I really do not know who is to blame for publishing Pete Hegseth’s (PH) Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), him or WSJ? In the WSJ article "Give the ‘Surge’ A Chance" on July 9, 2007 PH makes the comment,
since January [2007], sectarian murders are substantially down.
I am guessing he wrote the article before
the death toll from a suicide truck bombing in a remote village [Amerli] in northern Iraq rose to around 150 on Sunday [July 8], making it one of the deadliest single bombings, if not the deadliest, since the 2003 invasion.
So, I wonder did he forget to call WSJ and ask to make a few changes or does the WSJ hate Hegseth and decided to go ahead and publish his defunct argument?
First, I must apologize, WSJ online is a pay site, so I cannot provide a link. In addition, I understand the probable timing issue with Hegseth’s article, but I honestly think I would call to retract my article in light of the abovementioned incident if I were him. Or, is it possible that Hegseth forgot to read the news this weekend? Regardless, I will be happy to challenge several of his arguments. The main crux of his argument is that Nancy Pelosi, "wobbly Republicans," and Democrats in general
are more interested in avoiding defeat in their home districts than defeating al Qaeda & Co. in Iraq
and that Petraeus needs time. Funny, I thought perhaps some members of our Congress were actually concerned about our troops dying, a point Hegseth sidesteps.
I am not going to argue about Petraeus’ policy, he understands counter-insurgency and the need for a stable civil society, but it may be too little too late or simply it is muddled within our fight with AQ.
I also must question, what is Hegseth’s definition of "sectarian murder?" Some do not classify bombings as "murder," but as "terrorism" and thus the two are mutually exclusive. So, perhaps Hegseth is correct, maybe the number of Iraqi’s shot in the head is down in an effort to counter-balance the significant, increasingly elaborate, bombings taking place. Or is it possible that the argument is that if a foreign fighter commits the crime it is not sectarian? So, I will give him that one, Iraqi vs. Iraqi violence may possibly be down, but does it really matter? Dead is dead.
Next, Hegseth points out that the surge is working because
arms caches are being found at three times the rate of last year.
Fantastic, our military men and women are doing a great job, but let us consider that arms caches are possibly increasing at three times the rate of last year as well. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq increases every day, it is only likely the number of arms will increase too. There is no way to quantify such data.
Now, back to the bombing in Amerli this past weekend. Hegseth brings up the Baghdad Security Plan and that its’ intended purpose is to
prevent insurgents from relocating.
Amerli either demonstrates that a few got away or the possibility that some insurgents have been working outside of Baghdad all along and are finally getting the reallocated resources to carry out greater destruction elsewhere. Everyone knows about Baghdad and the atrocities there because that is where the reporters are, simply because it is not reported does not mean the rest of Iraq is a peaceful oasis waiting for Baghdad to follow suit.
Finally nowhere in the article does Hegseth speculate that Iraqi’s have any influence within their own country or any resolve to defeat AQ and/or violent and oppressive ideology.
I never intended to start a personal crusade against PH, but the guy continually ignores factual events in Iraq to support his points while not considering that the Iraqi people can actually think for themselves, or fight for themselves if we let them. His argument is that Iraq is merely a battleground for Al Qaeda (AQ) and the United States. Thus, the Iraqi’s are apparently the background noise getting in the way of our path towards progress.