The Surge is Succeeding: Because they stand on a wall, and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight ...

....Not on My Watch!


Yes, Folks, our faith in journalists may be on the rise. In today's WaPo, The Surge is Succeeding! More here and even Brian Williams, anchor at NBC Nightly News is reporting that there is positive change in Iraq.

a la "A Few Good Men"

"And what do we have for the losers, Johnny! Thaaaat's right, after showing complete disregard for the men on the ground, their families and the fate of our nation, the Democrats, lead by Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha, will get an long vacation at exotic Fort Bush Was Right, You Were Wrong. And .... for all the White Flag Republicans, start updating those resumes boys and girls because next term you will be teaching typewriter maintenance at the Rocco Clubo School for Traitors.

Thank you for playing "Should we or should we not follow the advice of the galactically stupid?"

(Damn! That felt good!)


UPDATE:
Not so happy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

It appears that not only is the SURGE working, the Dems claim to only have 71 of the 218 votes needed to block the funding for it and, as I have stated several times, the honeymoon is over for Nancy Pelosi and she is at the point in her speakership where she has to prove her metal. She has been ALL talk since taking office and this is her first opportunity to "put her money where her mouth is". Yet, that mouth has been rather quiet lately.Additionally, one might speculate that with the collective nature of Brian Williams' reports from Iraq and NBC/MSBC/MSN all gently pushing the agenda that a) Surge is working and B) That the House Majority may not have the majority needed to thumb their noses at the White House. All of this is going to make the next year and a half quite interesting. N'est pas?Read more here!

Numbers II : What McCain "knows" about Tet '68

Map of Vietnam ~ circa 1967

Numbers again come into play as Congress continues the debate over the President's troop surge plan. As you may recall, a few days ago I took a look at numbers comparing the number of homicides in major US cities vs. the number of casualties that we have thus far in Iraq. I then took those same numbers and compared them to our troop losses in Vietnam. A gruesome comparison, I know, but one that truly needed to be looked at as Congress relentlessly reminds us of the US casualty total in Iraq in their statements on H.Con. Res. 63.

It seems that John McCain (R-AZ), as an '08 presidential candidate, felt the need to step into the spotlight and get some press in the middle of the oncoming Surge storm. I will blatantly tell my readers, I do not like McCain, for reasons that ironically lead back to Vietnam. It has been reported earlier this week by the AP and expounded on here by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, that McCain feared a Tet '68-like offensive, the turning point in Vietnam, which wielded more propaganda than collateral damage. It appears that McCain was skilfully taking a page from his North Vietnamese captors' playbook by making such a comparison. The Vietnamese used propaganda at all levels during the war, Jane Fonda and her followers are just one sad example. The Iraq insurgency is obviously a student of this same Vietnamese propaganda machine.

Farah quotes AP's report of McCain's Tet analogy with this brief summary;

"Tet, a massive invasion in 1968 of South Vietnam by Communist North Vietnamese, inflicted enormous losses (my emphasis) on U.S. and South Vietnamese troops and is regarded as a point where public sentiment turned sharply against the war."

Farah criticizes this quote by giving a numbers analysis complete with stats that someone should fax to McCain's camp ASAP. Read on ...

Some 1,536 U.S. troopers were killed in the weeks-long campaign. South Vietnamese troops lost an additional 2,788 troops. But compare those numbers with enemy losses!

According to the best statistics now available, some 45,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were killed in what was planned as a last-ditch, roll-of-the-dice effort to persuade Americans they could never win the war. Another 6,991 enemy soldiers were captured in the offensive.

In other words, no matter how you slice it, Tet was an unmitigated battlefield disaster for the enemy in Vietnam. But it proved to be an unmitigated media disaster for the U.S. at home.

As a student of the Vietnam War, I can assure you unequivocally that Vietnam was "lost" in the same fashion and with the same propaganda expertise that we are seeing today in Iraq. The positive is ignored while the press magnifies the casualties. Those of us old enough to remember will never forget the night that Walter Cronkite told America that we were losing the war in Vietnam. In that same vein today we see journalists beating their editors' doors down with gloom and doom at every turn of the page.

We see members of Congress referencing this same flawed gloom and doom journalism when they question high ranking DoD staff during hearings over the past few weeks, simply perpetuating the myth. Case in point, Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) obsession and later exaggeration of the intelligence community's use of the word "inappropriate" in a 2002 Pentagon briefing on the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection, "has whipped into a political lather" as Douglas Fieth so appropriately states in the Albany Times Union today.

