WaPo hits on Democratic Candidates Biggest Fear

Today the WaPo editorial page did something unusual-it criticitized the Democratic Party.

In an editorial titled “See No Good, the question posed is “Why do the Democratic candidates refuse to acknowledge progress in Iraq?”

The editorial notes:

…it’s indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence. Attacks have fallen by more than 60 percent, al-Qaeda has been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of U.S. fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war.

But what of this? Silence from the Democratic presidential candidates.

I think the editorialist answered the question in his first paragraph:

All of them vehemently opposed the troop increase when President Bush proposed it a year ago; both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama introduced legislation to reverse it.

The fact is that things do seem to be improving in Iraq, and the changing circumstances create the opportunity for new solutions. The problem is that constituencies that vote in the Democratic primaries are in no mood to even listen to facts that suggest anything other than the US experiencing abject failure in Iraq, and the candidates running for the nomination do not want to lose the war an a tool to turn out their voters.

As the Post goes on to note, recognizing the success of the surge:

…would involve a willingness by the candidates to reconsider their long-standing plans to carry out a rapid withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as they become president — a step that would almost certainly reverse the progress that has been made.

Only one thing was more disturbing than the failure to recognize the success of the surge:

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.

In keeping with the inflexibility of thought that has driven her campaign to the precipice of electoral failure, Hillary C. has “refused to retract a statement she made in September, when she said it would require “a suspension of disbelief” to believe that the surge was working.”

The WaPo editorial does not go into the obvious…it is in the Democrats best interests politically to cast the Iraq effort as a failure.  A failed GOP foreign policy an electoral plus for the eventual nominee.  The unwillingness by the Democratic candidates to note this is also politically based.  The Daily Kos and Cindy Sheehan’s of the world all vote in the Democractic primaries.  Suggestions that there are successes abroad is tantamount to a gold plated invitation to these voters to go elsewhere in the Democratic primaries.

Are things perfect overseas?  No…but circumstances have changed, potentially creating a new landscape for decision making.

Not that the Demo’s have noticed:

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.

There is a long way to go, and much to be done.  The Bush administration has much to answer for in the initiation, prosecution, and administration of the war effort.  The potential Democratic nominees are right to challenge the administration, But, as the WaPo says:

…any U.S. policy ought to be aimed at consolidating the gains of the past year and ensuring that neither al-Qaeda nor sectarian war make a comeback. So far, the Democratic candidates have refused even to consider that challenge.

Why?  Because noting even minimal success in Iraq will enrage their constituencies, and endanger their chance at the nomination.

It is time the leading candidates stop analyzing the facts they with they had and start analyzing reality.  It is time the leading candidates stop thinking like partisans and start acting like statesmen.

Harsh analysis?  Perhaps…but given the concise analysis the suddenly prescient WaPo offers, it seems more than merited.

Oh, Cindy, Give it a Rest!

She’s b-a-a-a-a-a-ck!

You might recall that Cindy Sheehan threw in the towel on public life amidst her vast disappointment that the Democrats did not immediately end the US presence in Iraq.  Voicing her displeasure with democrat politicians and those in the peace movement, she said she was exhausted by the personal, financial and emotional toll her campaign had taken, disillusioned by the failure of Democratic politicians to end the war and tired of a peace movement she said “often puts personal egos above peace and human life.”

Well, apparently Cindy cannot resist the siren call of publicity, bright lights, and network television.

Today Ms. Sheehan announced she will challenge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi next year unless Pelosi takes steps to impeach President Bush. I saw this on CNN, and snickered.

Then I saw this report that in fact Speaker Pelosi has until July 23 to put forth articles of impeachment. Ms. Sheehan arrives in DC as part of a caravan (no adjectival comments, I am really trying to restrain myself)…and I guess an impeachment resolution would be the perfect way for her to end her cross country jaunt.

Apparently she has not heard that most folks do not like negotiations under threat…and she wonders why she is marginalized.

Ms. Pelosi had no comment, likely as she thought it unseemly to be smirking on television.

Yep, I can just see Cindy Sheehan campaigning against 20-year incumbent Pelosi in the City by the Bay. I think she would have more luck trying to un curve Lombard Street than beating Ms. Pelosi.

Lord, the delusions Ms. Sheehan functions under…and that is the kind interpretation. A less kind point of view might sugest she only wants to extend her fifteen minutes of fame.

Creative Combat Necessity in Iraq

Silly string, that critical component of children’s parties and other celebrations, may be saving lives in Iraq.

When her son came back from a tour in Iraq, Marcell Shriver of Stratford, NJ, was  surprised to learn that:

Before entering a building, troops squirt the plastic goo, which can shoot strands about 10 to 12 feet, across the room. If it falls to the ground, no tripwires. If it hangs in the air, they know they have a problem. The wires are otherwise nearly invisible.

Shriver started a drive and has collected over 1,000 cannisters of the gooey stuff to send to Kuwait and then to Iraq through the graces of a volunteer pilot.

I am constantly amazed at the creativity of the members of the American armed services and their ability to adapt to challenging conditions both big and small.

Michael Collins Lives On…

I was reading the WaPo coverage of another attack in Iraq against civilians, this time a group of trainee policemen. And as I have done numerous times over the last three years, I thought to myself “Michael Collins lives on.”

Much of what Americans might know of Mr. Collins comes from the movie Michael Collins, but that gives an incomplete picture.

Michael Collins was the defacto leader of the Irish Independence movement after Eamon de Valera went to the USA to raise funds. His innovative guerilla tactics ulimately brought the British government to the negotiating table, where the Irish Free State was created. This step caused an estrangement between Collins and de Valera, who would accept nothing but Irish independence as opposed to the near dominion status created by the agreement. After the Irish legislature accepted the treaty, de Valera and his followers broke off and began the Irish Civil War. Collins ultimately led the government forces to victory, but was killed shortly before the end of hostilities in an ambush in County Cork at the crossroads of Béal na mBláth.

There are numerous books and websites that provide the details of Mr. Collins life and impact far better than I can in this blog. What continues to captivate me is how his tactics have survived and proven effective for almost a century. The Israeli guerilla leader Yitzhak Shamir, used “Michael Collins” as his code name in fighting the British, and the conflict to establish Taiwan (in the face of the Communist revolution in China) was called Operation Michael Collins.

The tactics? First, his men did not wear uniforms. Earlier generations of guerillas of all counties in revolt (including colonial america) saw themselves as being part of a national army and were uniformed as if in an army. Collins felt being able to move unnoticed was of far greater value tactically than claiming national pride in a uniformed force. In fact, the British did not have a verifiably accurate photograph of him until Collins was sent to England with Archie Griffith to negotiate with Winston Churchill over the creation of the Irish Free State. Today this tactic is such an accepted point that no one thinks to question it…but Collins was the first to do it.

The second and more pertinent tactic was silencing sources of information. Collins realized the British were able to track down IRA figures adn Dail politicians was that they had impeccable sources of information stemming from their work with the Irish police. Collins created an assassination team called the Twelve Apostles. This team first warned potential targets to stop collaborating with the British, then killed those who continued to do so. This group also carried off the Bloody Sunday executions of fourteen British intelligence offers sent to Ireland to eliminate Collins and his team. This spread fear among potential informers and cut off the flow of information to the British, who then found it difficult to operate.

This interdiction of intelligence is the tactic that he founded, and the fruits of it are seen to this day.