| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2007 03:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
United We Fall? |
It seems to us that there is something to be said for the idea that when
America is at war, citizens, and especially political leaders, have a
patriotic duty to put differences aside in the cause of victory. We oppose
government censorship but wish for more self-restraint on the part of war
opponents.
We realize, of course, that this idea died for at least a generation with
Vietnam, and it may not return, at least until the baby boomers have passed
from the scene. But one baby-boomer in Congress wants to bring it back--in
reverse. The Associated Press reports:
Kansas Rep. Nancy Boyda is defending her decision to step out of
a hearing room last week while a retired Army general testified
about U.S. progress in Iraq...
Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Topeka, said she left the House
Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday for about 10 minutes
during the testimony of retired Gen. Jack Keane...
Keane had testified that since the troop surge began, U.S.
forces "are on the offensive and we have the momentum." He also
said that security has improved in every neighborhood and district
in and around Baghdad, and that "cafés, pool halls, coffee houses
that I visited are full of people."
When Boyda returned to the hearing, she ridiculed Keane's
description of Iraq "as in some way or another that it's a place
that I might take the family for a vacation--things are going
so well--those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media
and further divide this country instead of saying, 'Here's the
reality of the problem.' "
Boyda, it seems, wants to suppress information about success in Iraq, because
such information would "divide the country." Better that the country be united
in defeatism. Along similar lines is this report from yesterday's Washington
Post:
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a
strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David
Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his
party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. . . .
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S.
ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis
of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued
violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the
commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more
generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem
for us."
What does it say about Clyburn's party that if things go well for America, it
would be "a real big problem for us"?
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too skeptical,
but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when it suits the
agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every Republican president a
Nixon.
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel Goldstein " |
|
| Title: Re: United We Fall? |
02 Aug 2007 07:49:10 AM |
|
|
I think this is a good example of your excellent observation that liberal journalists aren't a
big help to liberal politicians. Had the Washington Post reporters been more like Bill O'Reilly,
or Sean Hannity, with a "wait a minute, you're saying that a win in Iraq is a problem for the
Democrats?" reaction, Rep. Clyburn might have backtracked, or at the very least realized he had
truly set his foot in it.
Very likely the liberal Washington Post reporters, simply agreed with him, as "good news" from
Iraq was a political problem, not an outrageous admission that Democrats are truly invested in
America's defeat in Iraq. They just didn't see it.
In article <GtKdnSP2RPQ1Ui3bnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
wrote:
It seems to us that there is something to be said for the idea that when
America is at war, citizens, and especially political leaders, have a
patriotic duty to put differences aside in the cause of victory. We oppose
government censorship but wish for more self-restraint on the part of war
opponents.
We realize, of course, that this idea died for at least a generation with
Vietnam, and it may not return, at least until the baby boomers have passed
from the scene. But one baby-boomer in Congress wants to bring it back--in
reverse. The Associated Press reports:
Kansas Rep. Nancy Boyda is defending her decision to step out of
a hearing room last week while a retired Army general testified
about U.S. progress in Iraq...
Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Topeka, said she left the House
Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday for about 10 minutes
during the testimony of retired Gen. Jack Keane...
Keane had testified that since the troop surge began, U.S.
forces "are on the offensive and we have the momentum." He also
said that security has improved in every neighborhood and district
in and around Baghdad, and that "cafés, pool halls, coffee houses
that I visited are full of people."
When Boyda returned to the hearing, she ridiculed Keane's
description of Iraq "as in some way or another that it's a place
that I might take the family for a vacation--things are going
so well--those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media
and further divide this country instead of saying, 'Here's the
reality of the problem.' "
Boyda, it seems, wants to suppress information about success in Iraq, because
such information would "divide the country." Better that the country be united
in defeatism. Along similar lines is this report from yesterday's Washington Post:
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a
strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David
Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his
party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. . . .
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S.
ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis
of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued
violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the
commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more
generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem
for us."
What does it say about Clyburn's party that if things go well for America, it
would be "a real big problem for us"?
