Sorry about the long break in posting. The reason is two fold-not only have I been busy with personal stuff over the last two weeks, I try to stick to one simple rule in my blog-don't talk unless you have something intelligent to say.
So I have this ongoing 'relationship' with a local lefty blogger named Spot at The Cucking Stool. He, like most liberal MoveOn party types have invested the last 4 or 5 years of their lives in predicting defeat in Iraq. Defeat for the President they hate, defeat for the Republican party they despise, but also a military defeat for the US, and defeat for the US military. I wont rehash the argument that has been already been made about the terrible situation where your ideology can only be reinforced by your country's armed forces being defeated in the field. But I will say that those who hope for our defeat in Iraq to vindicate themselves do not now and will never 'support the troops'.
Anyways, Spot was crowing the other day about a new study that says the surge is failing because all we really did was start paying off the local Sunnis in the Anbar and elsewhere. That, he contends, is the sole reason for the reduction in violence over the past 18 months, and not the incredible efforts and increase in manpower and radical new policies of our troops in Iraq. Spot is quoting from a blog post from a former NYTimes reporter about our alleged funding and arming of various militias across Iraq, and that the violence is down because these militias have killed all the easy and soft targets.
Let's review that sentence with the important parts highlighted-a blog post from a former NYTimes reporter about our alleged funding and arming...
The author offers no proof of anything he alleges, not a contact name or a source or even a quote from an AP stringer working for Hezbollah. Those guys are a dime a dozen.
But my point is not to disparage blogs, reporters, or even the NYTimes, though all are clearly worthy of disparaging. My point is how low the once mighty have fallen.
In the spring of 2007, a liberal blogger had his choice of doom and gloom from Iraq to choose from. Like this, this, and this. Or this, this and this.
Or try Spot's own posts, here,
here. And those are just from February.
So flash forward to spring of 2008 and what's a good liberal blogger to do? The surge is working, violence is down, US casualties are down to the third lowest since the entire war began, and the media has replaced Iraq with the economy as the big issue of the election.
What to do? Quote as gospel a blog post from a former NYTimes reporter. Then add in a study by two Brits by the name of Stiglitz and Blimes about the escalating cost of the war. Really, Stiglitz and Blimes? Everyone has heard of them. Wait a minute, I haven't. So who are they? Here's what Google has on them. Wow, these two have been writing anti-Iraq articles since the war began. Are they to be considered an unbiased source?
In point of fact, even if their cost estimates are correct, so what? How much has the US spent since 1945 to garrison and equip troops in Germany and Japan to counter the threat of Communism? In my opinion, the invasion of Iraq was parallel to WWII itself. We won both faster than anyone thought possible and with superior firepower and tactics. The Cold War threat of Communism and the AQI fueled insurgency are also in parallel. Relatively low level conflict fought by US and local troops and whatever mercenaries the enemy could find.
How the mighty have fallen. Liberal bloggers are now quoting fellow bloggers and obscure anti-war studies to show that, against all empirical evidence, the situation in Iraq is still getting worse. How will they explain it away when we withdraw our troops not in retreat but in victory, in the time and place of our choosing, and leave behind a stable Iraq?
Always stupid to bet against America.