Custom Search

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Anti-War Groups Retreat in Defeat

We have said that this is what they are best at and so it isn't any great surprise that they are retreating in defeat and recalculating what their best strategy will be to help give al-Qaeda some hope.

Via The Politico:

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.

“There was a consensus that last year was not productive,” John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, said of a meeting attended by a coalition of anti-war groups last week. “Our expectations were dashed.”

What they are loathe to admit is that their hopes were dashed by our military, General Petraeus and the successful counterinsurgency strategy that was implemented, which has seen much success and which has led to political reform by way of the all important benchmark that Iraq has just accomplished, the De-Baathification reform that they have just recently passed.

The amazing military and security progress, which, as we said it would, led to some very critical political reform which "dashed" the anti-war groups hopes for failure in Iraq.

John Boehner has issued a press release discussing this very topic, where he says:

You would think that the Democratic Majority, which has done the bidding for the anti-war Left for the past 12 months, would take note of this retreat and recalibrate its own rhetoric. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, the Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate has stubbornly stayed the course, refusing to give our troops and their commanders credit for the incredible turnaround in Iraq. Consider some of the most recent statements out of Democratic leaders:

* “Political progress has come to a near standstill, and most of the established benchmarks for progress – including provincial elections, the passage of de-Baathification laws, and a plan for oil revenue-sharing – are far from reach.” – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), press release, January 10, 2008 – just two days before the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed the “Accountability and Justice” de-Baathification law.

* “Like the American people, Democrats know that we urgently need a change of course in Iraq as political progress – the primary goal of the surge – remains out of reach.” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), press release, January 8, 2008

Or how about this title from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid’s January 8, 2008 press release?

“Pelosi and Reid: Bush Continues to Deny Reality in Iraq, at Home”

Quite to the contrary, it is the Democratic leadership that continues to deny reality....

The fact is while our military and our administration is fighting the vital war on terror against Islamic extremists, the anti-war groups, along with our Democratic politicians have been waging their own war against success and progress and victory in Iraq.

I am happy to say that our Military and Administration have been very effectively winning their battles against our enemies and the anti-war groups and Democratic politicians have taken a serious beating in their self induced war.

The portion of The Politico piece I put in bold above is accurately shown to be another losing strategy by Ed Morrisey as he points this out:

Demanding an end to a military alliance with a stable Iraq makes much less sense. Why wouldn't we want such a relationship with a democratic, representative government in the Middle East? It would not put American troops in combat situations, but instead help bolster the central Iraqi government to keep combat situations from arising. It would also provide stability and an example for other nations in the region to show that Arabs and Muslims can successfully operate a self-elected government, rather than the mullahcracies and kleptocracies surrounding it.

Don Surber points out the realities on the ground that has forced the anti-war groups and the Democratic politicians in our government to shift focus and move those goal posts once again, by showing recent news stories acknowledging the reality of what is rather than what our Dem politicians want it to be:

Reuters: UN Report To Show “positive picture of progress in Iraq”.

AP: UN Chief Lauds Reduction in Iraq Attacks.

BBC: Agencies see good year for Iraq.

Reuters: Higher oil output seen lifting Iraqi growth.

The reality that they are now getting pounded with is, simply put, that if progress in Iraq continues at the rate it has been for the better part of 2007, then Iraq will not only be a fully functional government (which at times functions better than our own) and have security stability, but they will be a major ally of ours in the War on Terror.

This has been the definition of victory all along and only those completely invested in defeat would not be able to acknowledge such simple reality.

Question to take along with you would be; Now that the anti-war groups are retreating in defeat, how long before the Democratic politicians follow their Masters' lead like the good little puppy dogs they are?