Let's not kid ourselves. The surge of 20,000 U.S. troops into Baghdad and the Anbar Province may indeed help stem the violence in those two trouble spots for a time, but as we know from recent events, Iraq as a nation is a house of cards. When we stick in our finger to plug the leaking dike, another spout erupts.

Yesterday, a messianic Shiite cult came very close to overwhelming the Iraqi army in Najaf. Without emergency help from U.S. forces, they may have succeeded in assasinating Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and in the process set off a powder keg of reprisals that no amount of reinforcements would be able to stop.

This morning, we see more evidence of the spread of violence away from the capital and Anbar. To Najaf, we can add The Kurdish city of Khanaqin, the Shiite city of Mandalin, and towns in the Diayala Province. All were targeted today. And will this not be the norm in the coming days and months? Reports of more bombings and sectarian religious killings outside of "surge" areas? By no means should this eventuality surprise us. Don't forget, Moqtada al-Sadr has some 25,000 loyalist fighters in Basara, in addition to those he commands in Baghdad and Najaf.

No, the surge wasn't the first plan to save Iraq, and it won't be the last.

Liberals and other anti-warriors hate when pro-warriors like myself say that Iraq is a part of the greater War on Terror. If they admit that, then they have no feet to stand on when protesting the war. The simple fact is that it is a major part and Bush said as much in his infamous "bring 'em on" speech. The liberal line has always been that invading Iraq took our forces away from fighting al-Qaida. I've always been a proponent of the fight them there, not here philosophy and al-Qaida obliged by setting up operations in al-Anbar province.

We've been fighting and defeating them in the province for three years and we're now at the point that the Iraqi's see what a destructive force -- particularly to civilians -- al-Qaida is. They bring nothing but sharia law and misery wherever they go and the Iraqi's have had more than enough:

There is good news from Iraq, believe it or not. It comes from the most unlikely place: Anbar province, home of the Sunni insurgency. The level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me-confirming reports from several other sources-that there have been "a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there." The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters.

Aside from the "believe it or not" comment (this is the left-wing Time I'm quoting), this is a pretty straight-forward story in which the media is forced to recognize that some good has come from the "surge". We will win hearts and minds and, thanks to Osama's butchers, the rest of Iraq may well fall into line. They've had enough and want to rebuild a once-great nation into the most-educated country in the gulf region. The local leaders know that an insurgency will lead nowhere except to the deaths of thousands. They are, in effect, leading their people to a better place. That place does not include Islamofascists who couldn't care less about Iraqi civilians. All they want is a state ruled by Sharia law where individualism and women's rights are frowned upon.

In other news, the simmering cold war on ABC's The View heated up big time as Elisabeth Hasselbeck finally smacked down Rosie (who played the victim card so common to liberals) in epic fashion:

You can read the news blurbs at the usual places or thanks to the power of the Internets you can go straight to the Pentagon channel which is hosting the video below:



The upshot?

• 2/3 reduction in sectarian violence;
• Sensational attacks have continued and overshadow the other progress;
• Commerce and some markets are thriving;
• Progress in Anbar province is breathtaking;
• Tactics and placement of troops led to more casualties;
• A forthright assessment will occur in September of 2007.

There's been three main reports on Iraq released over the past week and a half. Prior to the release of each, there's been corresponding leaks to the media that paint the reports in the worst possible light. This is according to plan, meant to sway public opinion against the surge. Take some time and read the original documents, people! Before I went off to undergo a few medical tests, I mentioned an article co-authored by Tom Ricks on the first progress report on Iraq authorized by the Democrat Congress - the GAO Iraq Political Benchmark Report released on September 1st. This particular GAO Iraq Report was designed by the Democrats in Congress to fail - they specifically ordered the GAO to give an achieved or not achieved rating to each benchmark. In other words, it was not supposed to be a report on progress towards goals, but one on failure to meet goals. The media then did its part, publishing stories highlighting the negatives of the report, without putting political benchmarks in context alongside the noticeable gains that are being met by the military in Iraq.

