Taking Chance

Seemingly a lifetime ago, in late April 2004, Blackfive posted the moving story of Marine Private First Class Chance Phelps' last trip home. Written by Marine Lt. Colonel Michael Strobl as an entry for his personal journal, the short memoir chronicles Strobl's growing appreciation of a man he never knew, as he accompanied Private Phelps' remains from Dover to his final resting place in Dubois, Wyoming. As much as Taking Chance is a story of two men's journey, it is even more a moving account of the respect shown Pvt. Phelps by hundreds of Americans with whom they came into contact during the journey, the town that shared his family's celebration of his life and grief at his loss, and a nation that continues to respect the sacrifices made by the few in favor of the many.

Strobl sent his diary entry to a few Marine buddies, who sent it on to a few more. One of the recipients emailed to to Blackfive, and within days thousands were sharing the story. Now HBO has made it into a 77 minute featurette staring Kevin Bacon as Strobl.

Here is the HBO movie trailer:



You can read Lt. Col. Strobl's original journal entry as it was originally posted at Blackfive, here.


Thank God for the rough men, that we can sleep at night.

Biden as Julius Ceasar

For millenia, first-year students of Latin have memorized Julius Caesar's second most famous quote

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres

as part of their effort to understand the greatest general of all time and the language he spread throughout the world.

All Gaul is divided into three parts is the opening sentence of Caesar's formal report on the Gallic Wars to the citizens of Rome more than 2,000 years ago.

Leave it to Slow Joe Biden, he of the hurricane mouth, to recast Caesar's observation into what is easily the very worst strategy ever suggested for the war in Iraq. Biden's plan for Iraq was worse even than Barack Obama's, a difficult threshold indeed.

Where Obama suggested that the U. S. drop everything and immediately walk away from Iraq, which has since magically morphed into a 16 month process, Senator Biden took it a step further. In a May 2006 op-ed in the New York Times, Biden made clear his disdain for the Bush administration

It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor.

Then he pushed his own five-step plan to first divide Iraq into three pieces, none strong enough to survive, then walk away.

Today, Biden's idea sounds as shallow as a Presidential bench that can seriously consider a Barack Obama as its first choice. What's amazing is the man who ran it up the flagpole two years ago is unable to see how times and events have passed him by.

But that may be why he's called Slow Joe. He's bedazzled by his own brilliance.

"A Rare Success" in The New York Times

Perhaps it's because of cutbacks in the paper's news staff, perhaps it merely reflects a notoriously constipated worldview. However it happened, The New York Times front page characterization two weeks ago of the successful reassertion of central government authority in Basra as "a rare success" was odd.

Over the past year, successes in Iraq, while not easy, uniform or to be taken for granted, have been anything but rare. Beginning with Anbar province a year ago, a development completely missed by The Times, the rollout of security has been spectacular. A majority of Iraqi provinces are now protected by Iraqis, with American troops assisting with logistics and air support. A majority of the major cities, the same.

Violence, whether against Americans, Iraqi security forces or Iraqi civilians, is down. Terrorist attacks have been reduced by 80%. AQ is on the ropes, with thousands of it followers caught and killed on the Iraqi flypaper.
The "rare success" is most easily seen in the reporting by what was once the newspaper of record.

Catholic Mass in Baghdad with Iraq's First-ever Cardinal

Benedict XVI named 23 new cardinals two weeks ago, including Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, Iraq's first ever prince of the Roman Catholic Church.

The cardinal has returned to Baghdad and taken up his shepherd's staff to lead the faithful along the road to peace.

This morning, under tight security, Cardinal Delly presided over Mass at the Church of the Virgin Mary in mainly Shiite eastern Baghdad.

The cardinal's message was straightforward

We pray today for the sake of each other and to forgive each other, as well to be directed to do good deeds.

In an important display of Iraqi unity, the cardinal was joined in celebration after Mass by Imam Jassim al-Jazari, who added his congratulations for the cardinal.

Pax tecum.
Et cum spiritu tuo.

Marines Seek Exit, Other Challenges

It was a shock to read four weeks ago a snippet in the news that the commanding Marine in Iraq had requested that his Marines be withdrawn from the country. The MSM was then still so full of bad news that it was easy to imagine a less than positive tail to the story.