I highly recommend the Farah piece as it is overflowing with telling hindsight from Vietnam. McCain isn't the only one in Congress who should see this. Many of the "White Flag Republicans" need it as well. Along with a reminder, "Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it."

How do we define "Support"?

Reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "What is is" Word Game, it appears that Congress has decided to take a page from the Clinton playbook and now, in a much more defiant and detrimental move, are playing with the word "support".

In today's WaPo article by Jonathan Weisman,GOP Looks Beyond War Measure to Fight on Funding, outlines the course of action for the GOP in reaction to the debate that is unfolding on the floor of the House and Senate this week over the deployment of more troops to Iraq. Sadly, many Republicans are bowing to pressure from the left to join them in supporting that non-binding *cough* useless resolution for reasons that simply boggle the mind.

Weisman's piece gave his readership the following quote;

When Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) charged that the resolution offers no support for troops not yet deployed to the battlefield, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) showed just how sensitive Democrats are to the charge.
"No one ought to hide behind the troops. No one ought to come to this floor and say that this Congress, 435 of us, will not support whatever soldier or sailor or Marine is deployed to Iraq," Hoyer said angrily. "Whether it is today or tomorrow, they will have our support."

Now, please go back and read that again. Hide behind the troops? By thinking in the best interest of the troops and their morale is an act of hiding behind the troops? They will have our support? If we take away belief in their mission, the funding for their operations and the trust that the Iraqi people put in our hands when they stood beside us at the start of this war, someone please tell me, what is left? What class of support is left? Again, mind boggling. It is abundantly clear that Congress needs an English Lesson on the meaning of the word support. There are obviously various shades to the dictionary definition yet I would like to specifically focus on definition 5;

to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for: to support a family.

This specific definition actually uses the example "to support a family". These troops truly are the deepest extent of family. Few Americans can say that they have no one whom they care for, whom they consider "family" that has put on the uniform of the USA. Is this how we treat family? Taking away things necessary to existence? Not truly supporting them by not providing for them? Of course not!!

As I write this I am watching the House debate on this non-binding resolution and I suggest that you ALL get your hands on the statement of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), he is simply kicking ass! He has it all out there and he is making a stand. God Bless him! He is not leaving anything in the clubhouse! Screw NY, I am moving to Michigan!

One last comment on this, as McCotter called "idiotic resolution", if we truly want an idea of what to do, I suggest we get some ballots sent to Iraq and ask the men and women on the ground, they are the ones who are truly making the sacrifice, they are one who are giving their lives, ask them what needs to be done. They obviously have a better grasp on the reality of Iraq than anyone in Congress ever will. Therefore once I hear what the troops say ~ then we will know what support truly is. Are you listening Congress?

Amen!

The "Numbers" Game

Numb3rs

Uncle Jimbo over at BlackFive had an interesting idea of attempting to calculate the insurgent body count so we can get a better idea of how we are eliminating the insurgency, one bad guy at a time. I decided to spin off Uncle Jimbo's idea and take a look at numbers comparatively speaking from OIF, Vietnam and four major US Cities to attempt to put things in perspective as far as the left's obsession with "the rising toll of casualties in Iraq."

Just a quick thought on the body count that Uncle Jimbo requested. While researching for this post, something striking came to light. There are many organizations tracking casualties, both military and civilian who are actually counting civilian deaths and blaming them on the Coalition Forces indiscriminately. That is to say, if a suicide bomber walks through a crowded Baghdad market and kills 37 innocent civilians, that is, overall, blamed on the Coalition Forces in a twisted attempt to say that these individuals were some sort of collateral damage from Coalition operations. No one is tracking how many civilians are killed by the insurgency vs. Coalition operations, they are simply collectively attributed to the Coalition. This also is the case with those who are wounded as well.

This is always a delicate position because of the idea of making the lives of our military men and women appear as simply numbers devoid of human life, tragedy and the mourning of family and friends. Make no mistake about it, I am not, nor would I ever reach such depths of disrespect for these heroes. I personally know the sense of loss that family members are left with as I too have people close to me who still have yet to be found and returned from Vietnam, the pain never truly subsides.

Albeit, there are others who do not value these lives as most of us do, for others, these lives are merely numbers that they use to justify their arguments, either on the Senate or House floors, in the press, on Sunday Morning talks shows, on demonstration platforms or even here in the blogosphere. So, in order to defend those who are still on the battlefield eager to finish the fight and bring true democracy to the people of Iraq, I have attempted to put together some data that truly does substantiate the claim that we have suffered very few casualties in OIF.

