Iraq: A Miserable Failure?

One day before a 2004 Democrat presidential debate in New Mexico, the Des Moines Register released a straw poll based on likely voters. Howard Dean, with his fierce anti-war stance, led with 23% and followed closely by Richard Gephardt with 21%. Looking to leapfrog the political novice, Mr. Gephardt sharpened his rhetoric for the debate...

"We cannot cut and run. We've got to see that this situation is left in a better place. We have to form an international coalition to get it done. This president is a miserable failure. He is a miserable failure." August 4, 2003, 138 days into the Iraq War.

Despite failing to gain traction, Mr. Gephardt opened a door for mainstream liberals and “independent” media outlets. By the fall of 2003, ad nauseam repetition of failure was in full swing. After prematurely attaching the Q-word during the invasion, the media got the wink and nod it needed and pounced again.

“(The) passion, fund-raising prowess and strategic maneuvers Dean has shown over the last several months makes him potentially Bush's most formidable foe in '04. Especially if Bush can't stem a growing perception that the Iraq war was a mistake and a quagmire.” Chuck Raasch, October 19, 2003.

"What we are seeing is that we are lost in the quagmire over there," said Sen. Ted Kennedy on September 26, 2004. "Now, John Kerry has offered a plan to try and change this. This administration has had its chance. And it's blunder after blunder. We need a new direction.”

Since 2003, the media has exhausted these adjectives for Iraq and the violence there:

• mounting, deepening, growing, escalating, erupting, exploding, worsening, increasing, dramatic escalation, rapidly escalating, upsurge, massive surge, flaring up, accelerated, soaring, rising, heightened, grave and deteriorating, spiraling out of control, threatens to spin out of control, spun further out of control

"I do not retreat from the view that Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam," said Sen. Kennedy, January 12, 2005, describing Iraq as an “endless quagmire” one day before Iraqis had their first free election to determine a body to draft a permanent constitution and the Sunni’s didn’t turnout… I wonder why?

The constitution was ratified by nearly 80% of voters the following October with much greater Sunni participation (though in opposition) than January. This set up a December 15 election for a permanent assembly. What was the American-left saying in the run-up? Here a sample from the poster boy:

“The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong." - Howard Dean, December 5, 2005.

Iraqis came out in huge numbers for the election despite over two years of pessimism from American doves calling for an immediate end to the war. After the vote, rebels stepped-up their efforts to provoke a civil war and the media played right along with headlines like, “Iraq government warns of risk of "endless civil war" while Al Gore convinced the intellectual elites of the Vietnam analogy. In February, Sunni insurgents destroyed the dome of the 1,200 year old Al-Askari shrine while wearing Iraqi Special forces uniforms. The parliamentary government was formed in May after an exhaustive 156 days, three years after the initial invasion.

Since, the government has struggled (or hesitated) to assert its authority, but in its eighth month, it is clearly making progress. Mr. Al-Maliki’s government still has popular support despite 34,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in 2006, an attempted power-grab by Al-Sadr last December, and increasing calls from Americans for total withdrawal (which would most likely end his government).

"This is an utter disaster," Al Gore said hours before the release of the ISG Report last December. "This was the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States.”

It is my opinion that leftist rhetoric, such as all the previously mentioned, aggravated and expedited sectarian allegiances. This has weakened the elected government because it has depended on an unpredictable American electorate. Despite all the negative reporting, despite all the doomsdaying and naysaying, substantial progress has been made in Iraq.

2006, the toughest year of the war, saw 824 American soldiers fall while Iraqis died at forty-one times that rate (I'd say they're pulling their weight). Despite the difficulty and detraction, American losses were 22 less than 2005 (846) and 24 less than 2004 (848).

Over the last few weeks, hundreds of Mahdi Army fighters have been detained while claiming they are “under siege.” Top aides to Al-Sadr have been arrested while the black-hooded rebels have “melted away” from streets they formerly patrolled. Iranian intelligence networks have been put on notice with the arrest of five agents tied to the Revolutionary Guard.

The Iraqi security apparatus is clearly improving. When you’re building an army, it takes time to filter out the turncoats and double-crossers. The Maliki government is still hampered by a poorly performing legal system, although it is a nascent institution.

Frankly, I’m amazed Iraqis have made the progress they have because President Kerry would have rolled up the carpets and left Iraq long ago. The Democrats have used the “repeating it makes it so” strategy and the media has been only to happy to play along. The only realistic comparison to Vietnam is the American political reaction. With twenty-one GOP senators up for re-election in 2008, it’s only going to get tougher (and lonelier) for the President.

In my final note, the Senate vote 81-0 to confirm the new commander of Multi-National Force in Iraq (not one opposer with the true courage of their convictions). This man, Gen. David Petraeus, is a co-author of the new Army and Marine counterinsurgency manual. Here's what he said about America's changing tactics in Iraq, starting with what Dems insist on calling an escalation.

"Forces currently in or moving to Baghdad should be sufficient to conduct effective counterinsurgency operations given the anticipated political-military situation and planned phased operations."

"If we are to carry out the Multinational Force Iraq mission in accordance with the new strategy, the additional forces that have been directed to move to Iraq will be essential, as will greatly increased support by our government’s other agencies, additional resources for reconstruction and economic initiatives, and a number of other actions critical to what must be a broad, comprehensive, multifaceted approach to the challenges in Iraq."

On the non-binding Senate resolution (which reeks of politics) rebuking the new tactics, "Speaking purely as a military commander, albeit one that understands the value of free and open debate... I would want the enemy to feel that there was no hope."

On Iraq, "Any such endeavor is a test of wills, and there are no guarantees... But hard is not hopeless."

Hillary is on the record, from his hearings, dismissing the plan, "I think it is a dead end." She isn't the only one... Politically, Democrats want to see George Bush (meaning Iraq) fail so they can sweep into every position of power in 2008 and that's despicable. What's worse is that they've been pining since the war began (shaped by their 2004 presidential nomination process) and repeating it seems to be making it so.