The Surge that is working... and Political Progress in Iraq...

[Judge]

I don't have time to summarize some of these like I wanted, sorry for the cut and paste, but a good read nonetheless:

Democrats Dug In For Retreat



By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 22, 2008; Page A23

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."
-- Anthony Cordesman,
"The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing From the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008





This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.


Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.


We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers -- ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terrorist activity -- starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven -- mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists -- to flight and into hiding.


After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama, the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.


"National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.


Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.


The objection was not only highly legalistic but also politically convenient: Very few (including me) thought this would be possible under the Maliki government. Then last week, indeed on the day Cordesman published his report, it happened. Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.

First, a provincial powers law that turns Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but also elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.


Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenue -- about 85 percent of which is from oil -- to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.


What will the Democrats say now? They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenue is being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenue year by year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran?


Despite all the progress, military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."


Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by Judge

Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?

I agree that sounds great, but it was not what we were sold on. How about Afghanistan. Taliban run, AQ infested. We go in there and remove the Taliban and wipe out AQ. We get the person responsible for the killing of 3000+ American civilians. We install democracy in the M.E. We stabilize relations with neighbors Pakistan, and India. We show Muslims how much better it can be under Democratic government instead of the Taliban and AQ. We crush AQ where they live the strongest. That would be an incredible victory. Then we move on to the next problem, and the people would be much more receptive.

What we did was finish the job half assed with OBL. AQ is laughing at us. We drove him to Pakistan. We allowed AQ to set up in Iraq. We turned Afghanistan over to the drug lords and increased opium production. We destabilized Pakistan due to our insistence to let us in. That got India nervous. We drove millions of refugees out of Iraq. We started our war in their back yard. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead from out actions. That got Iran nervous. We threaten invasion. Turkey, our ally, is now pissed because it has spilled over their border.

If you want to install a Democracy in the M.E. then say so. That is not what was done. We went to Afghanistan to get OBL. Mission not accomplished. We went to Iraq to remove Saddam. Mission accomplished. AQ out maneuvered us in Iraq and we had to stay. We could not get Pakistan to go after AQ and the Taliban in Pakistan. Then we were sold a bill of goods about some pie in the sky freedom movement in Iraq and the M.E. and are called America haters because we don't want freedom in the M.E. And somehow we are unpatriotic because we didn't sign up in the beginning and we are not happy with the mission revision afterwards.

We leave a trail of wreckage, that if we can clean up, will cost us money, blood, and political clout, yet we continue to be sold this Johnny Apple Seed dream of what a wonderful thing we are doing in the M.E. Fu** the M.E. I can't wait till the oil is gone. I'm using it up as fast as I can. When it is gone, so will we be, and nobody will give a rat's a$$ about what government is there.

[rupert]

Originally Posted by Powerman

I agree that sounds great, but it was not what we were sold on. How about Afghanistan. Taliban run, AQ infested. We go in there and remove the Taliban and wipe out AQ. We get the person responsible for the killing of 3000+ American civilians. We install democracy in the M.E. We stabilize relations with neighbors Pakistan, and India. We show Muslims how much better it can be under Democratic government instead of the Taliban and AQ. We crush AQ where they live the strongest. That would be an incredible victory. Then we move on to the next problem, and the people would be much more receptive.

What we did was finish the job half assed with OBL. AQ is laughing at us. We drove him to Pakistan. We allowed AQ to set up in Iraq. We turned Afghanistan over to the drug lords and increased opium production. We destabilized Pakistan due to our insistence to let us in. That got India nervous. We drove millions of refugees out of Iraq. We started our war in their back yard. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead from out actions. That got Iran nervous. We threaten invasion. Turkey, our ally, is now pissed because it has spilled over their border.

If you want to install a Democracy in the M.E. then say so. That is not what was done. We went to Afghanistan to get OBL. Mission not accomplished. We went to Iraq to remove Saddam. Mission accomplished. AQ out maneuvered us in Iraq and we had to stay. We could not get Pakistan to go after AQ and the Taliban in Pakistan. Then we were sold a bill of goods about some pie in the sky freedom movement in Iraq and the M.E. and are called America haters because we don't want freedom in the M.E. And somehow we are unpatriotic because we didn't sign up in the beginning and we are not happy with the mission revision afterwards.

We leave a trail of wreckage, that if we can clean up, will cost us money, blood, and political clout, yet we continue to be sold this Johnny Apple Seed dream of what a wonderful thing we are doing in the M.E. Fu** the M.E. I can't wait till the oil is gone. I'm using it up as fast as I can. When it is gone, so will we be, and nobody will give a rat's a$$ about what government is there.

