Iraq meets 15 out of 18 political benchmarks

Real progress is being seen in Iraq, even as Nancy Pelosi & company do their best to downplay and discount it.

Political Progress Has Accompanied Increased Security in Iraq

[...] When Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker first reported on the results of the surge a year ago this past week, top congressional figures were quick to point out that the Iraqi government had satisfied only three of the 18 benchmarks set up as barometers for progress.

[...]

But the White House is now reporting that 15 of the 18 benchmarks set up to measure the Iraqi government’s effectiveness have been satisfied.

A critical turning point may have been reached in February of this year when the central government passed three pieces of legislation simultaneously: the Provisional Powers Law, the Amnesty Law and a national budget.

While political progress remains uneven, it is not non-existent, according to U.S. State Department reports and recent congressional testimony. The remaining unmet benchmarks concern the disarmament of militias and the distribution of oil revenue.

But the legislative measures that have come to fruition, especially in the past few months, demonstrate that Iraq’s government is in fact taking better advantage of the improved security climate, top administration officials claim. [...]

Read the rest for more details of how things are improving. You won't hear about it in the MSM, they are too busy trying to smear McCain and Palin.
     

Is the Troop Surge Really Working in Iraq?

The recent soccer victory isn't the only good news coming out of Iraq. Some noted critics of the Iraq war are starting to play a different tune about the surge:

Stop the presses! NYT says we may win war in Iraq!

This post by Pat at "Born Again Redneck" is not only about the NYT article, but also links to another article that explains why president Bush's long term strategy for the Middle East is wise. Pat gives us great excerpts from both articles, along with his sensible commentary too, check it out.
     

The Democrats alternative foreign policy

If they succeed, it will follow them for years to come. From the Opinion Journal:

Harry's War:
Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq.

[...] In his speech Monday, Mr. Reid claimed that "nothing has changed" since the surge began taking effect in February. It's true that the car bombings and U.S. casualties continue, and may increase. But such an enemy counterattack was to be expected, aimed as it is directly at the Democrats in Washington. The real test of the surge is whether it can secure enough of the population to win their cooperation and gradually create fewer safe havens for the terrorists.

So far, the surge is meeting that test, even before the additional troops Mr. Bush ordered have been fully deployed. Between February and March sectarian violence declined by 26%, according to Gen. William Caldwell. Security in Baghdad has improved sufficiently to allow the government to shorten its nightly curfew. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has been politically marginalized, which explains his apparent departure from Iraq and the resignation of his minions from Mr. Maliki's parliamentary coalition--a sign that moderate Shiites are gaining strength at his expense.

More significantly, most Sunni tribal sheikhs are now turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with coalition and Iraqi forces. What has turned these sheikhs isn't some grand "political solution," which Mr. Reid claims is essential for Iraq's salvation. They've turned because they have tired of being fodder for al Qaeda's strategy of fomenting a civil war with a goal of creating a Taliban regime in Baghdad, or at least in Anbar province. The sheikhs realize that they will probably lose such a civil war now that the Shiites are as well-armed as the insurgents and prepared to be just as ruthless. Their best chance for survival now lies with a democratic government in Baghdad. The political solution becomes easier the stronger Mr. Maliki and Iraqi government forces are, and strengthening both is a major goal of the surge.

By contrast, Mr. Reid's strategy of withdrawal will only serve to enlarge the security vacuum in which Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents have thrived. That's also true of what an American withdrawal will mean for the broader Middle East. Mr. Reid says that by withdrawing from Iraq we will be better able to take on al Qaeda and a nuclear Iran. But the reality (to use Mr. Reid's new favorite word) is that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and if we lose there we will only make it harder to prevail in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Countries do not usually win wars by losing their biggest battles. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The article goes on to examine Harry Reid's "reasoning" for his position, and shows why it's nonsense. If the Democrats do succeed in forcing us to lose now, not only will they own it; we will all suffer the consequences together.


Related Links:

Progress in Iraq

One Choice in Iraq

Rattling sabers, & Dems
     

Is the troop surge in Iraq REALLY working?

If you listen only the the MSM, you would think not. The recent suicide bombing in the green zone, killing three Iraqi Members of parliament, and severely wounding a fourth, is very disheartening news. Yet if you want to understand what's really happening, you have to look at the whole, larger picture. One set back is not the whole story. Charles Krauthammer reminds us there is more:

Surge Results are Visible

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the actual war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad. [...]

Krauthammmer then goes into some detail about the real changes in those areas, with new cooperation from the Sunnis, who were previously resistant. Stability is increasing, and the surge hasn't even entered full swing yet:

[...] How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the U.S. to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The Democrats are always saying Give Peace a Chance. But the mere absence of war is not peace. Sometimes the only way way to achieve a real and lasting peace is through the exercise of strength against tyranny. How about giving General Petraeus a chance to do just that, like the Democrats agreed to?


How about giving this woman, and many just like her, a chance? A chance to live in peace and prosperity, instead of abandoning them to a certain bloodbath?


Related Link:

Give Surge a Chance: Our moral obligation
This is the text Senator John McCain's speech at the Virginia Military Institute, as prepared for delivery. An excerpt:

[...] I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. I sympathize with the fatigue of the American people. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and a country. We, who are willing to support this new strategy, and give General Petraeus the time and support he needs, have chosen a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election. This is an historic choice, with ramifications for Americans not even born yet. Let’s put aside for a moment the small politics of the day. The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) McCain doesn't downplay the pain of this war, yet he also understands the long term consequences of losing it.

Hat tip to Born again Redneck Yogi for the link.