We Owe It To Our Military

McCain made a great point at the NRA convention and he changed my mind about my on again off again support for him. We owe it to those who have fought and died in Iraq.

Senator Obama has said, if elected, he will withdraw Americans from Iraq quickly no matter what the situation on the ground is and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. But if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will view it as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the Sta te of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly.

The consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for premature withdrawal, as both Senators Obama and Clinton do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date. Thanks to the counterinsurgency instigated by General Petreaus, after four years of terribly costly mistakes, we have a realistic chance to succeed in helping the forces of political reconciliation prevail in Iraq, and the democratically elected Iraqi Government, with a professional and competent Iraqi army, impose its authority throughout the country and defend its borders. We have a realistic chance of denying al Qaeda any sanctuary in Iraq. We have a realistic chance of leaving behind in Iraq a force for stability and peace in the region, and not a cause for a wider and far more dangerous war. I do not argue against withdrawal because I am indifferent to war and the suffering it inflicts on too many American families. I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are. But I know, too, that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later. I want our soldiers home, too, just as quickly as we can bring them back without risking everything they suffered for, and burdening them with greater sacrifices in the years ahead. That I will not do. I have spent my life in service to my country, and I will never, never, never risk her security for the sake of my own ambitions. I will defend her, and all her freedoms, so help me God. And I ask you to help me in that good cause. Thank you, and God bless you.

I think in these dangerous times McCain is the only competent war leader on the ballot. Thank you for reminding me John.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Guess Who Said This

Try this on for size:

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Who said it? Angelina Jolie

H/T Insty

The New Fallujah

Michael Totten has a piece up on what he saw on his recent trip to Fallujah. He says it is still very third world but nothing like it was a year ago. In fact he has this amazing (to some of our "liberal" friends) quote from a wedding party he saw on the streets.

Sharply dressed Iraqi men and children got out and walked up to meet us. They were so friendly. An older man in a keffiyeh greeted us so warmly and sincerely it was obvious his affection was real. “Thank you, thank you,” he said. We all knew what he meant. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the security.

Michael has pictures and text. He talks about being a non-combatant in a war zone. One Marine officer asks him if he would pick up a weapon in a fire fight which is illegal for non-combatants. Michael's reply is a classic.

“Anyway,” I always said to Marines who thought I should carry a weapon, “if it gets bad enough out here that you’re relying on me in a fight, you’re really screwed.”

Go and read the whole thing. He has lots of pictures including what might be an explanation of why electricity supplies in Iraq are so bad.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

The Big Disconnect

Pundit Nation is going on about how House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI), is going to shut down the war by attaching shut down clauses to every appropriations bill. Bush has already vetoed one of these bills. Here is what our Pundit fails to see:

There is a big disconnect here.

If the war is so unpopular why doesn't Congress shut it down?

Could it be that the majority of those unhappy with the war are unhappy with losing?

Southerners just hate losing wars. They just hate it. Three times in 300 years is just too much to bear (1861-65, 'Nam, with Iraq potential for #3).

So who put the Democrats over the top in '06? Southerners. Southerners contribute disproportionately to the military. Whose sons and daughters are in the field in Iraq? Southerners. If the Democrats get too obstructionist about the war they will lose the South.

Do you understand? The Republicans have a majority in the House. Let me repeat: The Republicans have a majority in the House. The war will be a victory for Americans or a defeat for Democrats.

All that Obey stuff is just theater for those who can't count.

Rolling Congress

The other wise extremely intelligent Jeralyn Merritt of Talk Left can't figure out why a Democrat Controlled Congress keeps getting rolled by Bush. I think I can help her out:

Democrats got control of Congress by electing a bunch of Republicans (on the war at least) from the South.

Dean's Southern Strategy. Hailed as a genius move. At the time.

Memories are long in the South and they hate losing wars. They just hate it.

The Democrat Party was never unified on the war issue and the Republicans remain solid that the only way out is victory followed by an Iraqi Army capable of holding Iraq for the elected government.

Why do you think Bush is rolling Congress? The option for the Democrats is a Republican controlled Congress. At least then they can blame it on the Republicans.

Progress Is Our Most Important Product

A while back I did a post called Electricity where I discussed a number of things that would need to be done to stabilize Iraq and advance the welfare of its people.

I pointed out that security was the first order of business. That seems to be coming along nicely.

What is not coming along so well is improvements in basic modern services. Electricity, sanitation (clean water supplies, water borne and solid waste), natural gas heating and cooking.

A government that can't improve the lot of its citizens (at least bringing a country up to second world standards) is not going to last. With the high price of oil to finance such improvements, rolling out such efforts in an improved security situation should get priority.

Teflon Don

At Michelle Malkin's site Matthew Currier Burden (Blackfive) interviews Teflon Don (TD) of the blog Acute Politics. I had a post up a few days ago about TD: The Rush - War Cocaine.

One quote from the interview stood out for me. (Blackfive's question in bold.)

Do you believe that the media has portrayed America's efforts in Iraq correctly?

That depends entirely on how you mean "media" and "correct". Traditional media, such as newspapers and television, have done very well reporting the statistics and the sensational moments of the war. In a certain sense, that is "correct", but it is certainly not complete.