WOW! Tell us how you really feel

So true though

[rupert]

Originally Posted by Judge

I don't have time to summarize some of these like I wanted, sorry for the cut and paste, but a good read nonetheless:

Democrats Dug In For Retreat



By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 22, 2008; Page A23

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."
-- Anthony Cordesman,
"The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing From the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008





This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.


Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.


We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers -- ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terrorist activity -- starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven -- mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists -- to flight and into hiding.


After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama, the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.


"National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.


Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.


The objection was not only highly legalistic but also politically convenient: Very few (including me) thought this would be possible under the Maliki government. Then last week, indeed on the day Cordesman published his report, it happened. Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.

First, a provincial powers law that turns Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but also elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.


Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenue -- about 85 percent of which is from oil -- to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.


What will the Democrats say now? They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenue is being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenue year by year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran?


Despite all the progress, military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."


Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?

Not really what I was expecting you to post.

I still feel the Iraqi Government will let us and their own people down with their hatred twords each other.

[Frenchy]

The surge will be effective only if all conditions for it's implementation are accomplished.
One is increased security. It has become more effective in this regard, but their has been some slippage as of late.
The other is a stable government which the surge was supposed to allow. This has not been so successful.
Downsizing is supposed to occur in a couple of months, so the surge will come to an end with no unified government.

[goodformeto]

Originally Posted by Powerman

I agree that sounds great, but it was not what we were sold on. How about Afghanistan. Taliban run, AQ infested. We go in there and remove the Taliban and wipe out AQ. We get the person responsible for the killing of 3000+ American civilians. We install democracy in the M.E. We stabilize relations with neighbors Pakistan, and India. We show Muslims how much better it can be under Democratic government instead of the Taliban and AQ. We crush AQ where they live the strongest. That would be an incredible victory. Then we move on to the next problem, and the people would be much more receptive.

What we did was finish the job half assed with OBL. AQ is laughing at us. We drove him to Pakistan. We allowed AQ to set up in Iraq. We turned Afghanistan over to the drug lords and increased opium production. We destabilized Pakistan due to our insistence to let us in. That got India nervous. We drove millions of refugees out of Iraq. We started our war in their back yard. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead from out actions. That got Iran nervous. We threaten invasion. Turkey, our ally, is now pissed because it has spilled over their border.

If you want to install a Democracy in the M.E. then say so. That is not what was done. We went to Afghanistan to get OBL. Mission not accomplished. We went to Iraq to remove Saddam. Mission accomplished. AQ out maneuvered us in Iraq and we had to stay. We could not get Pakistan to go after AQ and the Taliban in Pakistan. Then we were sold a bill of goods about some pie in the sky freedom movement in Iraq and the M.E. and are called America haters because we don't want freedom in the M.E. And somehow we are unpatriotic because we didn't sign up in the beginning and we are not happy with the mission revision afterwards.

We leave a trail of wreckage, that if we can clean up, will cost us money, blood, and political clout, yet we continue to be sold this Johnny Apple Seed dream of what a wonderful thing we are doing in the M.E. Fu** the M.E. I can't wait till the oil is gone. I'm using it up as fast as I can. When it is gone, so will we be, and nobody will give a rat's a$$ about what government is there.

That needed to be said. It's tough to accomplish an objective you won't eve say exists.

[AZXD]

I remember hearing of 18 key things the Iraqi government needed to accomplish. In the fall of last year it was reported that 3 of the 18 items had been more or less completed, and that we had a very long way to go before governmental success could be declared in Iraq. The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to complete these tasks. The troops once again stepped up to the plate and hit home run after home run as the Iraqi government sat in the dugout and squandered away precious time.

From the White House with very little mentioned of the Iraqi governments ability to meet the benchmarks.
(Formatting by White House dot gov)

President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror

"Five years ago tonight, I promised the American people that in the struggle ahead 'we will accept no outcome but victory.' Today, standing before men and women who helped liberate a nation, I reaffirm the commitment. The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory."

President George W. Bush
March 19, 2008

Read the full transcript here



Fact Sheet: Five Years Later: New Strategy Improving Security In Iraq

Today, President Bush spoke at the Pentagon to mark the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The past five years have been a critical time in history. U.S. troops should be proud of their partnership with Iraqis and the progress in Iraq.

