Redstate

There we go again, being right-sheesh

By haystack Posted in War — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Headline Al Jazeera: Blair 'to announce Iraq pull-out'

According to the source, Britain is expected to announce on Wednesday its plans to withdraw some number of troops from Iraq. The story suggests there will be 1,5000 withdrawn in a matter of weeks, and 1,500 more by the end of this year. This will leave them with approximately 1/2 of their current force during the year 2008 (at which time, the story suggests, the remaining force will be withdrawn).

Cribbing a term I came across in a piece by David Limbaugh published at Human Events, I offer that we are all about to be subjected to a new wave of "semantic gyrations" from our Political Heroes and their MSM cohorts. I can see the headlines now.

"Blair GETS What Bush NEVER will" would be my vote for number 1.

More below the fold...

The problem of course is that the headline from Al Jazeera belies the point of the story. The meat of the motivations behind the UK pulling out, actually, are wholly consistent with the Bush strategy all along:

As the Iraqis are able to stand up, the US and Coalition Forces will stand down.

The looming rhetoric war will be waged between the media and this Administration. As much as I like Tony Snow, he is single-handedly losing the PR war against the media. At some point, he has GOT to step this up a notch or three.

The sloganeering we can all expect to see and hear from our enemies on the left and their mouthpieces in the coming days MUST sustain the notion that this war is not winnable, that there is no strategy, and that this is ultimately an Iraqi problem. It must also include the extent to which British war policy has reached a level of understanding on this point and further that this reality continues to elude the 'hapless' lame-duck President of the US.

Sadly, none of our media outlets will share THIS part of the UK story:

"While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis."

He added: "The United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq."

To report as much would bely the Democrat meme of failure, defeat, impropriety, and incompetence. We just can't have that.

In perhaps the greatest passage in this Al Jazeera piece, we find Colonel Bob Stewart (former Commander of British forces in Bosnia) implying a near identical strategy as that prescribed by the new "way forward" plan offered up by President Bush. But for the added number of troops from the US, the British position nearly mirrors that of our own:

Colonel Bob Stewart, the former commander of British forces in Bosnia, said that while Iraqi troops might soon replace British troops on the streets of Basra, the UK's involvement in southern Iraq was far from at an end.

"The British have decided that in order to get out the precondition is that the 10th Iraqi Army division must be good enough, so they have put an enormous amount of time and effort into training them," he told Al Jazeera.

"The British have always wanted to get out ... but they'll be putting a massive effort into continuing the training and the training will continue I expect long after the British soldiers have come of the Iraqi streets.

"The British can't withdraw until they feel the Iraqi armed forces are in a position to do the job without support."

Sounding familiar yet?

While the UK has experienced more rapid success in their regions of responsibility, the US continues to struggle with several of theirs. This is understandable given the regions we sustain compared the those of the Brits. It is also understandable when you consider that we have made our fair share of mistakes in dealing with some of our "hot spots", MOST of which our Commander in Chief has acknowledged and personally assumed responsibility for. It IS, after all, his JOB.

The problems the President faces now, however, are the words and actions of the Democrats in their lust for ending this war prematurely (our involvement in it at least), and the efforts of Congress to further force his hand.

Should Congress succeed in their plans to further legislate BINDING resolutions under Murtha's "slow bleed" strategy, the President will likely make even MORE mistakes further complicating the mission for our Soldiers and the Iraqis.

This shuck and jive love affair between the two branches, this "war in Congress and the greater war on a President" as I call it, continues to hurt the ones that matter most-the Soldiers. As Limbaugh rightly points out:

Voting for a resolution pledging not to withdraw funding would also show the abject meaninglessness of their resolution opposing the surge. There is no greater dagger to the heart of self-important politicians than to be exposed as insignificant.

Unfortunately for us, these politicians are significant, and so are their disgraceful actions. Despite their semantic gyrations, they are undermining the troops and America's war effort. You don't support the troops by sabotaging their mission and strategy -- a strategy designed by the general in charge no less, whose appointment as commander of the coalition forces in Iraq they just unanimously approved. You don't support the troops by continually giving verbal comfort to the enemy. You don't support the troops by lobbying for their and America's defeat.

If you are still unconvinced these antiwar politicians are damaging the war effort by their words alone, just wait. In their mounting frustration, they may soon go beyond mere words.

Congressman Murtha has threatened to push a shameful series of "slow-bleed" measures to accomplish indirectly what he can't achieve directly: our immediate withdrawal.

Senate Democrats said they would pursue means other than non-binding resolutions to change Iraq policy. Sen. Chuck Schumer said that Democrats would be relentless in their campaign to end the Iraq war. "There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment … Just like in the days of Vietnam, the pressure will mount … and the vast majority of our troops will have to be taken out of harm's way."

He closes his piece suggesting that "elections matter" and he is absolutely right.

We have placed the safety and welfare of our soldiers and our country into the hands of those least concerned with our well-being. Focusing instead on scoring political points, settling old scores, and shoring up voting blocs for an election 2 years out.

Over these same two years, as Britain suggests with their soon-to-be-announced plans, we might see the transition to Iraqi control spread like wildfire across the country. The US strategy seem to indicate this time frame as significant within our plans as well.

Why then, given how long the slow bleed will take to drain the Bush plans' veins, would Congress focus on the damage they can do to President Bush knowing full well that the soldiers will be the ones doing the bleeding?

It couldn't POSSIBLY be related to the calculated risk there might be extra votes on the backside of these efforts, could it?

Perhaps I am being too cynical after all.