Well, a tail there is. It turns out that the Marines are looking to reduce their attention to civic improvements and city-building in order to find more terrorists to deal with in the historic Marine fashion.

In other words, Ramadi and Falujah and the rest of Anbar Province are larely settled and the Marines are looking to get back into fighting. Their request:

Send us to Afghanistan and let the Army tend to refurbishing the neighborhoods we've settled.

Imagine the difference in story treatment if The New York Times had used its 28 paragraphs and 1,340 words on October 10th to report that Iraq has become too peaceful for America's premier "kill people and break things" force. A possible headline

Their Job Done in Anbar, Marines Ask to Join Fight in Afghanistan

Iraq is almost done, victory there, though neither complete nor certain, is in sight. But it's important that we remember that Iraq has always only been a battlefield in the war. In fact, it took al-Qaeda's poorly considered decision to make a stand in Iraq to make that country truly significant in the longer perspective. As fly-paper, Iraq has attracted thousands of al-Qaeda warriors and allowed us to deal with them there with the tip of our spear, a much better alternative than what might have been.

Baghdad Muslims Re-Build a Catholic Church and Pray

Michael Yon's iconic photograph of the finishing touches of repair being made to St. John's Catholic Church in Baghdad illustrates the changes that success is bringing to the people of Iraq. The photo shows Muslims raising the Chaldean Cross to the top of the dome over the church. Yon goes on to report how Muslims filled the pews of the service, a Mass offered by the Most Reverend Shlemon Warduni, Auxiliary Bishop of St. Peter the Apostle Diocese in Iraq.

The Muslims repaired the church and attended Mass while praying for the return of the thousands of Catholics who fled over the last four years the violence in their hometown. The final few were driven out or killed by al-Qaeda.

Their Muslim neighbors pray for the return of the Catholics to further stabilize their neighborhoods, to retake possession of their homes and shops, to gather again as neighbors, in peace.

Yon's photos of Muslims installing a cross and filling every pew listening to a Catholic bishop's homily says more about the progress of the war than a thousand pages in The New York Times.

Two years ago, Yon wrote how Iraq was falling into civil war. He was right a year ahead of everyone else. Today Yon writes of peace and potential victory, not just an ill-defined "success" but outright victory. We should hope that he is right. We should work to make certain that his "potential" becomes real.

Victory is possible but not certain. The difference is us.

TIME Decapitated

The current issue of TIME magazine is on the streets with a major analysis of the situation in Iraq, "Has The Surge Reached Its Limits?" Reporter Mark Kukis spends 630 words supporting his conclusion that

"(t)he prognosis for Iraq, barring a dynamic transformation on the part of the Iraqi government very soon, is grimly apparent. As U.S. forces lessen their presence in the coming months, killings of the kind seen Monday in Diyala will persist there and most likely spread to areas calmed by the increase of U.S. forces."

Unfortunately, the news hook on which Mr. Kukis based his story and pegged his analysis is… completely and utterly false. His lead paragraph:

The horrible discovery in Diyala Province Monday was disturbing even by the standards of Iraq's running sectarian violence. Iraqi police said they found 20 decapitated bodies dumped near a police station west of Baquba, the capital of Diyala province. That same day a suicide bomber on a bicycle careened into a Baquba police station, killing 29.

His second paragraph leveraged the untruth as far as he could possibly take it

The violence was of course nothing new, especially for the Baquba area, which remains the most troubled region in Iraq outside Baghdad. But the bloodshed showed how the success of the surge of U.S. forces in Baghdad and Anbar Province nine months on has perhaps gone as far as it can toward controlling Iraq's violence.

The only problem? There were no 20 decapitated bodies dumped near a police station. There were no bodies of any sort. None. Nada. Not a one. The Iraqi police deny ever reporting otherwise. There are no bodies at hospitals or in morgues. There are no photos. There are no witnesses. There are no supporting statements from anyone.

The story was made up out of whole cloth. The question remaining open, which TIME needs to answer, hopefully more swiftly than has The New Republic with its false-story reporting by Scott Thomas Beauchamp, is who made up the story?

Was it Mr. Kukis, who is allegedly stationed in Baghdad? Or is he just an additional victim of his negligent reporting?

Are our schools of journalism now offering majors in fabulism for folks who wish to go on to major news organizations as reporters? Do they teach classes in making up news for slow days?


