August 07, 2008
— Ace Well, it's surely not the first time most people have read this, but it's a welcome example of the news of the American (near) victory in Iraq finally making it into the n news.
Somebody has to write this. The United States has won the war in Iraq.I'm compelled to proclaim victory because, these days, winning wars has become politically incorrect in Western societies. So much so that some political leaders opposed to the war refuse to recognize the definition of victory or to utter the word.
More than five years after the invasion, I still come across people who say they don't know what victory in Iraq means. That's on purpose. Feigning ignorance allows them to deny the obvious political and military progress that has been made and continues to be made each day.
The truth is, President Bush has been consistent in defining victory. Bottom line, it's leaving behind a functional and democratic Iraq capable of defending itself from internal and external threats. Iraq is on an irreversible path to meeting those goals. Even Bush has raised the specter of "time horizons" for troop withdrawal. Previously, the president eschewed timelines, maintaining that troop reduction would be dictated by conditions on the ground. Security has improved so much in the past 18 months that Bush is not only open to troop withdrawals, American forces in Iraq could actually dip below 100,000 by the end of this year, down from approximately 140,000 today.
The reason for victory is simple -- the 30,000-troop surge that began in early 2007 and concluded less than a month ago has worked.
I have to wonder what the average, non-news-junkie American thinks of the media. Surely they must be noticing that currently the media is not only embargoing a newsworthy story about a onetime Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate having a love child and arranging a massive, donor-funded cover-up of that, but the media is all but embargoing the fact that we have either largely won or almost entirely won the War in Iraq.
Is the media also embargoing news of the (near) victory in Iraq only in order to protect Elizabeth Edwards, too? After all, she is a very partisan, very liberal, and very anti-war woman; perhaps the media just doesn't wish to discomfort her with further bad news about American victories.
And does the average American appreciate having MSM Censors decide what he should and shouldn't know about major political figures and major wars? Does he appreciate that "gatekeeper" service the media is providing to him, or is he beginning to find it creepy and sorta fascist?
Posted by: Ace at
12:06 PM
| Comments (22)
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: demoncrat at August 07, 2008 12:12 PM (8nB5X)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 07, 2008 12:22 PM (SLqkZ)
Posted by: kempermanx at August 07, 2008 12:24 PM (ANRVq)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 07, 2008 12:28 PM (SLqkZ)
To expand on this (which has been the perfectly obvious outcome of this struggle for at least the last year) no one in either the MSM or even the blogosphere has yet realized that W is about to run the table on the way out the door. On his watch: he's achieved and sustained tax cuts that have driven our economy through even $4/gal gasoline and the impacts of 9/11; he's established credibility and a sustainable military presence throughout most of the Middle East; he's taken advantage of the opportunity presented by the second most secular Muslim population in that area and freed them from a dictatorship and supported the establishment of a government that will very probably soon look more like Turkey's than Iran's; he's taken on Afghanistan and the Taliban and found the way to do what Russia couldn't in 10 years; he established "The Bush Doctrine" for dealing with States that sponsor or condone terrorist groups; he will leave office without a scandal of any proportion in his administration; he's given every foreign leader and point of view respect but not dominion; he's named Alito and Roberts to the USSC, and he's remained remarkably steadfast and true to his own agenda in the face of daunting media and political pressure to cave.
Of course he's had his low points, all leaders do. But he stuck to his guns when nobody would have blamed him for standing down and, judging from the apparent nominees as well as the entire field of candidates with whom we were blessed in this campaign, we won't see his like for a long time.
So every intelligent American (and free men everywhere) ought to thank God that W and not Kerry or Gore was at the helm when the nation needed a leader. Fasten your seat belts, folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride from here.
Posted by: jeremiah at August 07, 2008 12:29 PM (wmx5s)
Have to admit I'm lovin this. After all the years of hearing "stay the course" and "stand them up so we can stand down" uttered with sneering disdain the silence lately is sweet to my ears.
There was never ANY doubt in THIS family we'd ultimately succeed in Iraq. It's so great to see that faith borne out, thanks to the effort and sacrifice of these fone young men and women.
End of rant.
Posted by: irongrampa at August 07, 2008 12:30 PM (N4pK7)
Posted by: Dawnsblood at August 07, 2008 12:34 PM (aZ6b5)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at August 07, 2008 12:45 PM (E6GUg)
Good news from Iraq is good news. Still, I think it's more accurate to say that we're winning the war rather than we won the war so long as it's still necessary to have troops there, and all indications are that they're still needed.
