Sunday, March 11, 2007
Robert Kagan says that the surge is succeeding, but that the press isn't paying attention:
A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does.
Of course, the reporters and editors in the mainstream media -- however many or few they may be -- who desperately want a Democratic victory in 2008 have a huge interest in burying the story. Indeed, the importance of avoiding good news has only grown as leading Democrats have ratcheted up their demand that the Bush administration "end" the war by retreating before the 2008 general election campaign. After all, Democratic candidates are terrified of having to explain what they would do about Iraq to their wildly disparate constituencies.
The Democrats are simply being politicians rather than leaders.
Right now we're in the silly season of primaries. So the Democrat politicians will run to the left hoping that the center will still be there for them in the general election.
The Democrats also face a problem with a well funded and well focused anti victory wing that will make life miserable for anybody who stands between them and defeat for America. Placating Cindy Sheehan is a true challenge for the Democrats so I suspect we'll see a host of pointless resolutions and unhelpful bills. But they used a scorched earth policy while they were in the minority and now must confront the fact that maccaca for the goose is maccaca for the gander.
Powerful quote from the article: "The first impact of the "surge," they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic."
That would mean that the American and European media talking down the war was, uh, making it go on longer, endangering American lives, and forfeiting Iraq's future, for the sole purpose of preserving the media worldview. Gee, that would be indefensible to aid the enemy like that. Rather than face that, it might be better to pretend that there is no hope, and that they are the brave ones, standing up to Bush with the bad news.
Unlikely that any of our media would stoop so low, I know, but theoretically it could happen...
Why do you wingnuts insist on listening to these neocons who have been wrong on just about everything when it comes to Iraq? And don't forget, Mr.Kagan's brother Frederick is the architect of this surge! Time to lay off the crack pipe.
For those who care to see, this is one of the unheralded successes of the US in Iraq. It is, in fact, a HUGE success.
Millions of Shia (3 – 7) met in Karbala. Thousands were NOT killed by Sunni terrorists.
You asked for proof?
The Arabs, especially Iraqis, have had very kind things to say about this project. On Al Jazeera last week one of the anchors criticized the whole operation in a discussion with an Iraqi academic, and pointedly called it an American adventure. The academic got fairly perturbed and was very specifically pointing out that 1) it was an Iraqi project in origin, and 2) it was working, with some numbers to back it up. (X weapons caches found, Y armed men arrested or killed, Z formerly closed streets opende up, a certain percentage of decline in attacks against both civilians and defense personnel, et cetera)
Aside, I've learned that I prefer Al Jazeera to CNN. The same day, CNN spent 50 minutes out of the 60 for my lunch break covering Anna Nicole Smith, a tornado, and some other worthless piece of trivia, whereas Al Jazeera talked about, well, news. Things that mattered. Like a new Iraqi law passed by their parliament to invigorate their oil industry in order to reach a 3 million barrel/day output by the end of the year.