Wednesday, July 02, 2008

The Media on Iraq: “Damn It, Damn It, Damn It!”

It is an AP story, so it is no wonder that the tone of it is a tad pessimistic.

The gang at MSNBC took some time out from their usual daily routine of keeping the candles lit at the Barack Obama Shrine in Chris Matthews’ office and keeping Keith Olbermann from stalking college girls to note that the Iraqi government accomplished fifteen of the eighteen benchmarks for success set for them by our Congress.  Of course, you would not have guessed that this is good news from reading the first two paragraphs:

No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace at which the government in Baghdad operates.

Iraq’s political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the rate at which it’s done so has been achingly slow.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of reporting we have come to expect from major news outlets and the reason that Iraq coverage dropped as quickly as the violence did.

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq’s efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are “satisfactory” — almost twice what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory.

Naturally, the Democrats in Congress were enthusiastic to praise the progress being made acting like their usual selves:

Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., who requested the administration’s updated assessment, scoffed at the May report, which he says uses the false standard of determining whether progress on a goal is “satisfactory” versus whether the benchmark has been met. He estimates that only a few of the 18 benchmarks have been fully achieved.

I suppose now we are going to have to start debating what the meaning of the word “satisfactory” is. 

Democrats also say more solid progress could have been made had the administration starting pulling troops out sooner.

“We’ve tried repeatedly to get the administration to shift responsibility to the Iraqi leaders for their own future, since there is broad consensus that there is no military solution and only a political settlement among the Iraqis can end the conflict,” said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Well, I know that many people would like to have pulled the troops out so soon that they never actually went in, but the “less troops” strategy did not work quite as well as that Surge thing (the word “surge” is notably absent from the article).  Consider this AP story from almost exactly a year ago:

Iraqi leaders warned Monday the country could collapse if American troops leave too quickly as pressure mounts in Washington to draw down U.S. combat forces. More threats to Iraqi stability could be looming to the north with Turkish forces gathering in a possible prelude to a cross-border attack against Kurdish rebels.

Iraq’s foreign minister said Turkey has massed 140,000 soldiers near Iraq _ a figure immediately disputed by the Bush administration, which said satellite photos indicated no such buildup. Nevertheless, Turkey has been deploying troops on the border for several months, and the country’s foreign minister said last week that the government and military had agreed on detailed plans for a cross-border operation
The White House said President Bush is not considering a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq now despite an erosion of support among Republicans for his war policy. A report is due Sunday on whether the Iraqi government is meeting political, economic and security benchmarks that Bush set in January when he ordered 21,500 more U.S. combat forces to Iraq.

The Iraqis were quite explicit one year ago that prematurely withdrawing troops from their country would be a disaster and they were not yet ready to go it alone.  We now see that sending in more U.S. troops absolutely did result in the accomplishment of more of the Iraqi government’s goals, despite the naysaying of Congressional Democrats and some faint-hearted Republicans.  Bush--and McCain, of course--had it right.  The Iraqi people and government still want us to stay until the country is stabilized.

According to Senator Levin (D-MI):

“The administration, however, has repeatedly missed opportunities to shift this burden to the Iraqis and appears willing to do so again,” Levin said.

Let me help you understand, Senator:

The Iraqis are taking control of this fight.  Their own defeat of the Mahdi Army in Basrah (which the Western press did their best to characterize as a defeat for the Iraqi Army) and beyond has shown that security can be accomplished provided that a neutral, unbeatable force remains to keep things fair among the factions and offer support for the duly-elected government.  Unfortunately, that happens to be us.  Everybody wants to see us end our combat obligations in Iraq, but there is no sense whatsoever in vacating the battlefield while we are still needed by our allies and winning a great victory.  Progress has been made in nearly all areas over the past year, in spite of the wishes of some spineless members of Congress and a certain presidential candidate I could name.