Good Riddance, Bob Bennett

Another edition of bullet pointed links to articles I haven't had time to write up but which are good.

• Peter Suderman of Reason.com looks at Paul Ryan, one of my favorite congressmen, and wonders if he's a serious reformer or just another compromised small government hypocrite. You decide.

• Harvard economist and former Reagan advisor, Martin Feldstein, argues in favor of an extension of the Bush tax cuts. I'm with him, natch.

• Former AG, Michael Mukasey, worries, rightly, that we are returned to a pre-9/11 (read: naive) mindset in treatment of terrorists. This is a problem. Unless you've forgotten history and think that these lucky breaks (panty bomber, failed Times Square bomb) are the new norm.

• To the point of terror and the Obama administration, Charles Krauthammer, one of the smartest opinionators out there, tackles the question of Miranda rights and the interrogation of terror suspects. Like immigration, this question isn't as easy at it seems.

• Another favorite of this blog, John Bolton (aka, The Mustachioed Badass), holds forth on the Greece-precipitated Euro-crisis.

• Meanwhile, Daniel Krauthammer reviews the Senate investigations into Goldman Sachs. I think this is a politically opportunistic show trial with little to no merit. Hopefully it also means Goldmanites will donate less to Obama in 2012. Maybe. Unless you think they'll also take advantage of any new regulatory regime to gain some advantage over competitors. That's probably what will happen. (h/t Scott L.)

• Bob Bennett is gone and I think it's a good thing. The MFM takes the liberal line that this is an example of hysterical conservative extremists over a good, reasonable, and conservative senator. Meanwhile, when Sestak defeats Specter in PA, that--that--will be a triumph over incumbency and a renewal of core American democratic principles. Huzzah for the little guy, or something.

• No weekly links post would be complete without at least one to my fav columnist, Bret Stephens. His column on Turkey carries extra weight for me as we recently traveled to Istanbul. I hope it doesn't turn into Iran; I'd like to go back someday.

• Finally, modern-day hero, General David Petraeus, was recently spoke at an AEI dinner wherein he received the Irving Kristol Award. His speech is (transcript here) is great review of the power of ideas helping to propel the success of The Surge. If you read nothing else from this week's list-o-links, read this.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

2012: 538 Looks At Sarah Palin Vs. Mitt Romney Vs. Mike Huckabee Vs. Field

It's posts like this one that keep me going back to FiveThirtyEight. This kind of electoral and poll analysis play to his statistical strength. The rest, wherein he invokes his liberal condescension and plays Obama apologist, makes me want to bang my head against the wall, repeatedly. There's nothing learned in those posts and the tone makes them practically unreadable.

Back to his 2012 Republican primary post: There is a lot about this race that is unknown, like, who's going to run? There are so many names out there, even guessing who might be in it in 2012 is a crapshoot. Now add to that the difficulty of analyzing the prospects of various candidates who may or may not be running in 2012.

Of the 3 mentioned in the post title, readers know my preference: Romney, then Palin, and I don't care for Huckabee at all, and I'd love to vote for General Petraeus, though it's unlikely he runs.

The whole post is worth reading, I'll just excerpt the part on Romney:

Conversely, Mitt Romney's paths might look something like this, and are probably somewhat more straightforward than Palin's.

Romney Plan A. Win Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Game over.

Romney Plan B-1. (If Palin is knocked out) Lose Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Win Nevada. Sweep orange states on the basis of organizational strength. Veer slightly to the left, emphasizing electability and cleaning up in delegate-rich states like California and New York. You probably outlast a Southern opponent like Huckabee, perhaps even fairly easily. A Midwesterner that could win states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania might be more challenging.

Romney Plan B-2. (If Palin survives) Lose Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Win Nevada. Split orange states with Palin on the basis of organizational strength. Hope that gold or purple states came up next, in which case you should build up a substantial delegate lead. If so, the party infrastructure may start to close ranks around you. If green states come up instead, Palin is tougher and you're in for a war of attrition with flagging momentum.

I'm headed to CPAC next week and will get to listen to Romney and a number of the other potential Republican candidates in 2012. I'll also get a sense of base enthusiasm for 2010 and a number of other things.

Watch for lots of CPAC-related posts 18-20 February.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Checking In With General Petraeus

From the NYT's Military Memo:

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the face of the Iraq troop surge and a favorite of former President George W. Bush, spoke up or was called upon by President Obama “several times” during the big Afghanistan strategy session in the Situation Room last week, one participant says, and will be back for two more meetings this week.

