on the theory that improved security would provide Iraqi political leaders with the breathing space they needed to try political reconciliation.

The latest plan, which covers a two-year period, does not explicitly address troop levels or withdrawal schedules. It anticipates a decline in American forces as the “surge” in troops runs its course later this year or in early 2008. But it nonetheless assumes continued American involvement to train soldiers, act as partners with Iraqi forces and fight terrorist groups in Iraq, American officials said.

Ultimately, this comes down to a very basic question for the American people -- do you value on immediate withdrawal or success in Iraq? That is the choice we face right now -- and with one political party committed to immediacy, we face teh real possibility of the second Democrat-engineered military defeat in my lifetime.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

I mean the generals who are actually on the ground in Iraq, not the retired talking heads in the employ of the MSM.

An American general directing a major part of the offensive aimed at securing Baghdad said Sunday that it would take until next spring for the operation to succeed, and that an early American withdrawal would clear the way for “the enemy to come back” to areas now being cleared of insurgents.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commanding 15,000 American and about 7,000 Iraqi troops on BaghdadÂ’s southern approaches, spoke more forcefully than any American commander to date in urging that the so-called troop surge ordered by President Bush continue into the spring of 2008. That would match the deadline of March 31 set by the Pentagon, which has said that limits on American troops available for deployment will force an end to the increase by then.

“It’s going to take us through the summer and fall to deny the enemy his sanctuaries” south of Baghdad, General Lynch said at a news briefing in the Iraqi capital. “And then it’s going to take us through the first of the year and into the spring” to consolidate the gains now being made by the American offensive and to move enough Iraqi forces into the cleared areas to ensure that they remain so, he said.

In other words, to begin the withdrawal this fall and complete it by April 1 is a recipe for disaster and defeat. To begin the withdrawal sooner than May or June of next year would be to guarantee defeat. So what is the priority of the Democrats -- victory for the US and Iraq, or for al-Qaeda?

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Because the evidence simply is not reliable.

An investigating officer has recommended dismissing murder charges against a U.S. Marine accused in the slayings of three Iraqi men in a squad action that killed 24 civilians in the town of Haditha, according to a report.

The government's theory that Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt had executed the three men was "incredible" and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said in the report, released Tuesday by Sharratt's defense attorneys.

"To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq," Ware wrote.

Defense attorneys James Culp and Gary Myers said in a statement that he was pleased with the report and that it "reflected the value of the calm of a courtroom and the adversarial process."

Sharratt's mother Theresa said she was overjoyed.

"This is a huge result, that report is a declaration of Justin's innocence," she said. "This is very, very good news."

This is the second time a charge from the Haditha investigation has been viewed as suspect by the military's own investigators. This is the equivalent of a District Attorney's investigation reporting to the prosecutor that the charges against a defendant cannot be sustained by the evidence -- and makes it appear likely that similar conclusions will be drawn for every other defendant in the case.

I'm curious -- will John Murtha apoliogize for declaring this man guilty? Will various left-wing groups admit they were wrong in tarring the US military for a murder that didn't happen? And will the press make as big a splash retracting the charges they have made as they did in publicizing them?

My gues is that the answers will be as follows.

1) No -- it wouldn't fit with his political agenda.

2) No -- because they believe every soldier is a baby-killer anyway, just like in Vietnam.

3) No -- because the media never makes mistakes and views a one sentence retraction at the bottom of page D-9 as the moral equivalent of multiple front-page stories and editorials.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.