May 22 2008

The Amazing Successes In Iraq Make News – Finally

Published by at 10:54 am under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT,Iraq

Update:  The BBC (no less) is wondering if Bin Laden’s recent statements focusing on Palestine and ignoring Iraq mean al-Qaeda is admitting defeat in Iraq and moving on to try to make gains against democracy and the West elsewhere:

The two latest messages believed to be from Osama Bin Laden emphasise the centrality of a struggle against Israel and raise the question as to why he did not concentrate on Iraq.

The two new statements contrast with the importance given to Iraq in another message in March: “Iraq is the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine. Palestine will be restored to us, with God’s permission, when we wake up from our slumber.”
The word “slumber” (and his criticism of Arab rulers) gives a clue to Bin Laden’s thinking. He wants more to be done.

Hence perhaps the shift from Iraq, which has come to mean difficulties, to the “Palestinian question”, which can attract support.

This has led to a theory among some western intelligence analysts that al-Qaeda accepts that it is in trouble in Iraq.

“Al Qaeda could now be preparing its followers for a strategic failure in Iraq. It therefore needs a rallying cry and Palestine is a no-brainer.”

Question: If even al-Qaeda sees its inevitable defeat in Iraq, which by definition means victory for the US, how long will it take the liberals, stuck in their deep denial that Iraq is winnable, to get a clue and figure it out as well?  Will they ever admit they were wrong and accept victory in Iraq?  And if they don’t, why would the American people lend them any credence whatsoever?  Inquiring minds want to know!  – end update.

It seems the SurrenderMedia has finally surrendered to the realities in Iraq.   While not as extensive as their coverage of the al-Qaeda bloodbaths in the fall of 2006 until The Surge took hold in late spring 2007, the successes in Iraq are starting to become too great to ignore.  Just check out this ABC News story:

Despite the recent gun battles and civilian casualties we have seen in Sadr City, there are some real signs of progress. Military officials are more optimistic now than they have been at any time since the purple-finger elections of January 2005. Consider:

— Iraqi forces are now leading operations in Basra, Mosul and Sadr City. In each case, the Iraqis have made progress with relatively little American support. This is unprecedented: three major Iraqi-led operations in three different parts of the country.

— Last week, the overall level of attacks in Iraq was at the lowest point since April 2004.

— So far in May, the U.S. death rate is the lowest of the war. This is a morbid statistic that can change with a single large attack, but so far 14 Americans have been killed this month, a death rate of .76 per day, by far the lowest of the war. Five of those deaths came on May 1; another two were non-hostile. Over the last two weeks, a total of six Americans have been killed in hostile action.

Just as I and many others predicted – once you destroy the hold the Islamo Fascists have (be they al-Qaeda Sunni or Shiite Mahdi Militia) the peace and security follow.  The violence statistics are just stunning.  The lowest levels ever since we invaded.  The Democrats can be happy about one thing – Bush and company did fix Iraq before he left office, they succeeded despite all the hand-wringing and cries of retreat from the liberal left.

And more importantly than succeeding in standing up Iraq, the process (while long, arduous and costly) accomplished one other thing – it destroyed al-Qaeda’s support in the Muslim world.  This gent says it better than I can, as he rails against the media for hiding the success of Iraq from the citizens of the West who sacrificed much to make this happen:

When President George W. Bush announced a surge of US forces in Iraq, he was almost universally condemned as compounding already bungled and failed policies. In the first several months of 2007, the news seemed bad and the media were full of it, declaring it a failure and a disaster.

But as things began to get better on the ground, events faded from our screens. Al-Qa’ida, which had controlled Sunni areas such as Anbar province, was virtually driven out. The same thing happened in and around Baghdad. Remaining al-Qa’ida forces retreated to the northern city of Mosul, where they are now under pressure from Iraqi and US forces.

This extraordinary achievement, the virtual destruction of al-Qa’ida in Iraq, occurred in less than a year. Critics say this was all because of a revolt of the Sunnis, particularly tribal leaders, repelled by al-Qa’ida’s monstrous excesses against their people, and the threat al-Qa’ida posed to the traditional wielders of power in those regions.

