No Neutrality

All You Need To Know

 This is it in a nutshell:

WASHINGTON - It's a Senate showdown that could pit the three presidential candidates against each other in a fight for dominance.

Sens. John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are all pushing for the perfect sound bite; for that singular moment that will define their campaigns' stance on the Iraq war.

And it happens on Tuesday. That's when General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will report to Congress in two Senate hearings. They’ll give progress reports on the war and offer strategy going forward.

Does it strike you as the least bit odd or uncouth that the link to this article on the main MSN web site is "Candidates set to grill Petraeus on Iraq"? Call me crazy, but my understanding was that the good general was to give a report on the status of the war effort in Iraq, particularly since the "surge" has been implemented. Since when are war time military leaders "grilled" for their testimony, much less by presidential candidates? Is the assumption now that the general is a liar and must be cross-examined like a slippery witness on the stand?

It's nothing but pure madness to use the testimony of a man engaged in trying to fight a war as theater for your presidential campaign.

Things have come to a pretty pass indeed.

It Ain't Over Until...

My friend Jeff and I have been saying this for some time. Major Schroeder says it today:

Remember when all the Democrats, almost to a man (exempting Senator Joseph Liebermann), joined by many prominent members of the GOP, declared that we had lost and in essence quit.  If it were not for the steadfastness of our President, and his faith, almost alone, in our military's (American and Iraqi) ability to effectively adapt to fight as the counter-insurgent in this war, we would have lost this war in September with Senator Reid's declaration of defeat.

To be sure, the "Surge", or more correctly, the change in tactics that General Petraeus bought to Iraq this year, has worked, and handed the IF a severe blow. But the IF are only licking their wounds and planning their next decisive move. 

It us up to the Coalition to keep the pressure on the IF and destroy all of their sanctuaries in Iraq.  This is exactly what they are doing.  It is incumbent on the American People that we don't fool ourselves, as we did in 2003, with another Mission Accomplished moment.

American Thinker: Don't Count Your Victories Before They're Won

Break One Law To Uphold Another

OK, help me out here: the boy is an illegal immigrant, meaning he's not here lawfully (if I understand the story right) and yet he's being encouraged to come back and "cut a deal" that would allow him to break the law with no consequences so they can go after the teacher? Why aren't both the boy and his family AND the teacher prosecuted?

The boy remains in Mexico because of his immigration status but might be able to return to Nebraska, at least temporarily, if he is granted a “U” visa. The visas are used to encourage illegal immigrants to report crimes against them.

“To prove their case, they have to have him come back here,” Davis said. “They’re going to have to cut him some deal to have him testify. In exchange for the promise of bringing him into the country, he may be anxious to please them and do what they say.”

MSNBC

A Bona Fide Traitor

And this is one of the key Democrats that Senator Lindsey Graham says that the GOP can work with to get things done?? 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.

I confess, we're all sinners, and I am the chief of sinners, but as a national leader, Harry Reid is disgrace. He's a coward and a fool. He voted to confirm Gen. Petraeus (whom he also calls a "incompetent" in the same article) and yet when things are perfect in mere weeks, he calls him incompetent behind his back.

Of course, you won't see this prominently featured by any of the mainstream media...

H/T - The Corner on National Review Online

NATO, U.S. neglect "psychological warfare": report - Yahoo! News

 You don't say? And I wonder if the mainstream media realizes that it just very may be complicit in that warfare? Not like we haven't been told.

Technorati tags: warfare, psychological, propaganda, asymmetric

Do It, Then

 If you are so sure of your position, Senator Specter, then stop huffing and puffing and cut the funding already.

The Warrior Journalist Speaks

You don't say! Why, she knows even more than the Gen. Abizaid about what's happening on the ground: 

"So, aren't we already at a war with Iran through its proxies in Iraq?" Logan asks.

"No. We're not at war with Iran through its proxies. We are in a period of making it clear to the Iranians that they need to move to help stabilize Iraq and not destabilize it," Abizaid says.

"Everything I see on the ground in Iraq ... they don't care what we're making clear. They're consolidating their power and their hold on Iraq. In fact, American commanders in Baghdad say more American soldiers are being killed in Baghdad by Shiite militias backed by Iran than by Sunni insurgents today," Logan says.