That sandbagging was too much for even the GAO to accept in light of the recent developments in Iraq. Against the original Congressional directives, it decided to rate partial achievements on some of the benchmarks, and in the summary (on page 2) it acknowledged substantial progress outside of the limited scope of the report:

These results do not diminish the courageous efforts of coalition forces and progress that has been made in several areas, including Anbar Province.

That the GAO specifically mentioned progress in Anbar Province is especially ironic given Ricks' negative story on the results of the report. It was a year ago today (9/11/06) that Ricks and his "sources" claimed in another Washington Post article that Anbar was lost, and "the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there". So much for Ricks and his expert sources. Perhaps they were the problem all along...

The money for the troop surge is already in the budget.

Some members of Congress had proposed using the power of the purse to cut off funds for the new troops, but White House press secretary Tony Snow said there's already enough money in the pipeline to begin the deployment of more than 17,000 soldiers to Baghdad to quell Sunni-Shi'ite violence and another 4,000 Marines to Anbar province to go after al Qaeda fighters.

"Funding for the forces and to dispatch them to the region, it's already in the budget. So we're going to proceed with those plans," Mr. Snow said.

That leaves Congress with few other options.

I can't imagine the shock of the soldiers at Al Asad Airbase this morning when Air Force One touched down. That must have been quite a sight. President Bush has made (obviously surprise) visits to Iraq before, but this time the visit is not to Baghdad, but to the Anbar province west of Baghdad.

The White House said the base was chosen because of the "remarkable turnaround" in the mostly Sunni region west of Baghdad.

Bush plans to eat dinner with U.S. troops and to meet with top military commanders, the U.S. ambassador, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and provincial tribal leaders.

Bush has hailed Anbar as a success, citing the U.S. military's alliance with tribal leaders in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.

The other interesting part of the story is the way they smuggled the president out:

As the president continues to fine-tune his new and improved strategy for total victory in Iraq, his subordinates on Capitol Hill are as busy as cheerleaders at a homecoming day pep rally. First among them is Joe Lieberman, Independent from Connecticut. In today's lead editorial for the Washington Post, Mr. Lieberman continues to lay out the rationale for the coming surge of U.S. troops into the fray.

In particular, we must provide the vital breathing space for moderate Shiites and Sunnis to turn back the radicals in their communities. There are Iraqi political leaders who understand their responsibility to do this. In Anbar province we have made encouraging progress in winning over local Sunni tribal leaders in the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorists. With more troops to support them, our forces in Anbar and their Sunni allies can achieve a major victory over al-Qaeda.

One wonders why Mr. Lieberman doesn't give specifics on the Good News from Anbar. Likewise, he never details exactly how many more soldiers will be required to provide moderates (like himself) more breathing space, though the number should be "militarily meaningful in size."

More troubling news for those that think the Iraq War is just a civil war, and has no business being part of the War on Terror, from the Times of London: Al-Qaeda planning militant Islamic state within Iraq

A RADICAL plan by Al-Qaeda to take over the Sunni heartland of Iraq and turn it into a militant Islamic state once American troops have withdrawn is causing alarm among US intelligence officials. A power struggle has emerged between the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq, an organisation with ambitions to become a state which has been set up by Al-Qaeda, and more moderate Sunni groups.

They are battling for the long-term control of central and western areas which they believe could break away from Kurdish and Shi'ite-dominated provinces once the coalition forces depart. According to an analysis compiled by US intelligence agencies, the Islamic State has ambitions to create a terrorist enclave in the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Salah al-Din, Nineveh and parts of Babil.

This is precisely why the defeatists in Congress and in the press are, in addition to offering tacit support for our enemies by their words and actions, treading down a dangerous path that will result in more, not less, terrorist attacks on the west, including the United States. Call me silly, but I'd much rather have al-Qaida members concentrating their efforts in Iraq right now than have them combining their forces with like-minded Islamic Fundamentalists in, say, New Jersey. Oh wait...