But the general’s closest associates say that underneath the surface of good relations, the celebrity commander faces a new reality in Mr. Obama’s White House: He is still at the table, but in a very different seat.

No longer does the man who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have one of the biggest voices at National Security Council meetings, as he did when Mr. Bush gave him 20 minutes during hourlong weekly sessions to present his views in live video feeds from Baghdad. No longer is the general, with the Capitol Hill contacts and web of e-mail relationships throughout Washington’s journalism establishment, testifying in media explosions before Congress, as he did in September 2007, when he gave 34 interviews in three days.

The change has fueled speculation in Washington about whether General Petraeus might seek the presidency in 2012. His advisers say that it is absurd — but in immediate policy terms, it means there is one less visible advocate for the military in the administration’s debate over whether to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

(h/t Matt L.)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'1-2-3 Curahee!' PresidentGeneral Petraeus Causes The Comatose To Wake

And the lame to walk (with a big assist from modern medicine).

From This Ain't Hell via DrewM @ Ace.

Watch CBS Videos Online

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Petraeus For President? [UPDATE: Maybe, but the reported speech in Iowa was a 'joke']

[ed. note: I don't get the joke that Goldfarb asserts in the edit of his original post. But just because I don't get it, doesn't mean that it's not funny.

No, that's not true. If I don't get it, it's not funny. If anyone knows this character, tell him he's an idiot and that this was a dumb joke.

Unless the joke was this: Watch as I lose all credibility. If so, ha ha.

I'm going to leave the original post so you can see what the fuss was all about.]

I've wondered (and wished) about the possibility of General David Petraeus running for President of the United States on the pages of this blog before. Well, my wish may just turn into reality.

Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard reports:

Petraeus will also be addressing the commissioning ceremonies for Harvard and MIT ROTC. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that General Petraeus is planning on delivering the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010. Hmmm.

At the risk of becoming Captain Obvious, Iowa is the start to every Presidential primary and thus, the campaign itself. A successful showing in Iowa gave Mike Huckabee a national audience.

Of course, it could be that there is simply nothing to see here--just another commencement address at another university by one of the most talented leaders of men (& women) in American history. The Spectator addresses that idea here.

Petraeus going to Iowa, a state he doesn’t have previous ties to, is going to create a huge amount of buzz about his presidential ambitions because the Iowa Caucuses kick off the whole presidential nomination process. If he does, deliver the address—and Petraeus must know this—it will be seen as a sign that he is thinking about running in 2012.

Petraeus running against Obama would remind certain members of the military that many, ah, constituencies in the Democrat party do not like them. Remember Petraeus's treatment by certain Democrat Senators & Rahm Emanuel in September 2007 (to say nothing of Moveon's shameful ad)? Anyway, imagine how the revved up Democrat attack machine will treat Petraeus.

The question of a General running against the President who once commanded him is an interesting. The Spectator, again:

Previously, it has been thought that Petraeus would not run against a president who had been his Commander in Chief. But there are reports of tension between Petraeus and Obama over both Iraq and Afghan strategy.

So, General Petraeus thinks that whatever strategy Obama plans to pursue in some combination of Iraq/Afghanistan/(Iran?) is not a good one? What will the Obama apologists say about this?

Any combination of Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin + General David Petraeus would be dynamite leadership for this country--outclassing by far the administration in place now.

(via Ace, per usual)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Don't Forget About Iraq

The Surge bought us success & peace in Iraq which our current President & Congressional Democratic leadership both denied AND actively worked against.

This much is undeniable.

Now that hard-fought peace & security has been won, the worry is that Obama might abandon Iraq and seize defeat from the jaws of victory. As Michael Yon explains, these gains are reversible.

Today Iraq is succeeding, but as Generals Petraeus or Odierno might say, the situation remains fragile and reversible.

Whereas the Bush-war ended in a new if messy democracy, this year we could see an Obama-war begin; the new President has sent a clear signal that we intend to mostly abandon Iraq during this crucial transition period. Today, the progress is obvious. But if Iraq descends back into chaos, the Obama-war, a newborn war, will not be a result of U.S. aggression, but of limp leadership intent on fulfilling campaign promises that were misinformed to begin with.

Ignore me, if you like; Michael Yon has spent more time on the ground in Iraq than any other journalist in the world.