Who is TIME using for fact-checking these days, Mrs. Beauchamp from The New Republic?

Finally! Harry Reid Supports Our Troops, With a Little Help from Rush Limbaugh

After a year of missteps, misstatements and misspeaking, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Ritz Carlton) has finally found a way to truly and honestly help the American troops he has repeatedly voted to put in harm's way.

Earlier this year, Reid described the surge as failed, months before it began. He told us that General Petraeus was "out of touch" with what is going on in Iraq and called Petraeus and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Pace "incompetent." For frosting on his cake of snivel, he also called Petraeus a liar just 60 days after voting to confirm him, and then declared the war "lost" in April, even as his political sidekick gloated about the number of Senate seats that Democrats would win as a consequence.

Where sticks wouldn't work, Reid switched to stones, repeatedly holding up funding for the troops on the ground.

But, the winds change.

Thanks to Rush Limbaugh's auction of a letter calling for Limbaugh's head, a letter drafted and signed by Reid and then circulated for signature among 41 like minded Democratic senators, Reid will provide a major helping hand to Rush's favorite charity.

Rush was given the original letter by the recipient, the chairman of Clear Channel, the syndicator of Rush's radio show. Rush is auctioning the letter on eBay and has promised to donate 100% of the proceeds to The Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, a charity which helps provide scholarships to children of Marines who fall in the line of duty. Rush serves on its Board of Directors, along with a galaxy of other constellations of stars who support our military. Interestingly, at least a couple of those serving share the honor of denigration by Harry Reid.

This is easily Harry Reid's finest moment. Finally, real, honest support.

I expect the auction to go well into six figures before it closes.

Good going, Rush! Who tends to do well while doing good.

Chuck Schumer Addresses Troops in Anbar: You Failed

Scroll Down for Update

Chuck Schumer, senior Senator from New York and self-described member of the Democratic leadership team in the Senate, really knows how to make friends and influence people.

This morning, in a speech on the Senate floor, he explicitly told the U. S. Marines in Anbar province that they've failed and are a part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight al-Qaeda ourselves."

It wasn't that the surge brought peace here, it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here and that was because there was no one else there protecting. (Emphasis in original.)

Wow. I wonder if he'd dare say that while facing the Marines?

For the video
H/T Don Surber

RELATED LINKS: What a Greeting He Got on the Sands of Anbar!
Ramadi's Transformation is "Breathtaking" But Senator Reid Sees Only "Failure"
Can The Democrats Win Without America Losing?
"Progress in Anbar"—No! It Can't Be. Not The NY Times!

LINKS: Duane Peterson over at Townhall has picked up the ball with The Bizarro View of Iraq By Chuck Schumer
With Hugh Hewitt on board with Senator Schumer's Slander on the Military, can Senator Schumer's denouement be far off? Perhaps we can all join together a buy the Senator a ticket to Ramadi, so he can carry his argument himself?
Welcome to readers of Conservative Grapevine, please feel free to look around for other items of interest. Click here to go to the top of the Canticle.

UPDATE & BUMP: Today Senator Schumer used the magic eraser to modify his comments of last week.

According to Senator Schumer's website, what he really meant to say said was

And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.

The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.

Once again, what to believe? Democratic leadership, or our own lying eyes and ears?

They say that the most dangerous place in Washington, DC, which is a very dangerous place, is when you're standing between Chuck Schumer and a camera. In this case, Schumer's mouth got there ahead of his brain and now he's trying to get out of a very sticky wicket.

What a Greeting He Got on the "Sands of Anbar"!

The respect and enthusiasm shown President Bush during his visit to the troops in Anbar was unmistakable and stirring.

How would those who "care" more for our troops fare with the same audience? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Hillary Clinton?

Which of them would generate the enthusiasm amongst the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that President Bush reveled in this morning?

Those who seemingly "care" so much more often treat America's fighting men and women as ill-informed children, victims of their country.

UPDATE: Two days ago I wrote of conquest in Anbar. This morning, Fred Kaplan, a leading thinker and writer, described President Bush's visit to Anbar as "The Gettysburg of this war." Kaplan writes of Anbar as a victory.

A victory.

I agree. For a thoughtful refutation in advance of what we will hear on the media tonight and from the surrender America first leftists later, read Kaplan.


