Winning Isn't News

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.

London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.

The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.

We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.

Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.

Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.

Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.

Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks — a big change for the better from a year ago.

Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad — an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.

But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks" that signaled political progress.

The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300324023809577

On May 1, 2003, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln aboard an S-3B Viking jet, emerged from the aircraft in full flight gear, and proceeded to "press[] flesh," as The Washington Post put it, as he shook hands and hugged crew members in front of the cameras. Later that day, Bush delivered a nationally televised speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln in which he declared that "[m]ajor combat operations in Iraq have ended," all the while standing under a banner reading: "Mission Accomplished." Despite lingering questions over the continued violence in Iraq, the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction, and the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein, as well as evidence that Bush may have shirked his responsibilities in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) during the Vietnam War, the print and televised media fawned over Bush's "grand entrance" and the image of Bush as the "jet pilot" and the "Fighter Dog."

... AND their foreign debt of 7 Billion has been Waived.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

AQI

...having fled south into the countryside.

...floated the idea of a timetable...

...the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.

We're now in Year Six in Iraq. If American armed forces really were winning, they'd be home by now.

Hey Sandman,did you think that the surge naysayers would actually admit they may have been wrong?

Unfortunatly,the libs need Iraq to go south for their agenda to be accepted.

I also find it interesting the congress has a worse rep right now than G.B.What happened to the promises Nancy's group made when they got control of the house?

And we all know how practical Nancy is...

Oversight is a good thing, but the reason their approval ratings are somewhere in the neighborhood of 15% is because CONGRESS has done zippo! Pelosi has charged forward with an agenda of do-nothingness!

As for the campaign to elect a new commander in chief, McCain firmly opposes any withdrawal timetable while Obama pledges to pull out combat troops within 16 months. By talking about a "time horizon," Bush appeared at odds with McCain and could make his own Republican administration a tougher target for Obama's anti-war barbs.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/18/america/NA-US-Iraq.php

The Iraqi government is also forcing it, against the wishes of the administration. They do not have a choice, quite frankly. Refusing to comply with the Iraqi wish to reduce US presence on the ground goes against their long time concept of the Iraqis "standing up".

Remember timetables were bad things, and could never be discussed.....until they were good things, and they had no other choice BUT to discuss them.

Sanderick, you seemed to be contradicting yourself again. Is AQ defeated, or are they still present?

Shall I document the occassions where they've asked us to leave?

The administration has always said that they will listen to commanders on the ground, as well as stating that if the Iraqi Government asks the U.S. to leave it would do so.

Majority Of Iraqi Legislators Call For Timetable For U.S. Withdrawal
June 5, 2008 11:29 AM
In a letter to Congress, dovetailing with yesterday's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, thirty-one Iraqi legislators, representing a majority of the Iraq Parliament, have expressed "widespread disapproval of the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/majority-of-iraqi-legisla_n_105427.html

Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on U.S. Withdrawal
By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 11, 2007

BAGHDAD, May 10 -- A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

But as in the United States, Iraq's lawmakers are moving further away from the views of the government, particularly on the basic issue of the American presence in their country. The draft bill is being championed by a 30-member bloc loyal to Sadr, but it has also gained support from some other Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish legislators. So far, at least 138 lawmakers have signed the proposed legislation, the slimmest possible majority in the 275-member parliament, according to Araji. Nasar al-Rubaie, another Sadr loyalist, told the Associated Press that the proposal had 144 signatures.

"We think that America committed a grave injustice against the Iraqi people and against the glorious history of Iraq when they destroyed our institutions and then rebuilt them in the wrong way," said Hussein al-Falluji, a lawmaker from the largest Sunni coalition in parliament and a supporter of the timetable proposal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html

The Commanders on the ground have reported a defeat of Al queda in Iraq. The Iraqi's having been part of the surge that took out Al queda, now see the light at the end of the tunnel, and feel they can take over.

The U.S. hasn't and won't "refuse" to leave. They have already stated they would if asked.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is demanding a timetable for troop withdrawal. The timetable would be contingent upon Iraqi troop preparation to take over security for the nation.

President Bush has opposed a set time for withdrawal.

http://garybaumgarten.blogspot.com/2008/07/
iraqi-government-wants-us-out.html

Washington is currently negotiating two accords with the al-Maliki government to take effect after expiration of the UN's military mandate on December 31. One agreement is for a long-term "strategic framework" to establish "cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and security fields." Or according to the administration - to defend Iraq's "sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, and airspace."

The other is a so-called "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) to provide legitimacy for the US occupation beginning January 1, 2009. Following the 2003 invasion, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1511. It officially recognized the "Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)" and authorized a multinational force to bring "stability" to the country. Part of the agreement was for the mandate to be reauthorized each year. It's been done "at the request of the Iraqi government." By late 2007, al-Maliki asked for a mandate extension "for the last time" to officially end Iraq's international peace and security threat designation that's been in place since August 1990.

In November 2007, George Bush and al-Maliki signed a preliminary US - Iraq political, economic, and security agreement. Part of it is for an indefinite US military presence. Final completion was to be by July 31, 2008, but with the date fast approaching and widespread opposition, things may likely change.

For months, US plans generated considerable opposition - within and outside Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani objected. So has Iran and a majority of Iraqi parliamentarians who vowed to veto any agreement not approved by the country's Council of Representatives. On May 29, they further said that any US - Iraq bilateral agreement must "obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq.

http://www.populistamerica.com/legitimizing_permanent_occupation_of_iraq

Timetables are bad when you have a strong Al Queda element in country, listening for the withdrawal date, so they can mark their calendar for the Surrender date.

Then they would know how long to fight, and when to bring in reinforcements.

So, yeah, it was bad to have timetables and set hard dates while the insurgents and terrorists were listening.

But most of them are dead now, so that's not an issue.

I hope that wasn't to difficult to understand. Most people still don't get this simple fact of strategy. Those insurgents and terrorists watch TV and listen to the news too. Giving them a surrender date is just foolish.

That is, until they are dead, then it doesn't really matter anymore.