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!
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Defeatism Defeated?
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What did you think of Gov. Sarah Palin's acceptance speech Wednesday night?




If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.

One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus' September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate Congressional mandate to pull the troops out.

Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?

The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure -- and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.

Senator Reid had to pre-empt defeat before General Petraeus could report progress. The Majority Leader's failure to get the Senate to do that suggests that not enough others were convinced that declaring failure now was the right political strategy.

An optimist might even hope that some of the Senators thought it was wrong for the country.

Another revealing sign is that the solid front of the mainstream media in filtering out any positive news from Iraq and focussing only on American casualties -- in the name of "honoring the troops" -- is now starting to show cracks.

One of the most revealing cracks has appeared in, of all places, the New York Times, which has throughout the war used its news columns as well as its editorial pages to undermine the war in Iraq and paint the situation as hopeless.

But an op-ed piece in the July 30 New York Times by two scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution -- Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack -- now paints a very different picture, based on their actual investigation on the ground in Iraq after the American troop surge under General Petraeus.

It is not a rosy scenario by any means. There are few rosy scenarios in any war. But O'Hanlon and Pollack report some serious progress.

"Today," they report, "morale is high" among American troops and "civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began."

In two cities they visited in northern Iraq "American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate" in providing their own security. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Subject: Defeatism
The best bet in town is that when the left begins to reposition itself on Iraq something is going very right over there.

Understanding that if the surge works their goose is cooked, the left will be trying to quickly reshuffle the deck. This however will be difficult to say the least. Many high profile leftest are on the record in plain sight with no place to hide.

It is hard to embarrass a liberial but this will come close!

*War is a Racket*
--
...is available freely online, See:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
...among other sources.

As for "Joe's" idiot contention that guerilla wars are unwinnable, military history is replete with such conflicts in which the forces of government defeated the guerilleros, including the Phillipine insurrection. Plenty of examples.

And the end of the war in Vietnam (1975) looked rather sususpiciously like a standard armor-and-infantry invasion by the NVA against an Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) deprived precipitously of technical, military, and materiel support by the Democrat-dominated Congress of these United States.

In two prior similar attempts at conquest (1968 and 1972), against American forces on the ground and then entirely against ARVN *with* proper American logistical backing, the NVA forces thrown into the invasions were thoroughly mauled, and the brave "freedom fighters" of the Vietcong were completely destroyed.

Why are "Liberals" and other socialists such spectacular examples of abject ignorance on every subject from economics to science to military history?

Is arrant stupidity some sort of qualifying condition for membership in your ranks?
--

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.