As to how leftists treat our military as victims of their own country, well, they treat most of us the same way.

RELATED LINKS: Ramadi's Transformation is "Breathtaking" but Senator Reid Sees Only "Failure"

Ramadi’s Transformation is "Breathtaking" but Senator Reid Sees Only "Failure"

There comes a time in politics, as in war, when the momentum shifts noticeably. When events reach "a tipping point."

The discussion amongst politicians in Washington and media figures in New York about the Iraqi battlefield in the War Against Islamofacism has reached such a point. Again.

When news reports from the battlefield describe battlefield transformations as breathtaking– particularly reports in journals that more typically blame America first–the effect on members of the chattering classes is similar to a light suddenly illuminating cockroaches infesting a long-dark storage room. The confusion is surpassed only by the sounds of the scampering.

The Times of London, not known for its support of any recent American initiative and certainly not counted as a cheerleader for Western efforts in Iraq, this week published a breathlessly positive report on progress in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province.

Shortly before I arrived last November masked al-Qaeda fighters had brazenly marched through the city centre, pronouncing it the capital of a new Islamic caliphate. The US military was still having to fight its way into the city through a gauntlet of snipers, rocket-propelled grenades, suicide car bombs and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Fifty US soldiers had been killed in the previous five months alone. I spent 24 hours huddled inside Eagles Nest, a tiny COP overlooking the derelict football stadium, listening to gunfire, explosions and the thump of mortars. The city was a ruin, with no water, electricity or functioning government. Those of its 400,000 terrified inhabitants who had not fled cowered indoors as fighting raged around them.

Lost in most of our news accounts, al Qaeda has now lost two capital cities of its caliphate in Iraq, Ramadi and Baqubah.

Today Ramadi is scarcely recognisable. Scores of shattered buildings testify to the fury of past battles, but those who fled the violence are now returning. Pedestrians, cars and motorbike rickshaws throng the streets. More than 700 shops and businesses have reopened. Restaurants stay open late into the evening. People sit outside smoking hookahs, listening to music, wearing shorts – practices that al-Qaeda banned. Women walk around with uncovered faces. Children wave at US Humvees. Eagles’ Nest, a heavily fortified warren of commandeered houses, is abandoned and the stadium hosts football matches.

“Al-Qaeda is gone. Everybody is happy,” said Mohammed Ramadan, 38, a stallholder in the souk who witnessed four executions. “It was fear, pure fear. Nobody wanted to help them but you had to do what they told you.”

Ramadi is a city with a population before the war of 400,000. It is the capital of Anbar Province, an area that represents more than a quarter of Iraq's territory and which contains many of the infiltration routes from Syria.

The conquest of al Qaeda in Anbar, and make no mistake about it, conquest is the proper term, is consequential for all of Iraq.

It provides an example of success, a showplace, certainly for the daytrippers from DC and New York, but more importantly for the citizens of Karbala, Nasyriah, Mosul, Tirkut and Baghdad. Iraqis can now see what post-Saddam, post al Qaeda peace looks like.

While philosophers teach that we learn more from our failures than our successes, it helps to have proof that the counter insurgency theories work and that they are affordable in terms of resources. While every death is memorable, every casualty a cost and every dollar an expense, victory in Anbar was less costly than was the previous status quo.

Removing al Qaeda from its capital and base of operations increases its costs of operations in terms of risk and resources while reducing its effectiveness. While its impossible to precisely identify by how much, it unarguably tips the odds against the enemy. Do it two or three or a dozen times, they lose, we win.

Solidification of the victory in Anbar will is allowing American commanders to focus resources and attention on other trouble spots, leveraging their effectiveness. Again, if General Petraeus can do it a couple of times–and it looks like he may be succeeding in Baqubah and Diyala Province–the momentum and leverage shift geometrically and victory becomes possible, likely, probable, then certain. The process feeds on itself and accelerates with each success. Where today, victory is happening in 25% of the territory, tomorrow 40% in do-able. If we can get that far, we can go the distance.

All this begins to explain the growing confusion and discord among those most strongly opposed to the Bush Administration's approach to war.

What if the perception of possible success strengthens or grows?

In April, The New York Times shocked its readers with a report headlined, Progress in Anbar.

RAMADI, Iraq — Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat. (Emphasis added.)