• The battle in Iraq is noble, necessary, and just.
• Defeating the enemy in Iraq will make it less likely we will face this enemy here at home. The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad also want to murder the innocent in the streets of American cities.
• Because we acted against Saddam Hussein, the world is better and America is safer. Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women, and children, invades his neighbors, pays the families of suicide bombers, or defies the will of the United Nations. Saddam’s torture chambers, rape rooms, and children’s prisons have been closed for good.

The "Surge" Strategy Has Produced Dramatic Results In Iraq
The U.S. is carrying out a new strategy in Iraq based on providing population security. In late 2006, the U.S. reviewed its strategy and gave our troops a new mission under General Petraeus’ command centered on:

• Working with Iraq's security forces to protect the Iraqi people.
• Pursuing the enemy in its strongholds.
• Denying sanctuary to the terrorists.

The surge is working. Since all the surge forces began operating in mid-2007:

• Overall violence in Iraq is significantly down.
• Civilian deaths are down.
• Sectarian killings are down.
• Attacks on American forces are down.
• Coalition forces have captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives.
• We have begun bringing some of our troops home as a "return on success."

More than 90,000 concerned local citizens are now helping to protect their communities from terrorists, insurgents, and extremists. The "Awakening" movement began in Anbar in 2006, when Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising. As this effort succeeded, it inspired other Iraqis to take up the fight.

• To take advantage of this opportunity, we sent 4,000 additional Marines to help these brave Iraqis drive al Qaeda from the province.
• The government in Baghdad has stepped forward with a surge of its own by adding more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year. Iraqi troops have fought bravely, and thousands have given their lives in this struggle.

As we have fought al Qaeda, Coalition and Iraqi forces have also taken the fight to Shia extremist groups – many of them backed, financed, and armed by Iran. A year ago these groups were on the rise. Today, these groups are increasingly isolated, and Iraqis of all faiths are putting their lives on the line to stop these extremists from hijacking Iraq’s democracy.
The U.S. has doubled the number of provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq. Teams of civilian experts are serving in all 18 Iraqi provinces, and they are helping to strengthen responsible leaders, build up local economies, and bring Iraqis together so that reconciliation can happen from the ground up.
The Stakes In Iraq Are Great
The surge has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network.

• The terrorist movement feeds on the appearance of inevitability and claims to rise on the tide of history, but the accomplishments of the surge are exposing this myth.
• Defeating al Qaeda in Iraq will show that men and women who love liberty can defeat the terrorists.

Al Qaeda terrorists in Mosul will suffer the same fate al Qaeda did elsewhere in Iraq. American and Iraqi forces have driven the terrorists from many of the sanctuaries they once held and will relentlessly pursue those who have now gathered in and around Mosul.
The challenge in the period ahead is to consolidate the gains we have made and seal the extremists’ defeat.

• Over the last five years, we have learned what happens when we pull our forces back too fast: terrorists and extremists step in, and establish safe havens where they can spread chaos and carnage.
• General Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in such an unraveling again.
• Any further drawdown will be based on conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders and must not jeopardize the hard-fought gains our troops and civilians have made over the past year.

While no one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure, those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq.

• Allowing our enemies to prevail in Iraq could lead to chaos.
• Al Qaeda would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones – fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq’s borders.
• An emboldened al Qaeda with access to Iraq’s oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations.

Political Progress Is Taking Place In Iraq
Millions of Iraqis have risked their lives to secure a democratic future for their nation, and America will not abandon them in their time of need. The vast majority of Iraq's citizens want to live in peace, and they are showing their courage every day.

• In October 2005, Iraqi voters approved a new permanent constitution.
• In December 2005, nearly 12 million Iraqis braved car bombers and assassins to choose a permanent government in free elections under the new constitution.

On February 3, 2008, Iraq's Presidency Council issued the Accountability and Justice Law, which will allow thousands of former Ba’athists to return to government jobs.
On February 13, 2008, the Council of Representatives passed two key pieces of legislation.

• Amnesty Law:
  • The Government of Iraq’s General Amnesty Law represents a benchmark in facilitating political reconciliation and the rule of law in Iraq. The General Amnesty Law addresses the scope of eligibility for amnesty for Iraqis in Iraqi detention facilities, whether they have been brought to trial or not. The law exempts from this amnesty those who have committed specific serious crimes, such as premeditated murder or kidnapping, and those who are subject to the death penalty.
• Fiscal Budget:
  • The $48 billion Iraqi budget represents a 17 percent increase in spending over last year's budget, with a 23 percent increase in security expenditures. Capital funds allocated to the 15 provinces will increase over 50 percent, from $2.1 billion to $3.3 billion, reflecting the improved budget execution performance by provinces in 2007.