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton addressing a Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention was quoted by the AP as saying the following:

Clinton said new tactics have brought some success against insurgents, particularly in Iraq's Anbar province.

"It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics," she said. "We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."

Internet blowtorch Matt Drudge picked it up and ran it with the headline "Hillary on Surge? It's working..."

Hillary's campaign could not abide a "right wing" site saying that the surge is working and damage her standing with the far-left, anti-war "nutroots" so they rushed out and made sure that the world knows that we are not winning. So regardless of the fact that she actually said those words and Drudge reported them, she will not have her name besmirched by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy like that. How dare he print that we are actually winning? She's in the midst of the Democrat primary race and she must appease the angry base, even implying a little that we are winning would dramatically hurt her liberal progressive street cred.

In addition to his unexpected visit to the Anbar province in Baghdad, President Bush made the surprising statement that it may be possible to begin a gradual reduction in troop numbers. Bush was not, however, inferring that there would be a phased withdrawal in the sense that the mission had failed. Rather Bush explicitly stated that any troop withdrawals would be from a position of strength as opposed to bowing to any political, international or media pressure.

According to Reuters, Bush had expressed the sentiment that if military commanders deemed it possible to maintain the current levels of security with smaller numbers of troops, the president would consider reducing troop levels as it would be from a position of strength and not weakness. Once again, the president would make the decision based upon the recommendation of military commanders and not any sources of external pressure.

It would seem that yet another showdown between the President and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid over funding for the troops is looming. Much of the upcoming debate will surely revolve around the current situation where the Iraqi government has proven to be woefully incompetent and unable to provide the necessary political solutions such as passing the oft delayed oil revenue sharing bill required to aid in stabilizing the country.

I read Charles Krauthammer's opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday. He is usually too "out there" for me to get through one of his articles, but this is an excellent piece. The president and his spokespeople keep asking for a viable plan for Iraq -- well here is one.

Krauthammer is worried, as are we all probably, that the Maliki government may not live up to its commitment in this "new strategy" for winning in Iraq. He points out that the administration's view, or hope, is that Maliki, whatever his instincts, can be forced to act in good faith by the prospect of the calamity that will befall him if he lets us down and we carry out our threat to leave. The problem with this logic is that it is contradicted by the president's simultaneous pledge not to leave "before the job is done." Oops. Krauthammer thinks we need an intermediate move on our part. He suggests:

We need to find a redeployment strategy that maintains as much latent American strength as possible, but with minimal exposure. We say to Maliki: Let us down, and we dismantle the Green Zone, leave Baghdad and let you fend for yourself; we keep the airport and certain strategic bases in the area; we redeploy most of our forces to Kurdistan; we maintain a significant presence in Anbar province, where we are having success in our one-front war against al-Qaeda and the Baathists. Then we watch.. You can have your Baghdad civil war without us. We will be around to pick up the pieces as best we can.

As promised, President Bush used his executive privilege and vetoed the retreat Iraq War funding bill bill the Democrats put forth:

Lacking the votes to override the president, Democratic leaders quietly considered what might be included or kept out of their next version of the $124 billion spending bill. Bush will meet with congressional leaders-Democrats and Republicans alike-on Wednesday to discuss a new bill.

Bush said Democrats had made a political statement by passing anti-war legislation. "They've sent their message, and now it's time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds," the president said.

Yet the Dems don't care to pass any legislation supporting the troops, they only wanted to send a message to their base and it cames across loud and clear to the anti-war left. This bill never had a chance of passage, but now they can go home and tell their constituents they tried.

Where does this go from here? After negotiation, I suspect that the timetable will be dropped and a convoluted redistribution of troops will be agreed upon. The fact that even the NY Times had to admit that progress in al-Anbar Province is being made means that the Democrats can't hit Bush too hard on the "surge" not working. The administration is beginning to press this point with more fervor of late.