On the other hand, independent journalists have different stories to tell. If I want to know why things are the way they are in Anbar, I read Bill Roggio's account, not the New York Times. If I want to hear about an interview with a Falluja police officer, I read Bill Ardolino. I don't watch NBC. If I want to know what life is like for US soldiers or Iraqi civilians, I read their blogs, not the papers.

Most media accounts are correct, and the ones that aren't are usually quickly ripped apart. However, they must all be taken together to even come close to a complete story.

You can't get the complete picture with out the internet.

This makes me just so totally proud of my work with the developers of the world's first BBS. Minor (though essential) as my contribution was. The BBS was an important step in creating the demand and computer infrastructure for the internet.

H/T Patterico

Cross Posted at The Astute Bloggers

Unified Action

Reader Carol Herman alerted me to this excellent Austin Bay "Strategy Page" discussion of an interview with Donald Rumsfield.

Saddam Hussein's economic and political policies damaged agriculture in the land that eight millennia ago spawned the Agricultural Revolution. (Heck of an achievement, huh?) Agriculture, Commerce and several NGOs have expertise and programs that are helping revive Iraqi farms. Still, problems occur when trying to tailor programs to meet specific local needs -- like, who pays for the program and who is ultimately in charge of oversight and coordination.

This kind of effort is called "Unified Action". Here is how we used to direct those efforts.

Our system for "Unified Action" is still largely a Cold War, 20th century relic designed to prop up governments (so often corrupt and ill-led), instead of helping individuals and neighborhoods become economically self-sustaining and self-securing. Winning war in the Age of the Internet means improving neighborhoods and individual lives. The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and micro-finance whiz Muhammad Yunus understands this.

Austin Bay points out something he saw in Iraq.

While serving in Iraq in 2004, I met a young U.S. Army captain who was running a successful small-scale date palm restoration project. What we really need are joint development and security teams, where agricultural and economic specialists work with that captain "in the field" on a sustained, day-to-day basis. We need to decide who is in charge of that team (the captain or the arborist?) and how we fund it.

Here is the hot question Austin asked Secratary Rumsfeld.

"Mr. Secretary, based on our experience in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the limited interagency and non-governmental organization (NGO) participation in that operation, how do you see 'Unified Action' evolving for future conflicts?"

This really is key for speeding improvement in Iraq. Get every one on the same page. This is particularly true of those elemetnts which Secratary Rumsfeld has some fairly direct influence.

The politically deft SecDef finessed the question -- and it was finesse, not dodge. The military jargon masked a heavy political hand grenade I was rolling toward the Beltway. You think Harry Reid's land deal or Mark Foley's messages are big stories? How about a stinging pre-election turf battle between Defense and the departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Commerce and Agriculture, complete with zinger accusations of who is or isn't contributing to the war effort?

I know, that's quite a claim, which is why I need to translate the mil-speak: Unified Action means coordinating and synchronizing every "tool of power" America possesses to achieve a political end -- like winning a global war for national survival against terrorists who hijack economically and politically fragile nations and provinces.

People understand the role of soldiers and cops in a war, but in 21st century wars where economic and political development are determinative, an arborist at the Department of Agriculture and a Commerce Department trade consultant can be powerful contributors to "Unified Action."

I'd like to see people and organizations competing to improve the lives of the Iraqi people.

Do you think the Democrats would be interested?

Electricity

Captain's Quarters is discussing what can be done in Anbar province to root out the insurgents. He talks about some successes we have had there lately. Like winning over something like 25 of 31 tribal chiefs. The Captain quotes this from the New York Times:

Currently, the American military is continuing its “clear, hold and build” policy: pushing insurgents from key towns, sending in Iraqi and coalition forces to maintain security and trying to rebuild local governments and businesses. Despite the return of some insurgents, the military points to successes in cities like Falluja. But troops can’t begin to secure other important towns like Ramadi, Haditha and Hit.

The first two items on the list are correct. The third is correct too in a general sort of way.

What I think though is that the Americans are not building all the right things.

In the book Night Draws Nearby Anthony Shadid about the war and the first two years of occupation the most critical deficiency is explained on page 159 of the paperback edition:

The Americans had failed to account for the state of Iraq's infrastructure, aged, decrepit, and worn down by more than a decade of sanctions. For weeks, the capital's two antiquated power plants were barely running, and the long blackouts in searing heat that began towards the war's end remained the norm. Every thing followed from electricity, the conerstone of modern life. With electricity went water, sanitation, air-conditioning, and the security brought by light at night. With electricity went faith in what the Americans, so powerful in war, were prepared to do after.

With electricity goes Iraqi morale. Unless you do business in an open air market, electricity is critical to improving the business climate.

So what would I do? Make improving the electrical grid a key point in improving security. We don't need more troops as the NYTs article points out. What we need is engineers, technicians, linemen, and plant operators. We need construction crews that can erect electrical towers and string wires. In the Army that would be engineering battalions and the US Army Corps of Engineers. In the Navy/Marines it is the Sea Bees. In the Air Force it is the Air Force Civil Engineers.

Why a mostly military contingent? Because there is still a war on.

We need to be like General Electric - progress (in infrastructure) must be our most important product. Every thing else that we desire flows from that. It is not all we must do but it is a critical item on the list.