At the time of this post, the number of US Casualties is at 3,125 in close to 4 years. The DoD gives an average of 170,000 troops on the ground at any given time (pre "Surge"). Now, to get into the stats:

2003

NYC - 596 homicides
LA - 505 homicides
CHI - 600 homicides
PHI - 347 homicides

total: 2,048 homicides

OIF - 486 casualties

*Nam - 2,000 casualties

*1965 first year with 175,000 troops on the ground



Our fighting men and women, who are in a war zone, fighting the insurgency yet they have less than an quarter the number of casualties with the same general number of troops on the ground. They also have less than a quarter of the number of casualties compared to homicides reported in the four most populated cities in the USA; New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philiadelphia. (NYC, CHI and PHI stats here)

So, where is the outrage? Where are the bills before Congress making more stringent sentences for homicides? Where are the government programs to help curb violence in out major cities? If these numbers are unacceptable for our military why is it not unacceptable for our civilians to kill each other on the streets of our cities? Why aren't stats like these front page news everyday?

Ready for more?

2004

NYC - 570 homicides
LA - 489 homicides
CHI - 445 homicides
PHI - 330 homicides

total: 1834 homicides

OIF - 848 casualties

**Nam - 5,300 casualties

**1966 Second year of war with 390,000 troops on the ground

=======================================

2005

NYC - 540 homicides
LA - 489 homicides
CHI - 448 homicides
PHI - 377 homicides

total: 1,854 homicides

OIF - 846 casualties

**Nam - 9,500 casualties

**1967 Third year of war with 490,000 troops on the ground

=============================


2006

NYC - 582 homicides
LA - 489 homicides
CHI - 423 homicides
PHI - 406 homicides

total: 1,900 homicides

OIF - 821 casualties

**Nam - 14,600 casualties

**1968 Fourth year of war with 549,000 troops on the ground

===============================

It is worth restating, that if the left is going to use the casualty number against us, even as uncomfortable as it is for us to use these numbers for any reason, we must defend the argument.

In the close to four years of this War on Terror we have lost (not "wasted" - á la Obama) approximately 3125 American lives in Iraq. Yet on the streets of our major cities we have lost 7,636 lives. Keep in mind that these numbers come from just four US Cities.

So, again, we need to ask Congress to why they choose to focus on Iraq's numbers yet maintain blinders on with regard to the number of homicides. Is it because Iraq allows them a platform to throw knives at the Administration with the DoD as an added bonus? Could it be because threatening to control the troops' pursestrings is sexier than homicide? Could it be because the MSM finds it sexier as well? Dare I go on?

Point being, these OIF casualty numbers are a resounding HOOAH!! to US Troops on the ground, their training, their dedication to each other and most poignantly, their dedication to this nation. They want to finish the job and come home victors, which was something that Vietnam Vets were denied for the very same reasons that we see today. On the global scale, we need to be victorious to confirm our place as the true super power, maintain our foothold at the UN and most importantly, end the War on Terror with a deafening roar. After all, the world is watching.

Words

The guy has the right idea

The WaPo has been taking their hits lately with shoddy reporting and mixed up headlines and etc. and I am being very kind. But last Friday's op-ed by Charles Krauthammer was right on. It was basically, and obviously much more eloquently, what I had said a few days ago about this entire issue of the non-binding resolution and he even caught the same confusions regarding a "civil war" that I saw with the NIE's report that everyone was making so much hoopla about. I really have to take note with the entire idea of the NIE and the data that they generate with the disclaimer that is is all based on incomplete work and that it is not based on any evidence, it is merely an estimate and not a prediction.

OK, so here is the big question, then what is it? If the data is flawed, incomplete and imperfect at best, then where is its usefulness and efficacy? We have an agency within the US Government that simply mirrors Congress, it generates useless things that generate imperfect debate that doesn't amount to much of anything except wasted tax dollars and more dead trees.

The crux of Krauthammer's piece is really the heart of this debate that Congress is preparing to affront;

When it came to doing something serious about the surge, the Senate ducked. It unanimously (81-0) approved sending Gen. David H. Petraeus to Baghdad to do the surge -- precisely what a majority of the senators said they did not want done.

Congress had their chance to speak out and make an argument, and they curled up in the fetal position. Now, with the '08 elections on the horizon everyone is jockeying for position much like a NASCAR Nextel Cup race when the yellow flag comes out and everyone deciding if they should go to the pits or not.