"Well, that's not true," the general replies. "The majority of the casualties still come from the Sunni side." [emph. mine]

Wonder where she got her intel from because we need to tap into HER sources, apparently. Forget the 30+ year professional military officer and his direct reports--reporter Logan has the real skinny for us on Iraq, yes, Sir!

 

"We hear very little about the victory in Iraq these days. We hear a lot about how to manage the defeat. And a lot of…," Logan says.

"What defeat?" the general asks.

"How we minimize…," she continues.

"That's your word," Abizaid states.

"…defeat," Logan says.

"You talk to our commanders in the field – they don't believe that they've been defeated. Defeat is your word, not my word. Can Iraq stabilize? Yes, Iraq could stabilize," Abizaid says.

"Is that victory now? Is that what victory will look like in Iraq, just stability, that's what we're aiming for?" Logan asks.

"Victory in Iraq is the nation at peace with its neighbors. And Iraq hasn't been at peace with its neighbors in a long time. It is a country that respects the rights of its citizens," Abizaid explains. "It's a country that can defend itself. It's a country that's not a save haven for terrorists. Exactly what form of government they choose to develop I think would be a uniquely Iraqi solution to the problem. But the fact that they will come to a solution where they've gotta take into account the rights and desires not only of ethnic groups of individual, rights and desires, is actually a revolutionary change in the Middle East."

"Increasingly in this country, people are talking about how to manage defeat in Iraq. There's a loss of support for the war very clearly shown at the present. Not a loss of support for the military or for the soldiers," Logan says.

"Again, let me say I don't think people in the country are trying to figure out how to manage defeat in Iraq. I think people in the country are trying to figure out how to manage our involvement in Iraq so that Iraq can stabilize. You just can't walk away from these problems of the Middle East and hope that things are gonna get better," Abizaid says. "Look, many people have said we're already at the beginning of World War III."

Asked if we are, Abizaid says, "No. We're not. And our involvement in the region will prevent it."

And there you have it, folks! "We support the troops and all, except when we start screaming, 'Game over, Man!' and 'We've lost!!!' to each and every insurgent we get to read our papers. And even that we do OVER the express opinion of the guys ACTUALLY on the ground!"

What a complete and UTTER tool. It's not just idiocy; it's deadly, brazen idiocy made-to-order for the enemy:

 

Defeat the United States at Home

Another enemy strategy involves bringing about a political defeat by inflicting high allied casualties. NASTIs might seek to maximize US and allied casualties in a short time to influence US and allied public opinion to oppose the war effort. This strategy is as old as the Vietnam War, which was lost in the US rather than on the fields of battle in Indochina. The future loss of thousands of troops in a few hours as a result of one or more enemy WMD strikes could force the US and some of its coalition partners to retire from the field, driven away by domestic political opposition and fierce internal criticism of the mounting death toll.

Hmm...sound familiar?

 

HT Power Line Blog

"The Truth We Achieve"

Fascinating commentary by two Israeli Reserve soldiers, Ari Abramowitz and Jeremy Gimpel: 

Israelis have been forced to question some fundamental tenets on which the State of Israel was founded as well as assumptions and beliefs implanted in elementary school. At this very moment, there is a Torah study session going on just a few feet to my left between a secular Israeli named Rafi with a large tattoo of Gandolph (the wizard from The Lord of the Rings) on his arm, and a religious Jew named Eran with a full beard covering his face and large knitted kippah on his head. While the UN, the EU, and a growing voice in international community is questioning Israel's right to exist, Rafi is opening his heart to the true legitimacy to our claim.
Rafi is learning that our right to Tel-Aviv is no more legitimate than our right to Gaza or Hebron and is based on the promise of G-d to Abraham. He is learning about our enemy, Ishmael, who is a "beastly man; his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him" who is jealous of the birthright granted to our forefather Isaac, with whom G-d granted an "everlasting covenant with him and his offspring after him". Most importantly, he is learning that there is a G-d in the world, we are his chosen people, and that he is waiting for us to return to him and guard his commandments.
As we look at Rafi and see him beginning to understand, we too understand as well. Before the Jewish people can completely fulfill our task of being a "Light unto the Nations", we must first be a light unto ourselves. We can not extend a hand of friendship to the Christian world unless our other hand is firmly clasped by our Jewish brethren. G-d is bringing our enemies against us in order to turn us towards each other and to him. Whether or not we can understand it, the trials and tribulations we are facing in Israel are for our own good. Sometimes shedding falsehoods and illusions is cathartic, but the pain is a small price to pay for the truth we achieve.