It’s true that revulsion among Sunnis in those provinces against al-Qa’ida was a crucial factor. That began to emerge tentatively in mid 2006. But it was the additional US troops subsequently provided by way of the surge that turned a flicker of tribal resistance into a wildfire that has engulfed al-Qa’ida.

Al-Qa’ida in Iraq still exists and is still capable of significant acts of barbarity, but it has suffered a catastrophic strategic setback, not just militarily but much more importantly in terms of its political and moral legitimacy among Iraqis.

And there have been huge steps forward on the political front as well as the various Iraqi sects finally sit down to work on their future as one, diverse country.  Back to the ABC News article for one other bit of news that is also not reported by a liberal press that staked its shattered reputation and credibility on betting against Iraq and America:

— On May 8, the speaker of the Iraqi parliament, Mahmoud al-Mishhadani, wrote a heartfelt letter to President Bush, thanking the U.S. for sending the “best politicians and military commanders” to Iraq. Mishhadani urged Bush to keep Gen. Petraeus in Iraq. His letter was not reported in the Western press, but it is a significant sign of political progress. Just a year ago, Mishhadani, a Sunni, said attacks on U.S. forces are justified and called Sunni insurgents who kill American troops “heroes.”

Now who are the heroes?  Those who rose up and destroyed al-Qaeda’s future in Islam.  It is getting time to really bring our troops home (cautiously and carefully) to a heroes welcome.  They did amazing things in Iraq.  They showed the Muslim Street that, when compared to al-Qaeda, Americans aren’t really all that bad after all.

10 responses so far

10 Responses to “The Amazing Successes In Iraq Make News – Finally”

  1. tudidarnn says:

    The logic is unassailable: last month’s high death toll proved we were winning, and this month’s low death toll also proves we’re winning. Iran’s victory in Iraq (since they brokered a cease-fire between Iranian puppet Maliki and the somewhat less pro-Iranian Sadr) is proof that we’re winning. The fact that we helped Maliki slaughter his political opponents in advance of an election is proof that democracy is taking hold in Iraq. It all makes sense.

    As for the media coverage: since the rate of violence in Iraq is pretty much the same as in 2005 (fewer Americans being killed, at least this month, but the same number of Iraqis are being killed or more), if the MSM would report on the war the way they did in 2005, the response would be the same as the American people’s response in 2005: Iraq is in a bloody civil war and we’re not helping.

    The fact that the MSM is under-reporting Iraq, despite the horrible 2005-level violence, is proof that the MSM is pro-war, as we also saw in 2007: even though the surge caused Iraq to get more violent, and violence only dropped when Sadr declared his cease-fire, the MSM reported as if the surge was working.

    So, we’re where we were in 2005: Iraq is in hell, Iraq will never get better until America stops staying there, fueling the civil war and empowering Iran, but conservatives are able to pretend that Iraq isn’t in a civil war and point to “good news” that is nothing of the sort. But since cut n’ run remains the preference of the American people – look at the Mississippi House race, where the anti-surge, anti-war conservative Democrat beat the pro-surge, pro-war Republican Davis because even conservatives hate the failed surge – keep right on propagandizing for an eternal occupation of Iraq. Those of us who don’t want American defeat (since defeat=staying in Iraq forever) usually win.

    But hey, there’s good news to report on, like the fact that we’ve helped empower Islamo Fascism in Basra and the reports of “bars opening” were, as usual, pro-war MSM propaganda:

  2. gwood says:

    The lack of a mention of Iraq in bin-Laden’s last missive is a sure sign of capitulation; we have to look to things like these because there will be no white flag.

    In a way I’m sort of glad we didn’t kill Binnie yet, because he’s still alive to experience the humiliation of being a loser in the eyes of his own people.

    The Arab Street is the audience in this macabre play, and they want to get the hook to get Binnie off the stage. It wouldn’t surprise me if somebody over there gives him up now.

    Wouldn’t that be sweet?

  3. MerlinOS2 says:

    Well they tried Lebanon a while back and the Army routed them in the camps over a long time period.

    But now Hezzbollah has gained veto power there.

    Will Iran take kindly to AQ wanting to play in their Gaza sandbox?

    They have more been working on Somalia and Yemen without a lot of fanfare because they want to try to control both sides of the southern end of the Suez Canal.

