So in thinking, about all that’s been going on lately…….
Reid, Pelosi, Petraeus, The Vote, The Surge, the wanting the President to say more…..it’s hitting me and as a Joe Lieberman Democrat I believe I’m the one to say it………….
Most of us, including General Petraeus are seeing some progress with the surge. We probably all saw progress in 2005. Then there was the mosque hit. BUT we saw progress in the immediate aftermath. There was no big bloodbath as we all held our breaths.
But then we seemed to relax and that’s when things were hitting the fan. And not adjusting to it.
It wasn’t until the election last November that President Bush decided to do a number of things.
I was sad to see Rumsfeld let go in such a way, but it was a first step in changing things. Then came the surge, and Gates and Petraeus and the new plan and the implied threat to Maliki. These things weren’t formulated until Bush was pressed up against a wall. (as far as I can tell!)
What would have happened without a Democrat win? Anything? Worse things?
What does this mean in terms of today?
Harry Reid has said the war is lost. That went out to the enemy and it was wrong and it sucks and the troops get to pay for it. It may also lead to complacency in the enemy who may start to believe that Bush is not still in charge. (He is. And he will be until 2009.)
Pelosi et all voted for withdrawal starting October 1. When the surge works, that may (or may not) be a good time to start drawing troops down a bit. In the meantime, Bush will hold the line.
Gates went and put some numbers up for Maliki. We continue to be called “occupiers” by Iraq’s neighbors, but Maliki knows we are needed right now. Gates must have delivered some sort of message along the lines of “the American people are on their last nerve. Get with it and get some things done!” Would that have happened without Pelosi and Reid talking like the jackasses they are?
I don’t know.
And Petraeus. In Bush’s speech the other day, the good one in Michigan, he mentioned the change in how the command is working with Petraeus. And how it didn’t work before. Is a year and a half a normal amount of time to let a plan wither and die? I don’t know. But were there indications that Bush was thinking of making changes before November 2006? I didn’t see them. And he says himself it was only 3 months ago that he ordered a review.
Three months ago, my administration completed an extensive review of that very question. I ordered major changes to our strategy in Iraq. And to lead this new strategy, I named General David Petraeus, an expert who wrote the Army’s new manual on counterinsurgency warfare.
This new strategy is fundamentally different from the previous strategy.
So today – on a weekend when no one in their right mind is reading blogs – I write on this and give a small, small amount of thanks to the Democrats for being shortsighted, appeasing, cut and runners who care for nothing more than their own political power.
Because of them, there was a change in course which I am feeling very hopeful about (while knowing anything can happen in war). Because of the them the Republicans had to eat a little crow in their humble pie and that’s always a good thing.
While DC is “abuzz” about everything and everything else and the rest of the things, here in the hinterland I’m seeing things maybe work out for the best in the big picture even though some Democrats are saying idiotic things that bring comfort to the enemy and leave our troops wondering “What the f***?”
They, the Dems, aren’t to be forgiven (and Omar is happy to give them hell) for these indiscretions nor are we to look the other way. But without them would these recent changes have taken place this year? I’m thinking not.
So, tip one up today and just don’t mention it to anyone on Monday!