As for the first 100 days of Democrat "leadership," well, you can judge whether or not this is the worst beginning to any Congress in history. I believe it ranks right up there:

In a CNN interview this morning, General Petraeus has confirmed that the U.S. is going to be providing some Sunni groups in Iraq with weapons to use against al-Qaida in Iraq. The logic is that weapons are easily available around the world so we might as well arm them. An article in the New York Times today goes into more detail.

I would think the risk of those weapons being used in the civil war against the Shiites and the risk of those weapons being used against U.S. troops (both possibilities acknowledged by the General) would argue against this strategy, but apparently the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

The strategy has been successful in Anbar province, where the local Sunnis got fed up with all the killing of Iraqis by the insurgents. In return for arms, the Sunnis have to agree to use them against al-Qaida and to halt attacks on American units. In some cases, the Sunni groups have agreed to alert American troops to the location of roadside bombs and other lethal booby traps.

On the other hand, critics of the strategy, including some American officers, say that it could amount to our arming both sides in a future civil war. With little sign of a political accommodation between Shiite and Sunni politicians in Baghdad, there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against the Shiites and/or against us. The Shiites are not thrilled with this new plan, not unexpectedly.

It's an interesting roll of the dice -- with historically mixed results that have often backfired, such as in the French colonial war in Algeria, the British-led fight against insurgents in Malaya in the early 1950s and in Vietnam. However, even if only partly successful, as one officer said, the strategy could do as much or more to stabilize Iraq as the increase in U.S. troops previously ordered by President Bush ("the surge") -- which may not be saying much in the long run.

Hillary Clinton made some of her most illogical and idiotic remarks yet in this primary season before, of all places, a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention.

August 21, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton told a veterans group yesterday that President Bush's troop surge is working -- but that it is still time to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. "It's working. We're just years too late in our tactics," she said, referring to the beefed-up U.S. troop presence battling insurgents in Iraq, including war-torn Anbar province.

She digs in deeper in a further comment:

"We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war. We have to win. "I think the best way of honoring their service is bringing them home," she told the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City.

Where to start, where to start... The Dems spent last year not promoting surrender as they are now, but instead demanding a new strategy. As did myself and many other conservatives - the State Department model in Iraq had failed miserably because we had not vanquished the enemy, and it was time to conduct real warfare again - finish the job we started. President Bush gave critics that new strategy that they were demanding, and it's working. But in the meantime, Democrats, in order to appease their base, prematurely declared the war lost. So they're in a quandary - since last November, the Democrats as a party are politically vested in an American defeat in Iraq, yet the change in tactics that they originally demanded are paying off.

Yesterday, the president gave the troops a wonderful surprise. On his way to Australia, where he plans to boast of the progress the United States is making against global warming, he touched down on a top-secret, eight-hour mission to Anbar Province to boast of the progress the United States is making in the war in Iraq. His own boots on the dusty ground, he was able, during his brief layover at what the Washington Post described as "an isolated, well-fortified airbase", to look his commanders in the eye, and personally bare witness to the miracle that is the surge.

Like a child on Christmas Eve, President Bush could not even wait for General Petraeus to return to the United States next week and deliver his much anticipated report. He had to have a peek. Well, surprise, he liked what he saw! So much so, in fact, that he was able to proclaim the following: More Gains in Iraq Could Lead to Drawdown. That sounds impressive, but is the converse not equally true? Couldn't a continuation of this quagmire also lead to a drawdown? Maybe if Congress grows a spine.

But back to the president's mind for a moment. What exactly are the gains of which he speaks? We still have no discernible political progress between the Sunni and the Shia. In fact, the Iraqi government seems as precarious and ineffective as ever. Civilian deaths have risen in July (1,653) and August (1,773). Since the surge began, neighborhoods in Baghdad and throughout the country have undergone ethnic cleansing. And U.S. casualties, though down from an April-June spike, have returned to the same rate that they measured in January, February, and March, the first three moths of the escalation.

Simply put, the president remains in full Sit-and-Spin mode, even while putting a little dirt on his boots. The reality, however, as the LA Times put it today, is that a sane, measured assessment of the surge leads one to the conclusion that it has failed. And we now return you to global warming...