    The mideast has a long common memory carried like legends down through the generations. The tactics of AQ and their ilk and the damage to Muslims more than the infidel will haunt them for years to come and cancel a lot of their base support gained over the years in Afghanistan versus the Russians.

  4. Neo says:

    The elephant in the room is that the Left could concede the point that Iraq has been won, thank Bush for more or less destroying al Qaeda and quickly move on to the position it had on 10-Sept-2001.

    The conservatives and Republicans would probably regret the day that this happened, but, thankfully, the Left see this as a lose-lose situation.

  5. gwood says:

    From Tudidarnn……..“…..if the MSM would report on the war the way they did in 2005, the response would be the same as the American people’s response in 2005……”

    So, it’s not that violence is down, and the trajectory of the war has changed, the MEDIA has changed. Uh huh.

    I’m sorry, but call me UNCONVINCED by your “unassailable logic”.

    It looks to me like defeating those who fight us in Iraq is going to be infinitely easier than convincing those among our Fifth-Column-Within that we have done so.

    Tudidarnn, I feel your pain.

  6. Terrye says:

    I don’t think anyone said that high death tolls meant were winning.

    I think the real truth is that opposing the war became and end in and of itself for a lot of people. It never occurred to a lot of those same people that for them to get their way Iraq would have to devolve into chaos. They seem oblivious to the fact that they made themselves cheer leaders for the bad guys.

    The Iraqis are starting to get it together. Iraq will not be perfect, ever, but it is better than it was for the Iraqi people. And that is a good thing.

  7. […] The Strata-Sphere – The Amazing Successes In Iraq Make News – Finally […]

  8. norm says:

    opposing “the war” is not an end in itself. people oppose “the war” because it’s a waste of resources. time, troops, treasure. you all are crowing about victory…but al queda is resurgent in many many places and the biggest threat to the us has never been from inside iraq. iran is stronger than they were due solely to this “war”. hamas is stronger today than they were eight years ago. hezzbollah is stronger than they were eight years ago. n. korea has nukes they didn’t have eight years ago. 6 years, 35,000 american casualties, and over two billion dollars commited and what has been accomplished? a sh*tty dictator that posed no threat to us has been removed. so what? the un-intended consequences far outway the benefits. it is clear that this FACT has never occured to you. it is you who have been cheerleading for the bad guys…iran and it’s allies. supporting this war by people like you has become an end in itself because you are so invested in some false victory that only you can see.

  9. AJStrata says:


    Only in your sad little mind is all lost. I realize you are a puppet to the liberal spin and this is how you have decided to see the world.

    But just because you deny the obvious doesn’t mean it disappears from reality. Sadly, you are so misinformed, as your comment demonstrates, you will have to go through the rest of your life as a naive fool – and nothing more.

    The world is changing Norm, and we don’t need to wait for you to catch up.

  10. Cobalt Shiva says:

    but al queda is resurgent in many many places

    Name those places.

    All of them.

    Give me a solid justification as to why you say al-Qaeda is resurgent in each named place. Use actual facts, please.

    (Cue “Final Jeopardy” theme.)

    hamas is stronger today than they were eight years ago.

    Which, of course, has nothing to do with the not-so-closeted anti-Semitic, Democrat-voting, Arab-lobbyist-aspiring careerists at State doing their damndest to support Hamas and the PLO at the expense of a US ally simply because said ally is made up of “those” people.

    (Look at the tenants of the various Middle East desks at State. Note their campaign donations. Note their post-retirement employment with such entities as the Wahabbist oops, er, “Washington” Report on Middle Eastern Affairs (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the House of Sa’ud, Inc.).

    iran is stronger than they were due solely to this “war”.

    As above . . . please give me a solid, factually-based explanation of your statement–i.e., kindly (a) prove that Iran is stronger (I do not believe this to be the case) and (b) disprove all other potential causal factors if you manage to prove (a).

    n. korea has nukes they didn’t have eight years ago.

    Every sensible estimate I’ve ever seen says that (a) North Korea had nuclear weapons in 1990 and (b) that the “Agreed Framework” negotiated by Carter and Clinton gave the North Koreans more time to process spent fuel into “special (i.e., weapons grade) nuclear material” and build even more bombs.

    In short, (a) North Korea had the damn things to begin with and (b) your heroes wound up helping them get even more.