Congress Should Support The Surge

A recent poll reveals the lowest approval rating ever for Congress- 14%. That means that 86% of the people are unhappy with the “leadership” of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So, where exactly is this great success story we were all promised by the Media and Democrats following the 2006 elections? Could it be that the new, reigning Liberal Establishment in Washington D.C. is NOT what the American people had in mind?

You betcha!

This last election, basically, was not so much an endorsement of some new Liberal direction for the country as much as a rejection of the failed policies of compromising Republicans who had forgotten their conservative principles. The Illegal Immigration issue alone should prove this point.

The current majority is now collapsing around the horns of a dilemma: how to simultaneously please the extreme Left-wing base of their party- for which they are indebted- while not antagonizing the moderate masses they need to win elections and hold their mandate. That’s why you have folks like Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war and for the current Surge Strategy, now trying to distance herself from Iraq. The Code Pink/Move On.org constituency on the Looney Left is withholding their vital campaign contributions until they get some satisfaction and performance on their primary issue of “Surrender in Iraq.” Or, maybe you didn’t notice Cindy Sheehan’s recent announcement regarding her intentions of running against Pelosi in California- on the War Issue? The Left simply can’t afford a split in their ranks if they hope to win the White House and hold onto Congress in ’08.

That’s why they had that little pajama party last week in Washington. The Liberals knew they didn’t have the votes to get an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but they also knew they needed to earn some ‘brownie points’ from the Michael Moores and Rosie O’Donnells in their party. God help them. So, they staged this phony, all-night, cloture debate in an effort to prove their devotion to the anti-War Cause.

And what about the Cause? Is this the time to pull out of Iraq? Not if you believe the man in charge: Gen. David Petraeus. While the Liberal Democrats were toying with political games, Gen. Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, was giving an assessment on how the initial stage of the Surge is going- only one month into full-strength deployment.

Shouldn’t we give just a little credence to the commander on the ground? Here’s what Petraeus had to say in an interview with Hugh Hewitt on July 18, the same day as the pajama party:

“We have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground. Gains [have been made] against the principal near-term threat, al-Qaeda Iraq, and also against another near-time threat and also potentially long-term threat: Shia militia extremists. There has been considerable progress against al Qaeda.”

“The insurgents are losing many, many hundreds of their different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the Surge.”

“Our best operators in the world are here in the largest numbers of anywhere in the world by several multiples, and conducting a very, very high operational tempo, and doing extraordinary operations. [It’s] very sophisticated, very complex, very lethal sometimes and very effective…[consisting of] nightly operations, far more significant than we [have] conducted for decades. [One] took down the senior Iraqi leader in al Qaeda Iraq.” It is also progressing with the weight of our conventional forces who cleaned Western Baquba- which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq. The conventional forces killed 80 or 90 confirmed, and perhaps another 80 or so more, and captured a couple of hundred in addition to that as well.”

Adding to the list of recent successes Petraeus continued, “we have detained some four different emirs- the different area leaders of al Qaeda, six different foreign fighter facilitators, and a couple dozen other leaders, in addition to killing or capturing hundreds of other al Qaeda-Iraq operatives. Anbar Province, all of a sudden, has become just a remarkable development…it could possibly evolve into a situation sustainable by Iraqis. I can assure you that the Iraqi forces are out there very much fighting and dying for their country. In fact, their losses typically are some three or more times the losses we suffer.”

Regarding the threat of civil war, Petraeus noted, “sectarian violence in June was about the lowest in a year.”

When asked why this is important Petraeus explained, “we have an enormous responsibility, because we did liberate this country. Iraq has the second or third most proven oil resources in the world [and] sits astride several crucial ethno-sectarian fault lines. A precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq [and] in the region.”

Even traditional bastions of Liberal Thought like the International Crisis Group, ICG, and the UN agree with Petraeus, (but then again, they’re not politically invested in defeat like the Democrats are). “I hated the Iraq War,” says ICG director Joost Hillerman, “[but] a hasty withdrawal would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for U.S. interests.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “a great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people. Any abrupt withdrawal may lead to further deterioration.”

And while brave leaders like Petraeus, Odierno and Lynch do the tough but necessary work of responsibly pursuing victory on the battlefield in Iraq, Liberal Democrats like Senator Russ Feingold continue their defeatist antics by proposing useless, diversionary,
political games like the censure resolution of President Bush. It’s enough to make one
wonder whose side they’re really on! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)