But again, it's great news for all involved- troops in less danger with more coming home, Iraqis able to provide their own security (even if they're still an ass-backwards society), and the likes of Pelosi/Reid/Obama made to look like the ignorant defeatist tools that they are.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 07, 2008 12:49 PM (rf03a)
Posted by: Fred (no the other one) at August 07, 2008 12:58 PM (++UOD)
What else shouldn't we discuss to protect Elizabeth Edwards?
Posted by: joeindc44 at August 07, 2008 01:12 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: Bender Bending Rodriguez at August 07, 2008 01:14 PM (s8nCs)
If Obama wins, the MSM will trumpet victory the day after he's inaugurated. Expect the Obamessiah to lead the victory parade down Fifth Avenue, mounted on a golden unicorn, with rainbows streaming in every direction and cherubim and seraphim trumpeting His praise.
If Obama loses, it will be, "War? What war?"
Posted by: Brown Line at August 07, 2008 01:40 PM (OMiLl)
Sure, the Iraqi government is winning, with our help. It's good for the Iraqis, compared to the terror that they have lived with.
But what is the Iraqi government?
The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, formerly the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Founded in Iran. Their policies are Iran's policies. They want a clerical state like Iran.
The Dawa or Call to Islam party, another Islamic party, but more reasonable.
Prime Minister Al Maliki is from this party. He left Iraq in 1980 and spent his exile years in Iran and Syria.
Hezbollah of Iraq - not the same as the Lebanese Hez, but . . . .
Then there are the KDP and PUK. They are waiting for the right moment to gbreak away - after they get Kirkuk, or when they decide they are strong enough to fight for it.
Posted by: icus at August 07, 2008 03:59 PM (I3lj0)
Bitter and clinging to defeat is no way to go through life son.
Posted by: toby hussein 928 at August 07, 2008 04:29 PM (evdj2)
The average non-news junkie American doesn't know there is still a war going on. You're shit out of luck. Once, at the height of the Ollie North/Iran-Contra hearings, I was in a Wal-Mart and watched a three hundred pounder pull an "Ollie North for President" shirt off the rack, turn to the 250 pounder next to her and ask, "Who's Ollie North?" They haven't got a clue.
Posted by: Davey at August 07, 2008 04:47 PM (ar3qY)
Posted by: bob hussein dole at August 07, 2008 05:24 PM (4GS1g)
Posted by: hutch1200 at August 07, 2008 05:54 PM (j4Nfl)
Posted by: Basil Fawlty at August 07, 2008 05:59 PM (MMC8r)
I have consistently supported the war and rebuilding in Iraq, and am more than sympathetic to people who want to call it a "victory", however I would not use that word myself yet, for one simple reason - to me, "victory" means that Iraq is "functional, democratic, capable of defending itself from internal/external threats" and all of those things are now irreversibly true.
Not "nearly there", not "on an 'irreversible path' to meeting those goals", or etc. I see this as a worthy, longterm, ongoing effort that is not going to (fully) reach fruition until people find the idea of a (militarily) hostile Iraq as laughable as the idea of a militarily hostile Japan or Germany.
That however is going to require things to be run there by future generations who did not live through the days of the Saddam regime when survival = (corruption or living in fear), and more than likely will require some form of permanent US military presence.
We're making great progress - most of which has come from the sweat, blood and sacrifice of our troops and the ability of conservatives to fight off liberal attempts at derailment back home, and I'd like to believe we are over the major hurdles - that now it is primarily down to the new government holding together and growing while the terrorists and other feudal throwbacks in the area gradually wither and fade away.
But I don't think anyone is seriously prepared to say our progress is irreversible, and I think using that term balances short term political gain "hey - we WON!! vote for US!" vs the liability of being called on it each and every time some liberal journo or pol thinks he sees the slightest evidence of backsliding over in Iraq; framing it as an "ongoing effort with a lot of progress" is much more inoculated against such brainless attacks whereas labeling it "victory" is like putting up a giant bullseye.
The important thing is that we stay the course and continue making every effort to ensure that Iraq becomes the next Japan or Germany, whether that takes a few years or a few decades.
Posted by: Scott at August 08, 2008 10:53 AM (kSvWi)
Posted by: Bathroom vanities ottawa at August 10, 2009 07:33 AM (V3Xx4)
Posted by: heheheroling at October 26, 2009 07:30 AM (bec9Z)
Powered by Minx 1.1.2-pink.