The Los Angeles Times eventually acknowledged the changes on the ground, that progress was being achieved "slowly and subtly," but added about the positive news it was reporting

It is not a message many politicians in Washington want to hear.

Wow. Crude and blunt, the sort of comment heard in group therapy. That was an observation both true and distressing, an American newspaper reporting that American politicians were troubled by news of American troops succeeding.

The floodgates of change opened with the publication of a lengthy and positive 1,361 word editorial page report in The New York Times by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack describing the progress they had seen on a recent visit to Iraq.

Intrigued, The NYT then commissioned a survey on public attitudes towards the war. The paper was so surprised by the results–showing an increase in support–that it ordered a do-over.

Even the Associated Press joined the parade, reporting

The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working.

The first tangible shift came in an interview by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) on his return from a fifth visit to Iraq. While Baird voted against the war authorization, he is now convinced that American troops deserve enough time and enough support to succeed. Baird's comments sent shockwaves through the liberal firmament.

Other Democrats have since joined into a small chorus that lists among its members Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Assistant Majority Leader and Hillary (It's working) Clinton (D-NY), who added, "We have to win."

Contrast that with the discordant words and actions of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Ritz Carlton), stuck between the irrerestible force of changing public opinion and the immovable MoveOn.org wing that now controls his party.

While Reid has just recently surrendered his position requiring an immediate surrender by American forces, he is apparently unable to adjust to recognize reality. As recently as August 31 he continued to call Iraq a failed strategy.

Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (another success denier) have scheduled a series of hearings during the first half of September in order for their respective legislative bodies to hear from, among others, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

The last time General Petraeus was in DC, the Congressional leadership was "too busy" to meet with him.

RELATED LINKS: Katie to Iraq! CBS Looking for a Long-Term Deal
Liberal Media: Dropping Like Flies
Senator Harry Reid: Expert on Iraq?
Can the Democrats Win Without America Losing?
Harry Reid to Troops: You've Lost the Damn War
"Progress in Anbar"– No! It Can't Be. Not the NY Times!

Katie to Iraq! CBS Looking for a Long-Term Deal?

In a search for ratings, CBS has announced that Katie Couric will travel to Iraq in September.

I wonder if it has occurred to Ms. Couric that she may be worth far more to CBS if her trip is, hmm, troubled? After all, with a successful conclusion to her travels the ratings will only sink again. On the other hand, should she become a "guest" of one of the fighting factions that unfortunate circumstance would could be milked for months.

Katie needs to ask herself if the suits at CBS ever saw the 1986 film Ruthless People with Danny DeVito and Bette Midler, where the husband has no interest in the return of his kidnapped wife as life is sweeter without her.
Dan Rather used to know some pretty unscrupulous folks over there. Perhaps he'd make the call?

Liberal Media: Dropping Like Flies

Can the Second Coming be far distant? Given the glimpses of truth beginning to filter through the pages of darkness typically published by the Main Stream Media, one wonders.

First, in April, The New York Times surprised all several hundred of its remaining readers with a major news story reporting the developing sense of peace spreading across the battlefield that was Anbar province.

Anbar, for nearly three years it was regarded as the most hopeless space and people in all Iraq. It was hopeless. A year after putting into effect the strategies developed by General David Petraeus, Anbar knows evenings, days and weeks without gunfire. Sunni and Shia cooperate in keeping the peace. The American footprint in the province is shrinking while that of Iraqi forces grows.

Anbar is news but its not the biggest news.

The biggest news is that the story appeared in The New York Times.

Then it was the Los Angeles Times, reporting American progress in Iraq being achieved "slowly and subtly," but also acknowledging—in a news story!—that "it is not a message many politicians in Washington want to hear."

A few days later, The New York Times opened its editorial pages to two liberals of impeccable credentials, allowing Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack to deliver an intellectual improvised explosive device, the explosion of which has done substantial damage to the politicians and pundits who can neither see nor hear the progress being gained on the field of battle in Iraq. Their 1,361 words resonate across the rhetorical battlefield in Washington, adding to a "fog of battle" on the left, further confusing the confused.

In late July The New York Times sponsored a routine national survey designed to measure public support of American efforts in Iraq. The newspaper was so surprised by the results—it showed an increase in public support—that it insisted on a do-over. The retake produced the same results, later confirmed by a survey in USA Today. American voters are more optimistic about Iraq than they were a few months ago.

