We have often maintained here that the Democratic party is so heavily invested in Iraq failing that they left themselves no "plan B" if Iraq starts to succeed.
No way out of the hole they have dug for themselves by insisting that Iraq cannot be successful.
The political reality for the Democrats is that if the latest successes continue, they have lost 2008, they have lost what little credibility they ever had and they will lose the American public's perception that the all is lost.
I also have said before that betting against our military is never a smart move and betting against America is even less intelligent.
Yet that is what they have done and continue to do.
The First article that I ran across today, via memeorandum, is from the TCS Daily where the writer lists 3 inconvenient truths about Iraq.
First, one of the principal purposes of the surge is to persuade the Iraqi population that we are going to stay in their neighborhoods until the Iraqi army and police can take over and bring an end to violence. Only when they have confidence that we will not abandon them to the terrorists will Iraqis come forward—as they now appear to be doing—with information about who among them are the terrorists, militia members and other killers, and where they can be found.
Accordingly, efforts to force the withdrawal of our troops at a time certain undermine this policy and the work and bravery of our soldiers. They cause Iraqis to doubt our promises of long term support, and weaken their incentive to assist us with intelligence. Timetables, then, and pressing for a quick withdrawal, become a self-fulfilling prophesy. In other words, if the surge fails, President Bush will not be the only politician who takes the blame.
Second, although Senator Reid and other war opponents can glibly claim that there is no hope that an independent Iraq can survive, there is one group that is truly expert on that question, and they clearly don't believe it. That group consists of the Iraqis who are now in the Iraqi government—from Prime Minister al-Maliki on down—who risk their lives and the lives of their families every day that they serve. They are Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and all of them are targets of the insurgency and the terrorists of al Qaeda. What motive could these dedicated Iraqis possibly have to place themselves in such a position unless they believe that they can keep the country together and in the end produce a peaceful and unified state?
When we hear war opponents expound on the fact that the enmity between Shiites and Sunnis goes back a thousand years, and that it can't possibly be resolved by the United States in any reasonable period of time, we should think of the Sunnis and Shiites in the Iraqi government today, and whether they think this is a persuasive argument. If they did, they would have been gone long ago—now in Iran or Syria—trying to start their new lives. But they're not—they're in Baghdad—a completely irrational act unless they believe that this historic religious rivalry can be controlled and subdued. It is a wildly arrogant idea that we can tell them that their history cannot be overcome.
Finally, if—as seems apparent now—the surge is succeeding, opponents of the war are going to be hard-pressed to make the case for abandoning Iraq, even if there is no Shi'ite-Sunni political settlement in sight. The inconvenient truth here is that, apart from the irreconcilable Left, the American people's support for withdrawal has been based on an assessment that we were losing the war. If that no longer seems true, support for withdrawal will melt away. The Democratic leaders know this; that's why they made a concerted effort last week to get a vote on withdrawal in July. September, which will likely see a favorable report by General Petraeus, will be too late. Claims that the inability of the Iraqis to reach a political settlement is a reason for us to leave will ring a bit hollow in the face of a possible military success. After all, the American people have noticed that our Congress, unthreatened by anything more serious than an upcoming election, couldn't pass an immigration bill, can't eliminate earmarks or adopt ethics rules, and can't agree on energy legislation when gasoline is $3.50 a gallon. Politicians, they know, will be politicians, but that doesn't mean we should hand our enemies a victory instead of a defeat.
Read it all....
Then head over and read The Heritage Foundation's answers to frequently asked questions about Iraq.
A couple of those questions we are seeing touted by our Democratic politicians in complete intellectual dishonesty.
For example:
Question: After successfully capturing Saddam Hussein, shouldn't the U.S. focus on getting bin Laden, rather than trying to force democracy on a society that doesn't want it?
Answer: The war in Iraq is a different type of struggle than the hunt for bin Laden. It requires different resources and a different strategy. Both can be conducted simultaneously—it is not an either-or proposition. The U.S. has been focused on capturing or killing Osama bin Laden since 9/11. That has not changed. Some opponents of the war in Iraq argue that focusing on Iraq diverted attention from the hunt for bin Laden. But bin Laden had already gone underground, hunkering down on the Afghan–Pakistan border 18 months before the Iraq war. There is no reason to believe that bin Laden would have been caught if there had been no war in Iraq. It is also wrong to conclude that Iraqis oppose democracy. Most Iraqis want democracy, and increasing numbers have voted in each new round of elections. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq before it has a stable government capable of defending itself, the likes of bin Laden will have a safe haven from which to attack the U.S. again.
Read the rest of that one also. The more we know about the complexities of Iraq, the more we can make an informed decision instead of relying on politicians that are invested in defeat, instead of conditions on the ground which show, as of late, that incredible progress is being made. (Link to Bottom Line Up Front showing the progress)
.
