More Evidence That The Surge Is Working In Iraq
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Democrats | Iraq | The Surge | War — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The reconstruction of Iraq is significantly less of a political issue now:
Congressional Democrats are reporting a striking change in districts across the country: Voters are shifting their attention away from the Iraq war.
Read on.
Rep. Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee, said not a single constituent has asked about the war during his nearly two-week long Thanksgiving recess. Rep. Michael E. Capuano, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts, said only three of 64 callers on a town hall teleconference asked about Iraq, a reflection that the war may be losing power as a hot-button issue in his strongly Democratic district.First-term Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) -- echoing a view shared by many of her colleagues -- said illegal immigration and economic unease have trumped the Iraq war as the top-ranking concerns of her constituents.
In an interview with Politico, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) attributed the change to a recent reduction of violence and media coverage of the conflict, saying there is scant evidence that more fundamental problems with the Bush administration's policy are improving. Even so, he agreed voters are certainly talking less about the war. "People are not as engaged daily with the reality of Iraq," Hoyer said.
Oh, and consider the following from another antiwar House Democrat:
U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.
"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis "have got to take care of themselves."
Well, they certainly do. But thanks to the surge, they have a better chance of taking care of themselves than they would have if the United States had precipitously abandoned Iraq. And now that we are seeing still more evidence that the surge is indeed working, perhaps it would be a good thing to fund the troops by passing the latest appropriations bill cleanly and without any kind of amendments that set an artificial timeline on American withdrawal.
Otherwise, the mission of the American military may well be compromised and any hard-earned gains in Iraq may be lost with the resumption of violence the American military would find itself less able to counter thanks to a lack of funds. And writing for myself, I would hate to be a politician responsible for this horrid hypothetical coming to reality.
« Louisiana Dems: Jindal has lost all credibility! — Comments (8) | Rove: WH Didn't Want Iraq Vote 'Politicized' — Comments (17) »
More Evidence That The Surge Is Working In Iraq 19 Comments (0 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...Texas, and California. Have I missed any other campaigns to extend territory within the Founders' lifetimes?
Grow up, zip up, and rejoin objective reality, Sparky. I know that it hurts to contemplate that you made the wrong moral choice by opposing the war, but masturbation fantasies about how we're some kind of fantasy empire now only annoy.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
but I bet you know prozac. Bad week for you guys, continued success in Iraq, some heartless b-----ds ruin your chances to whine over embryonic stem cell research, your party is so pathetically incompetent they aren't close to passing the necessary appropriations bills, and their approval ratings are now lower than BusHitler.
As you wait to be told what to think and say from the media you might want to consider what a clue really is. But whatever it is you wouldn't recognize it if it sat on your nose.
Hang in there guy, the media will force feed you some new lines and you won't be so bitter over the situation in Iraq, much as you hoped for defeat.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Not much truly conservative about this place; you do need to get the GOP candidates to talk more like Bush if you're still wanting them to run as him.
No real conservatives in the current GOP lineup for me.
I take umbrage to your description of our efforts as lame, rather they are the perfection of prose. Better you keep your eyes glued to the NY Times so as to know what to repeat. And please, in your first post you hardly put your best knarled foot forward, speaking of lame. You can't expect to be provocative and not provoke, every adult knows that.
Bye !
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
....[running for cover]
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Doesn't mean the hopelessly useless (Democrat Congress) is any closer to remotely beginning to get its act together.
- the hopelessly useless Iraqi government
The "Iraqis" don't care any more about the "Iraqi government" than the citizens of Virginia cared about the "hopelessly useless central government" under the Articles of Confederation. Back then, no one considered themselves a citizen of anything larger than their own state. In Iraq it runs more along tribe or clan lines, but it's the same idea. The only Central Government most of those alive can remember is the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, just as the citizens of Delaware remembered the tyranny of King George.
It takes a while before people subjected to that are willing to take the next step toward an actual central government. In our case it took eleven years. Give these people a break; Saddam was a lot worse than King George.
They are making great progress at the local and regional level, just as we did at the state level in the 1780's.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
When public opinion starts to go against the Democrats, they start issuing statements that America just doesn't care anymore. Interesting.
Look, it's great that this surged worked. It gives us hope that we are capable of winning militarily when we finally get our act together. But what really worries me is the long term picture. I don't think anyone wants to stay in Iraq at present levels forever. So what is being done to make sure the politics are coming together, that way things won't fall apart when we finally do withdraw? I don't think there's a very good answer to that question...which means the surge is just a temporary solution to a long term problem.
Support the Troops with Cigars- http://www.TroopCigars.com
in the most important region in the world is worth staying around for a few years to make sure they establish a good foundation?
I just really don't understand this "we gotta hurry and get the troops home" mentality. There will be a sizable force in Iraq for the foreseeable future or it'll end up looking like this:
==== 13 ====
- I don't think there's a very good answer to that question
That's because the question itself is ill-framed, arrogant, and ultimately stupid. It presupposes that a Giant Hand must come down from the sky and make everything right, and that the absence of an apparent Giant Hand means that (a) something is wrong, and (b) nothing will happen.
The belief that nothing happens in the absence of Giant Hands is characteristic of a certain world view that presumes top-down organization, planned economies, and a general lack of faith in the ability of humans to manage their own affairs.
Our own experience was that it took eleven years from the time we got rid of our own 'Saddam' until we had a working Constitution. We were blessed during that period with relative calm; there were not a whole lot of people running around blowing things up (although there were a few).
What we did not have was Frenchmen telling us how to organize our affairs, or telling us that we had to get it done in three years or else, or anything like that. And yet... it happened, and here we are.
This suggests that getting rid of the people who have been shooting civilians and blowing up markets is all that really needs to be done; that the rest of it will come naturally as it did for us. We would have a lot of nerve assuming that no one else could do what we did. In fact, you have a lot of nerve assuming that.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
I tend to agree with Ron Paul on this issue. It is not a matter of whether the Surge works or not. We all want there to be more peace and democracy in iraq and it is great if the surge helps with that.
The real question though is whether it is the responsibility of the US military to be there at all. Our founding fathers were quite clear about their take on such matter (avoid it at all cost). Even recent leaders such as Reagan told us to avoid it.
WE should be asking not how many soldiers we should have over there, but whether we should be over there at all. All but one presidential candidate on the red side say, we should. All the the leaders on the blue said say we should too. 70% of america say we should not. Sounds like Ron Paul is the candidate we should choice in this winters primaries.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
"I tend to agree with Ron Paul on this issue." That one sentence renders the rest of your comment irrelevant.
- WE should be asking not how many soldiers we should have over there, but whether we should be over there at all.
Well, we did ask that. Perhaps you'll recall a year-long debate on the subject, followed by a vote taken among the people's representatives in Congress. It authorized the President to proceed. He did. The former government of Saddam Hussein is gone, along with Mr. Hussein and the Little Husseins ("Uday! Uday! Uday think gonna feed them bengals!")
It's a little late now to be asking whether we should have done this, or to suggest that having destroyed these people's military we should now leave them to the tender mercies of those militaries which still exist on their borders. We do need to take a certain amount of adult responsibility for our actions.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Doesn't mean the hopelessly useless Iraqi government is any closer to remotely beginning to get its act together.
Bush has made the U.S. a colonial power again; the last thing our founding fathers would have wanted.