If Iraq regresses, Obama may try to blame generals or his predecessor, but he will have no one to blame but himself and perhaps his advisers and some idiot members of his constituency who made him promise to withdraw, regardless of conditions on the ground.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

My Man Mitt

In 2008, I supported John McCain in his campaign for POTUS vs. Barack Obama, but it wasn't without reservation. He has always been unreliable, often discarding conservative principles in favor of currying favor from the press.

On balance, I thought, he was a far better alternative to the inexperienced, very liberal, Barack H. Obama.

And he was.

But there was a better one, and his name was Mitt Romney.

Sure, he had a few missteps, was mistrusted by some religious/social conservatives, but he was right on all the important things--foreign policy (Iraq, War on Terror, NKorea, Iran, etc.), fiscal policy (less government, lower taxes, less regulation, etc.), and the social issues (family, marriage, abortion, stem-cell research etc.).

So he was a "convert" on the last point (abortion), so what? So was Ronald Reagan. Don't we want to persuade everyone to value the rights of the unborn? Anyway, that's an old argument. Hopefully one we've moved past.

At CPAC, Romney gave an excellent speech. I wrote a bit about it in my review of CPAC Day 3.

You can read the full text of his speech here.

NRO's editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez, wrote an excellent article about the state of conservatism and some of the dustups between Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, and others. But most of the article is about Mitt and the possibility that he runs for President in 2012.

It's tough to look 4 years into the future; if we face the same problems we are today--that is to say, if we have yet to fully overcome them--Mitt could be part of the solution. I like Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. But how about Romney-Petraeus?

Does that sound like a ticket you'd be interested in?

I don't think anyone else could put forward two more qualified people to deal with all the many problems this country faces right now. Seriously, does anyone have any confidence that Obama can lead us out of this economic quagmire?

The markets sure don't seem to think so. Their daily tracking poll (a constant downward spiral) leaves little doubt. Mitt Romney made a career of this sort of thing. Balancing budgets, restoring profitability, rooting out waste and inefficiency--that's his niche.

And though the model has been derided, how confident would you feel if Petraeus, in the Dick Cheney mould of VP, helped to shape our long- & short-term foreign policy goals? Instead of a complete idiot--Joe Biden (God love 'im)--you would have the guy who literally wrote the counter-insurgent book and has spearheaded our warfighting effort in Iraq and now, Iraq & Afghanistan. Do you think anyone knows how to defend America better than General Petraeus?

Most of this is just rambling speculation and wishful thinking, clearly. Right now I'm focused on 2009--hoping for a Republican win in New Jersey--and 2010--House, Senate & nationwide gubernatorial races.

With any luck, 2010 will look a little like 1994, and 2012 will resemble 1980. Remember, Ronald Reagan lost in the 1976 Republican primary before finally winning it all in 1980.

Romney could do a lot worse than following Reagan's example.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Gen. Petraeus, American Hero, To Be Honored At Super Bowl (Bumped)

It's worth watching just for this.

I agree with Ace: if only we could get Petraeus to run for elected office in, oh, I don't know, 2012. Mind you, I'm not saying he won't, just that it's unlikely.

Petraeus/Jindal 2012.

Can you say President Eisenhower, Part II?

And for the curious, I'm supporting the Arizona Cardinals. The West is best, folks.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Happy Victory In Iraq Day

Congratulations and thank you to our men and women in uniform.

Two years ago this fall, things looked pretty bad. Iraq was falling apart, our troops were playing whack-a-mole with the insurgents, Sunnis and Shiites were resuming their blood feud. For a reminded of how bad it was, read my post from two years ago. You'll note that Joe Lieberman figures prominently.

Though the hard fighting may be done, Iraq still needs our support. A hasty withdrawal, or cessation of Iraqi troop-training--pretty much anything that ignores the advice of GI Joe General Petraeus--could endanger hard-won gains in that country.

I guess that's why this is my biggest Hope for Obama: That he listens to and takes the advice of good generals like Petraeus & Odierno.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Success In Iraq (UPDATED, x3 & Bumped)

Most everyone I know wrote off Iraq sometime in 2006 or 2007. I'll admit, it was rough going and things looked bleak--especially in summer and fall 2006 ahead of The Surge.

But General David Petraeus and his #2, Ray Odierno and all the many brave soldiers in their command executed the principles of The Surge masterfully, with the result being that Iraqis (and Americans) can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel. As I've mentioned numerous times before, John McCain deserves a lot of credit for supporting it early, consistently, and to his detriment.

George W. Bush deserves the lion's share of the credit. He could have succumbed to his Democrat critics and pulled out of Iraq, leaving American military and domestic morale in a shambles and handicapping our influence for at least a generation. But he didn't.