Source: israelinsider: Views: The bottom line from the front lines

Oh, That's All We Had To Do?

 Just pressure the prime minister? That's all we had to do? Just tell him to get on the stick and "stop the violence," "just say 'No!'," etc., etc! So saith the AP today.  I had no idea the real crux of the problem in the upsurge in violence was a recalcitrant and slacking primer minister.

WASHINGTON —  Republicans and Democrats urged the White House on Sunday to step up the pressure on Iraq's prime minister to crush the militias that are inciting sectarian violence and undermining a fragile democracy.

By the by, if you're looking for the "Republicans" who are urging stepped up pressure on the Iraq prime minister, you'll look in vain. Here's senator John Warner's quote:

Sen. John Warner, the committee chairman, said setting a withdrawal timetable would be disastrous because it could leave a security vacuum that terrorists would fill. But Warner, R-Va., has said a change in course may be necessary if the security situation does not improve soon.

"I think we have no other course but to give him our confidence and our support," Warner said.

Warner also expressed concern that even al-Maliki's recent talks with sectarian leaders had not lead to a cessation of hostilities. He said al-Maliki must give more authority to the Iraqi army. "It is their job, not the U.S. coalition forces' to subdue and get rid of these private militias," he said.

And then here's senator Lugar:

The committee chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said pressuring al-Maliki may not work because he does not have much clout. "We keep saying, `Go to your Shiites and get them straightened out, or the Sunnis, or divide the oil. And al-Maliki is saying, `There isn't any group here that wants to talk about those things,"' Lugar said.

Still Lugar said of the Iraqi prime minister, "I think he's probably the best horse to ride on in the situation."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any request for pressuring from the 2 Republican senators, do you? Contrast that with the very real advocacy for pressuring Maliki by senator Kerry:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the president should take a harder line in dealing with Iraqi leaders: "I think you have to be more blunt. I think you have to say, no young American is going to die and give their life or limb for Iraqi politicians who refuse to compromise. They have to want democracy for themselves as much as we want it for them."

But the title of the article leads one to believe that the senators are speaking with one voice. No media bias here, folks!

Riiiight.

Achieving Real Victory

Daniel Pipes is something of a subscriber to what Rush Limbaugh calls "The Limbaugh Doctrine"--the idea that you can only achieve "peace" or "victory" in war after you have completely and utterly defeated your enemy: 

Bernard Lewis spoke those memorable words to sum up the necessary goal of U.S. policy at a Hudson Institute conference two days ago. More fully, to quote a New York Sun news report, he said "the only real solution to defeating radical Islam is to bring freedom to the Middle East. Either ‘we free them or they destroy us'."

I have the highest regard for Bernard Lewis, a great Middle East historian from whom I have been learning since I entered the field in 1969. (The very first book I read in Middle East history, not surprisingly, was his Arabs in History.) But I disagree that our goal is to free the Muslim world...[my emphasis] 

But I think the further point that he makes regarding what "complete victory" entails is absolutely indispensable to the argument about how to win the war on terror: It's not just a disarmed opponent with a "democratic government" thrown on top that we should be after; it is also the defeat of the ideology in the minds of those fighting us that we must seek in order to achieve true "victory." Otherwise, as Dr. Pipes points out, "freedom" just becomes an opportunity for the jihadist to prepare for future war. In this sense, I think the Left is somewhat correct when they say that we can't "impose" freedom.

Dr. Pipes adduces 2 very sound reasons for his position:

• There are plenty of born-free Muslims in the West who are Islamists. Take, for example, the four 7/7 bombers in London. Freedom did nothing for them.

• The goal in war has to be to defeat one's enemies, not liberate them. The invasion of Iraq, dubbed "Operation Iraqi Freedom," suffered from this mistake. The same applies to the war on radical Islam, where we must cause our enemies to feel a sense of defeat. We must crush their will. After that bitter phase has been experienced, they are then eligible for freedom.

So not only should we pursue a complete and utter military defeat of the enemy; we need to also press for an ideological victory in the mind and heart of the enemy.

For the Christian, that can only mean that in addition to the necessary physical war we're engaged in, we should at the same time ask God to cause the Gospel to be victorious in the hearts of those who hate us. That alone is true "peace."