More than anti-Bush hysteria is involved in the MSM's current failure of reporting in Iraq. One of the most enduring falsehoods the MSM has spread is that Iraq is not crucial to the War on Terror. The presence of al Qaeda in Iraq severly erodes that argument. It also reminds us of the fact that there were ties between Saddam and al Qaeda - something else the MSM has lied about.

CV: "Because, the more the ignorant "little people" are allowed to read about al Qaeda's butchery, the more they'll tend to think entering Iraq might not have been a bad idea after all.

They might not be in as much of a hurry to pull out and leave the Iraqi children to the tender mercies of the beheaders."

Saw this via Instapundit. I think you got it half right. AQI's campaign in Iraq is a good argument for us to fulfill our commitment to Iraq until we can solve at least the AQI problem (... unless you buy the proposition that our withdrawal from Iraq will be the impetus for Iraqis to unite against AQI, rather than precipitate conditions within which AQI can gain a scary level of power and influence not only in Iraq but globally).

However, AQI can be used to argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq have facilitated the conditions for AQI. If we believe AQI is the worst thing in Iraq, even worse than Saddam's regime, then it follows that either we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003 (or even gone to war in 1991, if you want to trace it back). At least, it follows we should have been far more competent as a nation-building, sovereignty-restoring, transition-oriented occupier.

Analogy: even when discussing life-saving surgery, if a patient suffers from complications related to the surgery (eg, infection), as opposed to the original disease or injury, we do blame the doctors and the hospital. There's a very good reason that we have low tolerance for incompetence in doctors in general and surgeons in particular - the consequences for their incompetence are too many and the costs too high.

If a patient suffers as a consequence of a surgeon's mistakes, however, the priority is still the well-being of the patient. We hold the surgeons and the hospital responsible for fixing their mistakes and healing the patient. If they can't do the job, then it's necessary to find doctors who can.

Do our politicians, particularly those who advocate we abandon our commitment to Iraq and the Iraqi people, prioritize the well-being of Iraq? It sure doesn't seem so to me. There seems to be an almost cruel disregard for the fate of Iraq on their part.

As well, even assuming that it's best for Iraq and the US to end our OIF relationship, who other than us has the potential and will to 'heal' Iraq? I just don't see anyone else in the world. To beat the surgery analogy to death, if we've been poor surgeons in Iraq, the alternative to us look a lot more like faith-healing than medicine.

CV: "Because, the more the ignorant "little people" are allowed to read about al Qaeda's butchery, the more they'll tend to think entering Iraq might not have been a bad idea after all.

They might not be in as much of a hurry to pull out and leave the Iraqi children to the tender mercies of the beheaders."

Saw this via Instapundit. I think you got it half right. AQI's campaign in Iraq is a good argument for us to fulfill our commitment to Iraq until we can solve at least the AQI problem (... unless you buy the proposition that our withdrawal from Iraq will be the impetus for Iraqis to unite against AQI, rather than precipitate conditions within which AQI can gain a scary level of power and influence not only in Iraq but globally).

However, AQI can be used to argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq have facilitated the conditions for AQI. If we believe AQI is the worst thing in Iraq, even worse than Saddam's regime, then it follows that either we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003 (or even gone to war in 1991, if you want to trace it back). At least, it follows we should have been far more competent as a nation-building, sovereignty-restoring, transition-oriented occupier.

Analogy: even when discussing life-saving surgery, if a patient suffers from complications related to the surgery (eg, infection), as opposed to the original disease or injury, we do blame the doctors and the hospital. There's a very good reason that we have low tolerance for incompetence in doctors in general and surgeons in particular - the consequences for their incompetence are too many and the costs too high.

If a patient suffers as a consequence of a surgeon's mistakes, however, the priority is still the well-being of the patient. We hold the surgeons and the hospital responsible for fixing their mistakes and healing the patient. If they can't do the job, then it's necessary to find doctors who can.

Do our politicians, particularly those who advocate we abandon our commitment to Iraq and the Iraqi people, prioritize the well-being of Iraq? It sure doesn't seem so to me. There seems to be an almost cruel disregard for the fate of Iraq on their part.

As well, even assuming that it's best for Iraq and the US to end our OIF relationship, who other than us has the potential and will to 'heal' Iraq? I just don't see anyone else in the world. To beat the surgery analogy to death, if we've been poor surgeons in Iraq, the alternative to us looks a lot more like faith-healing than medicine.

Your title "Our success must never be an option!" can be taken 2 ways. The sad truth is that success in Iraq really isn't an option. There is nothing that can be done to achieve a military success in Iraq.

Just tell us the truth!

"Your title "Our success must never be an option!" can be taken 2 ways. The sad truth is that success in Iraq really isn't an option. There is nothing that can be done to achieve a military success in Iraq."

I get so tired of hearing this stupid little canard that it makes me want to spit. By know, nothing quite says, "Small minded", like dragging out that old sow about how achieving a military success is impossible. What are we, Paraguay? Geez.

It may well be true that political success in Iraq is impossible, and that makes for an interesting discussion; or it may be true that achieving military success would be a Pyrrhic victory that would do more harm to America than it would achieve, but merely achieving military success is achievable in any number of ways simply by throwing more force at the problem.