The Iraqi government passed a pension law in late 2007.
The central government of Iraq continues to distribute oil revenue to provinces, even though the proposed oil law is still being negotiated.
The central government of Iraq reached its 2007 target of $30.2 billion in budget revenue one month before the end of the year.
The Government of Iraq recently completed early repayment of its outstanding obligations to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and reached a new Stand-By Arrangement with the IMF.

ETA: This should in no way be construed as stating no progress has been made, but the outcome still rests with the Iraqi government.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by AZXD

I remember hearing of 18 key things the Iraqi government needed to accomplish. In the fall of last year it was reported that 3 of the 18 items had been more or less completed, and that we had a very long way to go before governmental success could be declared in Iraq. The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to complete these tasks. The troops once again stepped up to the plate and hit home run after home run as the Iraqi government sat in the dugout and squandered away precious time.

From the White House with very little mentioned of the Iraqi governments ability to meet the benchmarks.
(Formatting by White House dot gov)

Quote:
President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror

"Five years ago tonight, I promised the American people that in the struggle ahead 'we will accept no outcome but victory.' Today, standing before men and women who helped liberate a nation, I reaffirm the commitment. The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory."

President George W. Bush
March 19, 2008

Read the full transcript here



Fact Sheet: Five Years Later: New Strategy Improving Security In Iraq

Today, President Bush spoke at the Pentagon to mark the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The past five years have been a critical time in history. U.S. troops should be proud of their partnership with Iraqis and the progress in Iraq.

• The battle in Iraq is noble, necessary, and just.
• Defeating the enemy in Iraq will make it less likely we will face this enemy here at home. The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad also want to murder the innocent in the streets of American cities.
• Because we acted against Saddam Hussein, the world is better and America is safer. Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women, and children, invades his neighbors, pays the families of suicide bombers, or defies the will of the United Nations. Saddam’s torture chambers, rape rooms, and children’s prisons have been closed for good.

The "Surge" Strategy Has Produced Dramatic Results In Iraq
The U.S. is carrying out a new strategy in Iraq based on providing population security. In late 2006, the U.S. reviewed its strategy and gave our troops a new mission under General Petraeus’ command centered on:

• Working with Iraq's security forces to protect the Iraqi people.
• Pursuing the enemy in its strongholds.
• Denying sanctuary to the terrorists.

The surge is working. Since all the surge forces began operating in mid-2007:

• Overall violence in Iraq is significantly down.
• Civilian deaths are down.
• Sectarian killings are down.
• Attacks on American forces are down.
• Coalition forces have captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives.
• We have begun bringing some of our troops home as a "return on success."

More than 90,000 concerned local citizens are now helping to protect their communities from terrorists, insurgents, and extremists. The "Awakening" movement began in Anbar in 2006, when Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising. As this effort succeeded, it inspired other Iraqis to take up the fight.

• To take advantage of this opportunity, we sent 4,000 additional Marines to help these brave Iraqis drive al Qaeda from the province.
• The government in Baghdad has stepped forward with a surge of its own by adding more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year. Iraqi troops have fought bravely, and thousands have given their lives in this struggle.

As we have fought al Qaeda, Coalition and Iraqi forces have also taken the fight to Shia extremist groups – many of them backed, financed, and armed by Iran. A year ago these groups were on the rise. Today, these groups are increasingly isolated, and Iraqis of all faiths are putting their lives on the line to stop these extremists from hijacking Iraq’s democracy.
The U.S. has doubled the number of provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq. Teams of civilian experts are serving in all 18 Iraqi provinces, and they are helping to strengthen responsible leaders, build up local economies, and bring Iraqis together so that reconciliation can happen from the ground up.
The Stakes In Iraq Are Great
The surge has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network.

• The terrorist movement feeds on the appearance of inevitability and claims to rise on the tide of history, but the accomplishments of the surge are exposing this myth.
• Defeating al Qaeda in Iraq will show that men and women who love liberty can defeat the terrorists.

Al Qaeda terrorists in Mosul will suffer the same fate al Qaeda did elsewhere in Iraq. American and Iraqi forces have driven the terrorists from many of the sanctuaries they once held and will relentlessly pursue those who have now gathered in and around Mosul.
The challenge in the period ahead is to consolidate the gains we have made and seal the extremists’ defeat.

