Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Steve Chapman :: Townhall.com Columnist
Surging to Stalemate
by Steve Chapman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
How much of the Republican convention did you watch?




When it comes to the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq, the Republican presidential candidates all seem to be auditioning for the lead in a remake of "Pollyanna." In their eyes, it has been the greatest triumph since the liberation of Paris.

John McCain crows that the Democratic presidential aspirants "continue to deny the facts on the ground that we are succeeding." Mitt Romney says "the surge is working." Mike Huckabee agrees. Rudy Giuliani boasts that he supported it from the start. Only the perennial skunk at the garden party, Ron Paul, declines to recite the catechism.

The GOP candidates are hardly alone in calling the surge, announced a year ago, a stunning success. The administration and its allies insist that the decline in violence and U.S. casualties are proof we have turned the corner. But as with alleged breakthroughs in the past, this one turns out to be composed mostly of wishful thinking and selective vision.

Even the claim of improved security is a major overstatement. True, American military casualties have dropped sharply over the past year, and many Iraqi neighborhoods are no longer the charnel houses they used to be. But Americans are still dying at the rate of one every day. And violent civilian Iraqi deaths, according to the independent website IraqBodyCount.org, have averaged about 1,000 a month since September.

That's far lower than in last January, but it's no better than in 2005, and it's well above the levels of 2004 -- when Iraq was already in the grip of bloody chaos. To pronounce that reduction a success is like driving your car into a lake and then bragging when you pull it halfway out.

The more sober supporters of the war recognize we have far to go. "Very real progress is anything but stable victory, even in the area where the U.S. and Iraqi surge has been most effective," writes Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The surge, he says, "has not brought lasting stability and security" even to Baghdad.

The surge itself may not be as important as another change in strategy -- joining forces with Sunni militias previously allied with al-Qaida. "Paying them not to blow us up" is how one American sergeant summarized it for the Los Angeles Times.

For the moment, at least, that tactic has served to quell attacks in some areas. But it comes at a high price: strengthening groups that, once we leave, may revolt against the Shiite-dominated central government. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Subject: wellllllll...................
WHEN romney wins in fla. he will then pour on the power ads in calif.!! and juan mc mexico
is finished for all pracical purposes!

maybe juan can be an instructor...in er, ah, uh
waterboarding!?
elvis

Steve: Re "What happened on 9/11?"
In response to your question, "What happened on 9/11?", I refer you to Pres. Bush's speech he delivered to his followers in Traverse City, Mich., on Aug. 16, 2004, when the President stated:

"After September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. It is a vital lesson our country must never forget. It's one of the lessons of that terrible day." The President of the United States in effect admitted he and his team before 9/11 failed to take seriously threats of terrorist attack upon the U.S.!

According to page 260 of the 9/11 Report, the President stated that he had long known of Osama bin Laden's desire to attack the United States.

And apparently, Mr. Bush was so concerned that, according to the 9/11 Report, he directed the CIA to advise him if the threats which circulated during the summer of 2001 pointed to an attack upon the United States.
As the 9/11 Report states, two CIA analysts on August 6, 2001 reported back to the President that 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." was 'CURRENT AND SERIOUS." Incredibly, according to the 9/11 Report, Mr. Bush, a graduate of Yale with an MBA from Harvard, chose to interpret the analysts' report as "historical in nature".

Respected journalist James P. Pinkerton, a conservative Republican who served in the White House under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, in his April 9, 2004 Newsday column, gave added perspective to the 9/11 catastrophe when Pinkerton wrote:

"President George W. Bush got a blunt warning five weeks before 9/11 and he did little or nothing. He even presided over a stand-down in preparations, concentrating on other concerns. ... Plenty of people in Washington had their 'hair on fire' about the terror threat in the summer of 2001. But not Bush, apparently. On Aug. 4, he went off on a working vacation to his ranch in Texas."
DaveF
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.