Now, the American people have pit passes with the Congress on track and the entire world in the stands waiting to see who pits, when and with what needs. Then, everyone will roar back onto the track and this will all start again. Post ions will ultimately change and as more Congressmen and woman, in particular those with presidential aspirations, present their own resolutions, I find it hard for any one resolution to take center stage and have the kind of impact that the left would like it to have nor the wiggle room that many on the right would like as well.

Meanwhile, our fighting men and women sit in a political limbo attempting to implement a strategy that may have its funding pulled right out from under them while they are selflessly putting their lives on the line for a Congress that sees them as nothing more than pawns in thier political chess game. Sad, so sad.

WaPo's Karen De Young and Her Left Jab at Surge

In today's Sunday Edition of the Washington Post, Karen De Young takes another "left jab" at the Administration's enhancement to the Iraq policy, known affectionately or otherwise as "Surge".

"The success of the Bush administration's new Iraq strategy depends on a series of rapid and dramatic political and economic reforms that even the plan's authors have little confidence will work."

Is De Young seriously trying to convince the WaPo's readership that Bush's Senior Staff and some of the best military minds at the Pentagon got together under growing pressure from the Left and put together a lukewarm plan at best? Knowing all that was at stake, they just threw a plan at the wall and used what stuck? Knowing full well that political hats are being thrown into the proverbial ring all around the Beltway for '08 with Iraq as the focal point; that there would be no "do-overs" and that this plan would be critical for this administration's legacy and the success of Iraq, De Young stood by this story? With the overwhelming ramifications of this plan, delusional is the only word that comes to mind.

Now, a little more on the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that De Young references here from the Council on Foreign Relations. Before getting into the details of the NIE, it is important to note that the NIE defines itself as an entity that does not predict but estimates the possible course of future events. Huh? Even in the introduction of the report released Friday the NIE summarizes their ratonale as imperfect at best;

These assessments, which are based on incomplete or at times fragmentary information are not a fact, proof, or knowledge. Some analytical judgments are based directly on collected information; others rest on previous judgments, which serve as building blocks. In either type of judgment, we do not have “evidence” that shows something to be a fact or that definitively links two items or issues.

The NIE link above also goes on to describe it's process which usually takes two to three months for them to evaluate and report back on an item that they are asked to "estimate". It would appear that they fast-tracked their review of the President's plan just a bit.

As if the waters couldn't get muddier, on Friday, when the classified report was released by the NIE, De Young and Walter Pincus had an WaPo A1 page piece in which they stated;

At a Pentagon news conference, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, noting that he had not read the report, said he agreed with Hadley that "the words 'civil war' oversimplify a very complex situation."

Yet, here is what the unclassifed version of the report has to say in direct contradiction to the De Young-Pincus piece. This is what it said in the context of the "civil war" claim;

The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war” accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.

Now if you re-read the Sunday piece carefully, the above quote is somewhat contradictory or at the very least, an exaggeration compared to Friday's summary of the same classified report. It was not specified if the declassified report or classified report was used in the filing of either report. DeYoung and Pincus' source in Friday's piece is described as simply "a source familiar with the document". I don't know about you but I would have given much more credence to "a source close to the President" or "a source within the Pentagon" or something to that effect. "A source familiar with the document", could be the intern who drove the 90 page document from the Pentagon to the White House. So much for "classified" it appears.

Back to De Young's Sunday piece, she briefly critiques the President's public denial of the use of a "containment option" (pushing US troops back to the Iraqi borders to avoid sectarian violence). Although the Friday piece refers to Arizona Senator John McCain's sleep-rendering soliloquy about the failed policy in Iraq during Gen. George Casey's confirmation hearing as Army Chief of Staff, I guess De Young missed Casey's most significant statement in which he confirmed that 14 of the 18 provinces in Iraq have reported little or no violence over the past two months. Casey went on to say that there are already six provinces, three in the north and three in the south that are completely under control of Iraqi Forces and three more that will be doing so over the next few weeks. What is our measure for success again? I don't think I got the memo.

The irony of her closing for this piece actually caused a smile to creep over my face (sarcastic smile, but a smiles nonetheless).

But some officials worry that the expanded U.S. presence will repeat the mistakes of the past -- when the United States oversaw virtually every part of the Iraqi government -- and undermine the goal of turning the country over to the Iraqis themselves.

"It's the same old problem as in 2003," cautioned one official. "The same impatience that if they can't do it we'll step in and do it. There is a bit of that creeping into this dialogue."

"Impatience"? If there are signs of impatience within Iraq it is from pressure from the Left and the anti-war people who simply want us out of Iraq at any cost so they can turn around and tell the Bush Administration they failed.