My suspicion is that in 40 years, fair-minded historians will treat W's presidency with far greater equanimity than either today's opinion polls or pundits. I would guess that even many of his more sober critics would probably admit that they agree.

Thanks to Branden B. for the tip: Click the link and view a solemn reminder of some of the costs of victory in Iraq. The WSJ graphic shows the coalition troop losses over the course of the war. Best of all is the "biography" option which allows you to click on the dots (which represents soldiers who died) and read a short biography.

My fear (shared by many) and probably the greatest danger, is that Barack Obama will seize defeat from the jaws of victory by pulling coalition forces out of Iraq before Iraqis are able to defend themselves from interior and exterior threats. They are on the path to that goal, but they are not there yet.

To leave before they are ready would waste the sacrifice and work of thousands of brave American and coalition soldiers and would amount to the single greatest American defeat since the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese. It would be an unmitigated disaster that would destabilize the entire region.

UPDATE 11:50pm BST: Steve M. writes:

Sometimes in life we have to finish a job that was started by someone else or in error, but it must be finished in order to not marginalize, minimize, or totally negate the sacrifice of others.

Sorry, but I spent two years living in South America under a dictatorship and watched people suffer from the autrocities of oppression. Regardless of whether this was to fight the war on terror (which I believe it was, but our liberal friends have no concept of how to bring an unseen enemy out of the shadows to fight), or to keep control of oil, it can and has created a country where people have the freedom to choose their direction. Who are we to say they aren't worth that effort. What if we were the ones oppressed, wouldn't we welcome the restoration of our liberties? Or would we refuse the help because it was too hard and continue suffering?

UPDATE 18 November 2:54am BST: More good news from Iraq, this coming from General McCaffrey's AAR:

THE BOTTOM LINE:

a. The United States is now clearly in the end game in Iraq to successfully achieve what should be our principle objectives:

• The withdrawal of the majority of our US ground combat forces in Iraq in the coming 36 months.

• Leaving behind an operative civil state and effective Iraqi security forces.

• An Iraqi state which is not in open civil war among the Shia, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.

• And an Iraqi nation which is not at war with its six neighboring states.

b. The security situation is clearly still subject to sudden outrage at any moment by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or to degradation because of provocative behavior by the Maliki government. However, the bottom line is a dramatic and growing momentum for economic and security stability which is unlikely to be reversible. I would not characterize the situation as fragile. It is just beyond the tipping point.

• Daily attacks hit a high of 180+ in July of 2007--- they are now down to 20+ per day.

• Civilian deaths dropped from 3700 per month in Dec 2006 --- to 400 + in October 2008.

• US military deaths dropped from 110 in May of 2007---to 10 in October 2008.

• Iraqi Security Forces KIA dropped from 310 in June 2007--- to 50 in October 2008.)

Like his denunciation of Nafta, I hope Obama's promise to 'withdraw, regardless of conditions on the ground,' was just empty primary campaign boilerplate, designed to get the anti-war moonbat wing of the Democrat party on board, and not, you know, his grown-up position.

(thanks to Ace)

UPDATE 18 November 1:38pm BST: VICTORY IN IRAQ DAY: Alright, folks, this Saturday is Victory In Iraq Day. The day in which we celebrate the triumph of the American military over its many foes in Iraq and the establishment of a free democracy in the Middle East--by my count, the 2nd such democracy in that part of the world.

As you'll read when you click the link: don't expect the media, or either the outgoing (just trying to keep his head down) or incoming (didn't think it was possible, owes early success to our struggles there) Presidents.

Save the date and celebrate it. Thank members of the military wherever you see them for their hard work and sacrifice.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Gen. Jack Keane, American Hero

Last week's WSJ Weekend Interview was with Gen. Jack Keane--one of the early backers and architects of The Surge. Add him to the list with John McCain, George W. Bush, Joe Lieberman and Gen. David Petraeus who believed in The Surge and backed it and supported it and implemented it when it was unpopular to do so.

Gen. Keane is one of the less-known, but integral contributors. Despite his key role, he is the humble soldier to the end--deflecting attention and credit.

From the interview:

The surge turned things around on another difficult front, Washington. "Despite the fact that President Bush did preside over a strategy that was failing for three plus years, and he has been criticized for that," says Gen. Keane, "he also deserves a significant amount of credit because all around him people were advocating a failed strategy, particularly key leaders around him, and he had the wherewithal to make a tough decision that flew certainly in the face of political opposition even in his own party."