• Over the last five years, we have learned what happens when we pull our forces back too fast: terrorists and extremists step in, and establish safe havens where they can spread chaos and carnage.
• General Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in such an unraveling again.
• Any further drawdown will be based on conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders and must not jeopardize the hard-fought gains our troops and civilians have made over the past year.

While no one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure, those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq.

• Allowing our enemies to prevail in Iraq could lead to chaos.
• Al Qaeda would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones – fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq’s borders.
• An emboldened al Qaeda with access to Iraq’s oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations.

Political Progress Is Taking Place In Iraq
Millions of Iraqis have risked their lives to secure a democratic future for their nation, and America will not abandon them in their time of need. The vast majority of Iraq's citizens want to live in peace, and they are showing their courage every day.

• In October 2005, Iraqi voters approved a new permanent constitution.
• In December 2005, nearly 12 million Iraqis braved car bombers and assassins to choose a permanent government in free elections under the new constitution.

On February 3, 2008, Iraq's Presidency Council issued the Accountability and Justice Law, which will allow thousands of former Ba’athists to return to government jobs.
On February 13, 2008, the Council of Representatives passed two key pieces of legislation.

• Amnesty Law:
  • The Government of Iraq’s General Amnesty Law represents a benchmark in facilitating political reconciliation and the rule of law in Iraq. The General Amnesty Law addresses the scope of eligibility for amnesty for Iraqis in Iraqi detention facilities, whether they have been brought to trial or not. The law exempts from this amnesty those who have committed specific serious crimes, such as premeditated murder or kidnapping, and those who are subject to the death penalty.
• Fiscal Budget:
  • The $48 billion Iraqi budget represents a 17 percent increase in spending over last year's budget, with a 23 percent increase in security expenditures. Capital funds allocated to the 15 provinces will increase over 50 percent, from $2.1 billion to $3.3 billion, reflecting the improved budget execution performance by provinces in 2007.

The Iraqi government passed a pension law in late 2007.
The central government of Iraq continues to distribute oil revenue to provinces, even though the proposed oil law is still being negotiated.
The central government of Iraq reached its 2007 target of $30.2 billion in budget revenue one month before the end of the year.
The Government of Iraq recently completed early repayment of its outstanding obligations to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and reached a new Stand-By Arrangement with the IMF.

ETA: This should in no way be construed as stating no progress has been made, but the outcome still rests with the Iraqi government.

One thing I don't see in there is anything about Iraq and it's oil revenues and that paying for the war like promised. Somehow I don't think this will come up because if George got out the word that oil is paying for the war then it sure negates all this WMD's and al Qaeda crap.

[jmichna]

I'd like to throw into the ring, a topic of conversation we've been having at morning coffee break. This is pure speculation, and I do not pretend to be a member of the "tin foil hat", brigade but consider the following thoughts:

The US's (and the West's) best interests are served by having the Middle East remain in a state of turmoil forever, to keep Sunni and Shia fighting amongst each other, to keep Iraqis and Iranians wary and at each other's throats, to keep all the tribal rivalries and Islamic sectarian rivalries active.

The reason this turmoil is beneficial is to keep this region disorganized and non-unified, so that it remains politically fractured, and unable to unite in policies that would harm the West (or the growing Chinese economy as well).

And, further, that all of our recent administrations, both Democrat and Republican, have been acting both overtly and covertly to keep the ME unstable.

I'm interested to see what you think about this.

[Judge]

No, too dangerous - with some developing nukes, having wmd.... security is better with stability... as is business - so all those tin-foils thinking this is a war over oil - capitalism can't suceed in turmoil... it much prefers stability, even the stability of someone 'less desireable' from a political standpoint...

Originally Posted by jmichna

I'd like to throw into the ring, a topic of conversation we've been having at morning coffee break. This is pure speculation, and I do not pretend to be a member of the "tin foil hat", brigade but consider the following thoughts:

The US's (and the West's) best interests are served by having the Middle East remain in a state of turmoil forever, to keep Sunni and Shia fighting amongst each other, to keep Iraqis and Iranians wary and at each other's throats, to keep all the tribal rivalries and Islamic sectarian rivalries active.

The reason this turmoil is beneficial is to keep this region disorganized and non-unified, so that it remains politically fractured, and unable to unite in policies that would harm the West (or the growing Chinese economy as well).

And, further, that all of our recent administrations, both Democrat and Republican, have been acting both overtly and covertly to keep the ME unstable.

I'm interested to see what you think about this.