Even the Associated Press has joined the parade, as it allowed veteran reporter Robert Burns to write "The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working."

Even a little good news is enough to potentially tilt the political table. It is only once absolute certainty is lost can real discussion begin. That certainty is slipping and the resulting vertigo is very disconcerting to those who were once so sure.

That must frighten the heck out of those who are so heavily invested in an American failure.

Related Links: "Progress in Anbar" — No! It Can't Be. Not The NYT!

Senator Harry Reid: Expert on Iraq?

Senator Harry Reid (D-Ritz Carlton), who described the Iraqi surge as "failed" before it started, who said that General Petraeus is "out of touch" with the realities in Iraq, who called Petraeus and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace "incompetent," declared the military mission in Iraq "completed" months ago, and who, within 60 days of voting to confirm Gen. Petraeus told CNN that he doesn't believe what Petraeus says, has an Iraq issue of his own.

According to the Majority Leader's office, Senator Reid has traveled to Iraq exactly once in the past four years. This puts him squarely in the middle of the senators least interested in and least informed about the area.

This is the same Majority Leader who recently took 107 days to pass a funding bill for our troops on the ground. He is the same man who, in a fit after his defeat on the immigration bill, withdrew the current military funding bill from consideration, leaving a vacuum where funding should be.

Of course, with what Senator Reid been saying about American troops, Iraq may be a particularly dangerous place for him to visit. After all, his friends seem to be losing.

Can the Democrats Win Without America Losing?

Senator Harry Reid (D-Ritz Carlton) has withdrawn from consideration the Senate bill that would raise pay for the military and pay for supplies needed to continue fighting in Iraq, including specialized armored vehicles designed to withstand IEDs.

With time pressing, there can be only one excuse for such a blatant lack of support for American troops: politics.

It is fashionable amongst liberals to deflect criticism by decrying disagreements as attacks on their patriotism, such as Ms. Clinton did recently when the Pentagon pointed out the damage that some of her remarks may cause. Perhaps conservatives should more often cut to the chase and agree:

"Yes, I question your patriotism. I question whether you're putting your own political gain before the country's interests or even the lives of our troops."

There is no question in my mind where American fighting forces stand in the priorities of politicians such as Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton. Chuck Schumer once remarked on how many seats in the Senate his party can win based on the war in Iraq.

Question to Schumer: Senator, how many seats do you win if America wins, or are all your dreams of political gains based on an American loss?

American troops rate just a little lower with the current liberal leadership than they did and do with John Kerry.

Petraeus to Reid: "Can You Hear Me Now?"

The mantra for three years was "Listen to the generals!" or the more negative, "Bush doesn't listen the the generals."

Well, it turns out that President Bush was listening to the generals, too much so and for too long. The same generals who provided the tremendous leadership that so brilliantly won the march to Baghdad in record time and far fewer casualties than anyone thought possible were not the right generals to prevail in the post-march environment.

Bush listened and followed their guidance, and Iraq decayed and the armchair warriors amongst the Democratic leadership in D.C. complained. Bush was micro-managing the war and Vice President Cheney was managing Bush.

Came time that President Bush changed out the team, a change supported nearly unanimously by the Senate just five months ago, to bring in the widely-acknowledged expert, General David Petraeus, to lead the fight.

We no longer hear, "Listen to the generals." For Senator Reid, presidential candidates Obama and Clinton, and other defenders of the American way, we hear that America's military are victims, not heroes, and not credible witnesses to the history they are making.

To a politician there is nothing that is not political. Nothing.

Words Can Kill

It was just a week ago that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made headlines with her demand that the Pentagon confirm that it is making plans for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

You may recall that the response from Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman was direct:

Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies.

Which response Ms. Clinton derided as "outrageous and offensive."

Perhaps Edelman should have pointed out that Senator Clinton's political posturing will cost lives, both American and Iraqi. According to a report by Ed Morrissey, the American commander tasked with bringing peace to Ninevah province has confirmed that

the highly-publicized demands to retreat from Iraq have damaged his command's ability to get good intel from the local populace. It has left them distrustful of the Americans, and fearful of a takeover by the terrorists in the wake of our departure.