Gen. Keane says he understands why there was resentment among the Joint Chiefs at seeing the president change course against their wishes and follow a retired general's recommendations on strategy and staffing in a war zone. But he considers his role perfectly appropriate. "In my mind, I think a president has a right to seek advice and counsel any place he chooses," he says. "I certainly wasn't forcing myself on them."

The U.S. came "within weeks or months" of defeat in Iraq in 2006, he says. The consequences of that were "unacceptable" for the region, "not to speak of an institution that I loved." And what about the military chiefs who thought the extra battalions and extended service tours would be too much of a strain on American forces? "When people talk about stress and strain on a force, the stress and strain that would come from having to live with a humiliating defeat would be quite staggering."

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Obama: Stonewalling Progress In Iraq

UPDATE 9:28pm MDT: What does it take to get the media to look in to this stuff? In the last few days, the conservative net has been up in arms over campaign donations received by Obama from Fannie/Freddy, with no movement from the press.

What about Obama's illegal negotiations and interference in Iraq? Where has the MSM been on that one? It seems Obama's arrogance and presumtuousness knows no bounds--which, you know, keeps him right in line with the rest of his campaign.

When we talk about bias over at NewsBusters, this is one of the types of bias we refer to. It's tough to nail down exactly, but it goes something like this: the media attacks McCain/Palin, but ignores anything Obama related. Until (see the link) McCain calls attention to it. Of course, they then go after McCain for "attack" Obama when all he's doing is the job the MSM should have done in the first place.

So reports Amir Taheri in his latest piece in the New York Post.

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

[...]

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

What will Obama's withdrawal-no-matter-what-the-cost-or-situation-on-the-ground supporters say? What will Obama's few supporters in the military say? What would all of them say if, instead, McCain had tried to intervene in military matters and Iraqi negotiations?

If you're expecting honesty from these folks or an evenhanded response, don't hold your breath.

(h/t DrewM @ Ace)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Petraeus, Odierno & Chiarelli

Image link

Great news from Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates yesterday. General David Petraeus has been nominated to command U.S. Central Command and Lt. General Raymond Odierno was nominated to take Petraeus' spot in Iraq.

This is great news for America and great news for Iraq and Afghanistan. From the Wall Street Journal:

This means that both men will be able to build on the Iraq success of the last year, without losing time as new commanders learn the ropes. It also means that General Petraeus won't face a superior at Centcom agitating that he withdraw troops before Iraqis are ready to handle their own security. That was the case with former Centcom chief, Admiral William Fallon, who recently resigned with a well-deserved White House push. As a theater commander with a direct line to the Defense Secretary and President, General Petraeus also won't have to answer to service chiefs jealous of his success and resources.

We've followed Petraeus since he first commanded the 101st in the early stages of the Iraq War. He is honorable and competent. Lt. General Raymond Odierno is cut from the same cloth. These promotions and the success of these men and our military are evidence, once again, not only of the superiority of our armed forces, but also that the U.S. Military is collectively the greatest meritocracy in the world.

However, the job isn't quite done yet and these nominations will have to face the Democratic (big d) circus in Congress. Ralph Peters in the NY Post described it well and posed the appropriate questions:

It's now up to Congress to respond to Gates' request that these nominations be approved by Memorial Day. Will the partisans on Capitol Hill create another spectacle, or will they do the right thing? Will election-year politics undercut our soldiers yet again?

It's another of our elitist audacious hopes for this country that the adults will be in charge (not Harry Reid, who's nuts) when these promotions come up and that these men will be confirmed and in position to fill their respective commands ASAP.

*UPDATE 30 April 5:38pm MST: Capt. Pete Hesgeth on Generals Petraeus and Odierno: Cleaning Up Mesopotamia


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Politicians As Usual

Before and after skiing today we've been watching General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the television. Good stuff. Senator Obama just finished asking his "questions" of these two good men.

A few thoughts:

- these hearings, and especially Hillary and Barack's performance in them, show that winning a primary election is more important to them than what is going on in Iraq. Hillary last September and Barack today both tried harder to score political points than have a constructive conversation about the future of Iraq. Could anyone say the same of John McCain? We didn't think so.

This is just one more sign that Obama is cut from the same cloth as every other smooth-talking politician.

- The way Hillary spoke to Gen. Petraeus last September ("willing suspension of disbelief") and Obama's anti-war lecturing (the war was a "blunder") reflect the type of adversarial relationship the left (and dominant) wing has had with the military since Vietnam. Their badgering and abuse of General Petraeus is shameful. They use him as a cut-out for President Bush--the rightful recipient of their ranting and raving.