When it comes to throwing more force at the problem, we've barely begun to fight. The real question is not whether we could do it, but whether we would be hammering the wrong nail.

I often wonder what people who claim we aren't achieving military success in Iraq and throw around words like 'disaster' think military defeat looks like. There are countless examples of forces which enjoyed victory that would have traded it for what is being labelled defeat. To my knowledge, no pattoon sized or larger element of the coalition has yet been overrun or destroyed in more than three years in Iraq. I invite the critics to look at what real military defeat or disaster looks like before the use the term so lightly.

To my best knowledge, we kill about fifteen bad guys for every one of us they kill.. and the death toll of innocent Iraqis has for years now been almost entirely from bad guys murdering citizens, not from our 'collateral damage'...

if it weren't for the unhelpful nasties in Tehran and Syria and so forth, the bad guys would have run out of bad guys a long time ago.

Much as the left can't stand to hear it, this thing might have to get bigger before we wrap it up.

Or, um, we could just 'chart a different course', as in cut and run.

And God help us in a few years, when a state-run middle-eastern missile program (helped by RUssian and chinese opportunists) goes out to launch.

Separating the military from the political aspects of the situation - and vice-versa - is plain silly. Either influences and ties into the other - they're not separate.

If I had to order it, I would say in this war, the military aspects drive the political aspects.

Mwalimu Daudi - this is a very ethnic name and I wouldn't normally make an inquiry such as this out of personal respect.
But there is a local talk show host who has been flogging the "Americans are so stupid that 48% still believe that Saddam had something to do with 911."
I would love to whipe the smirk off his face with information such as is contained in your link. How much better if it is a link provided by an Iraqi?
It would shut him down once and for all, I think.

So are you from Iraq?

"Separating the military from the political aspects of the situation - and vice-versa - is plain silly."

Perhaps. As Clauswitz said, "War is politics continued by different means." I certainly am in no hurry to separate them. I'm merely upset by the fact that there is a meme going around that in its various forms boils down to the illogical, irrational, and anti-historical claim that "violence never solves anything". That is a dangerously ignorant thing to think, and if your argument proceeds from that notion then you've not got much interesting to say.

To the extent that I do separate the two, its only to point out that the biggest and most intractable problems aren't military in nature, but political. Even those problems would become tractable if we were willing to apply more force - certainly there is no reason to suspect that Iraqi's will resist assimilation harder than the Japanese or the Germans if we beat them down sufficiently. The problem of course is that applying more force not only calls into question the justness of the war, kills more children than we are willing to stomach killing at this time, but also might cause bigger long term problems than the minor problem Iraq represents at present.

"If I had to order it, I would say in this war, the military aspects drive the political aspects."

That depends on what you mean by 'political aspects'. The percieved military success or lack of it certainly does drive the domestic political situation, but I think from the standpoint of someone actually in Iraq, you would order them the other way around. The political aspects of Iraq are driving the military effort. It's a failure to cope with the political problems of Iraq, or even to anticipate thier scale, that is the real problem with the war effort - not any military failing. As is usual in US history, the State Department and the CIA proved far less compotent than the military. The military has been forced into on the job training in statecraft, Arab culture, etc. We are seeing real improvements in how the military meshes the political and military aspects of the war, but its a big question as to whether or not its too late from the political standpoint of either America or Iraq. It could be that these things just take time. Or it could be that its too late. We'll know in the next year or so.

The story you congratulate the Inquirer alone for being brave enough to run was written by the Washington Post. Or so it says right at the top.

The story you congratulate the Inquirer alone for being brave enough to run was written by the Washington Post. Or so it says right at the top.

You are so right. Recently, it may be the case of the kidnapped US soldiers 2 yet to be found, the initial reports indicated that Al Qaeda was behind this attack.

On CNN within two hours the headline changed to "insurgents". It was clearly an editiorial decision to down play the Al Queda.

At some point in the future, I hope the media is held responsible by the American people for our likely defeat in the War on Terror.

Their performance has been disgraceful.

Celebrim's last paragraph is the sort of comment we don't get enough of: one that actually shows some informed perspective on the scale and character of tactical events.

Not only has no platoon-size American unit been in serious jeopardy since May 2003, but U.S. casualties have been trivial in relation to the forces engaged, the size of the home population, and losses sustained in previous small wars. In Vietnam, U.S. platoons were overrun with some frequency; in Korea, companies.

The level of U.S. troop morale in Iraq compared to Korea/Vietnam is an obvious tipoff to the difference, but it seems invisible (along with much else) to those determined to force this conflict into a "disaster" template. The actual military situation in Iraq is one that should be indefinitely sustainable for a serious country with the resources of the U.S.

Take a look at the different 2008 Presidential Candidates and decide who to vote for then. People moan about policies but more of you vote for the american idol than the president. so stop moaning, start researching the 2008 Presidential Candidates and VOTE!

Barack Obama is against the war and has set a proper timeline to get the troops back. Let’s stop wasting money in a war we can’t justify and spend that at home. Barack Obama has a plan to provide you better healthcare and education for your kids. Barack Obama is more concerned about American children than he is about Iraqi children. Vote Barack Obama.