I couldn't let this line from a New York Times Op-Ed (written by usual suspects and Iraq War Cheerleaders, Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack) go today:
Almost everyone now agrees there has been great progress in Iraq. The question is what to do about it.
Really? Everyone, or just the same mainstream media that was so complacent during the buildup to the war initially that they failed to question the fundamental reasons for going to war.
Now they are back at again, repeating administration and Republican talking points about the "success" of the surge, and how opponents of the surge in the beginning should beg for the American people's forgiveness. This whole movement was summed up by the worst parrot in the media, Katie Couric in her interview with Senator Obama after his recent visit to the Iraq:
Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, "Why?"
This is the logic that Couric and the Media have used to define the success of the surge, that American casualties and sectarian violence are down. I would agree too that the surge was successful if those were the only goals laid out in the beginning, but they weren't:
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations....So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.
What kind of liberal, socialist, non-troop supporting idiot said that? Oh wait, that was from President Bush's address outlining his plan for the surge, followed later by the famous 18 benchmarks for success. Juan Cole has an excellent piece out that should be required reading for all about the media largely ignoring this in their reporting on the success of the surge.
All the talk of casualty rates, of course, is to some extent beside the point. The announced purpose of the troop escalation was to create secure conditions in which political compromises could be achieved.
What about the oil revenue sharing laws and disarming the militias? We were creating this secure environment for the Iraqi's to work through their issues politically and they have failed to address the two largest issues facing them. Why am I hung up on these two failed benchmarks(and so should the Media)? The Oil Revenue sharing debate is going to reignite all the old sectarianism in the parliament and the country as a whole. Everyone is going to claim they are not getting their fair share and we are going to be right back were we started. The militias pose an even greater problem and threat. I was terrible at International Relations theory in college, but luckily I remember the biggest thing that defines a country, a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.
So according to the media we are succeeding in Iraq, except when it comes to deciding on how to proceed with the fundamental basis of their economy and the very thing that defines it as a state.
Going back to Couric's interview with Senator Obama, he had the perfect response to her inane, ignorant question:
What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There's no doubt that that's gonna have an impact. But it doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we're detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists' actions are being plotted.
Thank You, Check Please.
[Cross Posted at VetVoice]