Col. Stephen Twitty's answer, when he was asked whether political words in D.C. have damaged his capacity to work with local Iraqis in order to get intelligence on the enemy, was "Absolutely."

The loss is significant.

But, hey, political posturing is important, too.

Dick Morris' Advice to Bush: Sacrifice a Country to Save GOP

You have to admire former Clinton strategist Dick Morris. He says what he's thinking even when he is not.

In his recent column in The Hill, Morris notes the widening nostrils and increased twitchiness amongst the Republican bull elephants in the Senate as they prepare to stampede in fear from the war in Iraq. He advises President Bush to get ahead of the stampede by announcing a withdrawal of American forces from the battlefield.

By Morris' count, up to 11 Republican senators are about to bolt:

The Republican senators are coming to realize that Bush needs to begin to pull out to save his party, even if it puts Iraq at risk.

Well, that's clear enough. Given the choice between 35 million lives at immediate risk of death and dismemberment by the folks who behead children in front of their parents, the folks who rely on terror in order to win friends and influence people, the folks who are sworn to come here to our homes at the first opportunity in order to kill Dick Morris, along with millions of other Americans; given that choice or the opportunity to save his party, Morris says that Bush should save his party.

Wow.

To Morris, politics is everything. Even more than life itself.

Harry Reid's Surge on Immigration Has Failed; He Should Admit Defeat and Withdraw

Now that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Ritz Carlton) has failed in his bid to surge the immigration amnesty bill through the U. S. Senate, he should consider applying the same rules to himself that he so vocally applies to our efforts in Iraq.

Senator Reid should admit defeat, point to his leadership as lacking, and call for his own immediate withdrawal

Instead he'll blame the other guy and declare himself a victim. That's what he does.

UPDATE: "We've only been at it for six months." -- Reid

H/T to Krempasky at RedState for the graphic

"Our Guys Want to Kill Them, And That's the Plan"

In the very first battle of the much-heralded surge, Operation Arrowhead Ripper, Michael Yon is one of two journalists actually reporting from the battle started by 10,000 American troops against an al-Qaeda stronghold northeast of Baghdad.

The enemy in Baqubah is as good as any in Iraq, and better than most. That’s saying a lot. But our guys have been systematically trapping them, and have foiled some big traps set for our guys. I don’t want to say much more about that, but our guys are seriously outsmarting them. Big fights are ahead and we will take serious losses probably, but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered. Nobody is dropping leaflets asking them to surrender. Our guys want to kill them, and that’s the plan.

Yon, an independent, is among the best reporters in Iraq and unarguably the finest writer resident. He's made a practice of embedding with the troops in action rather than remoting from the Green Zone, the habit of most of the "on-site" reporters. He was the first to report, more than a year ago, that Iraq had devolved into civil war because of the vacuum our lapses in judgment had created. He was among the first to identify Gen. Petraeus as a man with solutions. He was first to identify success in Anbar province earlier this year, success even The New York Times eventually recognized.

In the short time since Petraeus took charge here, Anbar Province—“Anbar the Impossible”—seems to have made a remarkable turnaround. I just spent about a month out there and saw no combat. I have never gone that long in Iraq without seeing combat. Clearly, some areas of Anbar remain dangerous—there is fighting in Fallujah today—but there is also something in Anbar today that hasn’t been seen in recent memory: possibilities.

Now he reports

The doctor (Petraeus) has made a decision: Al Qaeda must be excised. That means a large-scale attack, and what appears to be the most widespread combat operations since the end of the ground war are now unfolding.

***

Few ears have heard even rumors of this battle, and fewer still are the eyes that will see its full scope. Even now—the battle has already begun for some—practically no news about it is flowing home. I’ve known of the secret plans for about a month, but have remained silent.

This campaign is actually a series of carefully orchestrated battalion- and brigade-sized battles. Collectively, it is probably the largest battle since “major hostilities” ended more than four years ago. Even the media here on the ground do not seem to have sensed its scale.

***

The idea this time is not to chase al-Qaeda out, but to trap and kill them head-on, or in ambushes, or while they sleep. It will be horrible for al-Qaeda. Horror and terrorism is what they say, and tonight they will reap their harvest. They will get no rest.

This is the end of whack-a-mole warfare.

"Our guys want to kill them, and that's the plan."