We know grandstanding is a Senate tradition, we just wish these two Presidential candidates would forbear when speaking to a man who is clearly doing his best to serve his country.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Few Good Democrats

Never say we don't give credit where credit is due.

On Monday, an Op-Ed by two long-time Democratic critics of the war in Iraq was published in the New York Times. It bears repeating that Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack are neither neoconservatives nor Republicans. They are Democrats. Add them to the short list of Democrats* who recognize the importance of winning in Iraq and see the progress made by Gen. Petraeus' surge strategy--the positive results of which we noted yesterday.

Their Op-Ed is worth the read. We also suggest reading a review of their article by a number of writers over at National Review Online.

Among the best responses to the article was one written by Senator John McCain, Republican Presidential candidate. We quote in full:

Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have uncovered a truth that seems to escape congressional Democrats: General Petraeus’s new strategy has shown remarkable progress. Earlier this month, on my sixth trip to Iraq, it was evident that our military is making dramatic achievements throughout the country.

Despite this progress, Democrats today advocate a precipitous withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. They are wrong, and their approach portends catastrophe for both Iraq and the United States. To fail in Iraq risks creating a sanctuary for al Qaeda, sparking a full scale civil war, genocide, and violence that could spread far beyond Iraq’s borders. To leave prematurely is to ensure just one thing: that we will be back, in more dangerous and difficult circumstances. We cannot and must not lose this war.

We must prevail. General Petraeus and his troops have asked Congress for just two things: the time and support they need to carry out their mission. They must have both, however much the congressional Democrats seek to withhold them. That is why I will keep fighting to ensure that our commanders have what they need to win this war.

I cannot guarantee success. But I do guarantee that, should Congress fail to sustain the effort, and should it pay no heed to the lessons drawn by Mr. Pollack and Mr. O’Hanlon, then America will face a historic and terrible defeat. Such a defeat, with its enormous human and strategic costs, will unfold unless we do all in our power to prevent it. I, for one, will continue to do just that.

If even some Democrats are willing to acknowledge the improvement in Iraq, we are left to conclude that the surge must be working.


*Isn't Senator Lieberman great?


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Iraq: The Bottom Line

And then there's the latest from Iraq. Breitbart informs us that the death total of American soldiers for the month of July was the lowest in 8 months.

This is significant for a number of reasons:

• there are more American forces deployed in Iraq now than at any time in the last two years. Logically, one would assume that larger numbers of soldiers in Iraq would result in higher losses.

• the new surge strategy has moved the military from large bases into far greater contact with Iraqis and insurgents. Logically, one would assume increased American presence on the streets would result in higher losses.

• insurgents are aware of American public opinion, Democrats'* desire to withdraw immediately, and negative press coverage. They are also aware that General Petraeus will report on progress in September. Logically, one would assume they have every incentive to step up attacks and kill more American soldiers.

In each instance, the truth is opposite of the superfically logical assumption which leaves us with only one possible conclusion:


THE SURGE IS WORKING.


*Call him the exception to the Democrat rule. Joe Lieberman continues to be awesome.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

The Choice on Iraq

As our father commented to us yesterday, this article by our favorite Independent Senator, Joe Lieberman, is "a must read." And further, "when a patriot writes, we should read."

We hope his senatorial colleagues--both Democratic and Republican--will heed the words of Senator Lieberman, and support General Petraeus and our troops in Iraq. As our father pointed out, if they weren't going to give Gen. Petraeus the time necessary to win, they shouldn't have unanimously approved his appointment.

There should be no deadline for freedom and liberty. You cannot "re-deploy" democracy.

_____

The Choice on Iraq
(subscription required)
By Senator Joe Lieberman

Two months into the 110th Congress, Washington has never been more bitterly divided over our mission in Iraq. The Senate and House of Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare--trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.

Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security--meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.

Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda's stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country's politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism.

The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital.

At least four of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad--the same neighborhoods where, just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in--and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army are moving out.

_____

We of course will not know whether this new strategy in Iraq will succeed for some time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios, there will be more attacks and casualties in the months ahead, especially as our fanatical enemies react and attempt to thwart any perception of progress.

But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago--with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security--and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.

Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.

There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions.

Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness" standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.

I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, "Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct.

But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake--assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.

In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.

_____

Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.

We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril.

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Senator from Connecticut.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.