Democrats deny reality of success in Iraq

Opinion Journal:

Over the past 12 months, U.S. troops in Iraq have risen every day and gone to work, dangerous work, implementing General David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy. The surge. Across the political spectrum, observers have announced the surge a success. This achievement must be a source of enormous pride to the U.S. soldiers and Marines who have pulled it off.

So what we take away from the four Democratic Presidential candidates' stunning display of misinformation and false statements about the surge Saturday evening is that they have simply stopped thinking about Iraq. They seem to have concluded that opposition to the war permits them to literally not know what the U.S. or the Iraqis are doing there. As the nation commences the selection of an American President, this is a phenomenon worth noting.

Barack Obama is of a sudden the front-runner, so his view of the surge merits the closest look. His first assertion echoed what has become a standard line by the war's opponents, that "we have not made ourselves safer as a consequence." What can this possibly mean? In more than six years there hasn't been one successful terrorist attack on the U.S., even as places elsewhere were hit or actively targeted.

Then Senator Obama placidly said that the Sunnis in Anbar Province began to help the U.S. "after the Democrats were elected in 2006." What's more, the Democrats' victory showed them they were "going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias." This obviously means the Democrats would abandon them.

But the Sunni Awakening, as it is called, with its fall in bloodshed, occurred only after the Anbar Sunnis were convinced that the U.S. troops would not abandon them to al Qaeda in Iraq. Sunni sheiks have said explicitly it was the new U.S. policy of sustaining the offensive against AQI that made it possible for them to resist the jihadists. The U.S. military has supported the spread of these "awakening councils" in other areas of Iraq. It is navel-gazing in the extreme for Mr. Obama to suggest U.S. Congressional elections caused this turn.

...

Even allowing for the stresses of the endless campaign, these responses are astonishing. Has the self-directedness of these candidates gone so deep that they now believe they can get away with saying anything at all on national TV?

...

As I pointed out in this post, the Anbar awakening predates the 2006 election by a few weeks. If you read the linked stories about he movement you want find one word about the 2006 election. They joined together to fight al Qaeda and they needed our help. It was al Qaeda and not the Democrats who drove them into our arms. The NY Times story on September 17 is particularly instructive because it talks about the Sheiks coming together.

In fact there had been a good deal of red on red action in Anbar before the awakening movement came about. But there had been mutual reluctance on the part of the US and the Sheiks to work together prior to that September. What is clear is that without the surge the movement could not have been successful. It was the commitment of additional forces that persuade other Sheiks to join the movement and it was the commitment of forces that got Sadr to stand down and go into exile. It also helped chase al Qaeda from Baghdad to Diyala where they were again defeated.

The Obama delusion that if we leave the enemy will leave is particularly pernicious. The enemy has suffered a significant strategic defeat in Iraq and if Obama is not smart enough to see it he is not smart enough to be President. His ideological blinders will get Americans killed. The Sunni rejection of al Qaeda which Osama bin Laden has talked about in recent messages is truly important. The al Qaeda brand has been rejected by even the militants in Iraq who have rallied to our side in large numbers and are now working against al Qaeda. This is huge and it would never have happened had the US followed the Democrat policy of retreat and defeat.

It is also instructive to remember the nature of the debate on Iraq in the 60 plus votes the Democrats pushed last year. They arguments were that the surge had failed and that we had already lost. Harry Reed has been bunkered down with the loser lobby for the entire year of 2007. What we are getting now is active denial and spin rather than acknowledgment of error by the Democrats.

The Washington Post also notes the Democrat denial of reality in Iraq.

...

Even more disturbing was the refusal of the Democrats to adjust their policies to the changed situation. Ms. Clinton said she didn't "see any reason why [U.S. troops] should remain beyond, you know, today" and outlined a withdrawal plan premised on a defeat comparable to Vietnam ("We have to figure out what we're going to do with the 100,000-plus American civilians who are there" and "all the Iraqis who sided with us. . . . Are we going to leave them?"). Mr. Obama stuck to his plan for "a phased redeployment"; if his scheme of a year ago had been followed, almost all American troops would be out by this March.

...

They can't adjust their policy because their kook base has not adjusted to reality. Instead of acting like leaders the Democrats are being pulled by their nose ring inserted by MoveOn and the Kos kooks.

Westhawk has a thoughtful piece on the reconciliation that is taking place in Iraq among the Shia and with the Sunnis.