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too skeptical,
but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when it suits the
agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every Republican president a
Nixon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: United We Fall? |
02 Aug 2007 08:31:29 AM |
|
|
On Aug 1, 4:19 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a
strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David
Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his
party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. . .
Why, did his strongly positive report three years ago?
"I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt
from the ground up.
The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the
top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their
country and their security forces courageously in the face of an
enemy
that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the
establishment of the new Iraq.
In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and
then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although
there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks
-- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder
more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to
do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially
in
places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that
not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the
challenges ahead.
Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately
164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained
and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are
performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being
delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity.
Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and
institutions are being reestablished.
Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight -- so much so
that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more
and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country. Since
Jan. 1 more than 700 Iraqi security force members have been killed,
and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and
military have been killed as well.
Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention
Force are now conducting operations. Two of these battalions, along
with the Iraqi commando battalion, the counterterrorist force, two
Iraqi National Guard battalions and thousands of policemen recently
contributed to successful operations in Najaf.
In another highly successful operation several days ago, the Iraqi
counterterrorist force conducted early-morning raids in Najaf that
resulted in the capture of several senior lieutenants and 40 other
members of that militia, and the seizure of enough weapons to fill
nearly four 7 1/2-ton dump trucks.
Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional
Intervention Force battalions will become operational. Nine more
regular army battalions will complete training in January, in time to
help with security missions during the Iraqi elections at the end of
that month.
Iraqi National Guard battalions have also been active in recent
months. Some 40 of the 45 existing battalions -- generally all except
those in the Fallujah-Ramadi area -- are conducting operations on a
daily basis, most alongside coalition forces, but many independently.
Progress has also been made in police training. In the past week
alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five
specialty courses. By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in
Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the
eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative
skills,
substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force
and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the
police code of conduct.
Iraq's borders are long, stretching more than 2,200 miles. Reducing
the flow of extremists and their resources across the borders is
critical to success in the counterinsurgency. As a result, with
support from the Department of Homeland Security, specialized
training
for Iraq's border enforcement elements began earlier this month in
Jordan.
Regional academies in Iraq have begun training as well, and more will
come online soon. In the months ahead, the 16,000-strong border force
will expand to 24,000 and then 32,000. In addition, these forces will
be provided with modern technology, including vehicle X-ray machines,
explosive-detection devices and ground sensors.
Outfitting hundreds of thousands of new Iraqi security forces is
difficult and complex, and many of the units are not yet fully
equipped. But equipment has begun flowing. Since July 1, for example,
more than 39,000 weapons and 22 million rounds of ammunition have
been
delivered to Iraqi forces, in addition to 42,000 sets of body armor,
4,400 vehicles, 16,000 radios and more than 235,000 uniforms.
Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and
refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq's security forces. Some $1
billion in construction to support this effort has been completed or
is underway, and five Iraqi bases are already occupied by entire
infantry brigades.
Numbers alone cannot convey the full story. The human dimension of
this effort is crucial. The enemies of Iraq recognize how much is at
stake as Iraq reestablishes its security forces. Insurgents and
foreign fighters continue to mount barbaric attacks against police
stations, recruiting centers and military installations, even though
the vast majority of the population deplores such attacks. Yet
despite
the sensational attacks, there is no shortage of qualified recruits
volunteering to join Iraqi security forces. In the past couple of
months, more than 7,500 Iraqi men have signed up for the army and are
preparing to report for basic training to fill out the final nine
battalions of the Iraqi regular army. Some 3,500 new police recruits
just reported for training in various locations. And two days after
the recent bombing on a street outside a police recruiting location
in
Baghdad, hundreds of Iraqis were once again lined up inside the force
protection walls at another location -- where they were greeted by
interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
I meet with Iraqi security force leaders every day. Though some have
given in to acts of intimidation, many are displaying courage and
resilience in the face of repeated threats and attacks on them, their
families and their comrades. I have seen their determination and
their
desire to assume the full burden of security tasks for Iraq.
There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along
the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's
elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing
steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent
months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued
coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It
will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are. "
-General David H. Petraeus
****September 26, 2004****
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49283-2004Sep25?language=printer
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
