CollegiateTimes.com - Column: Obvious evidence of progress in Iraq cannot be argued

Column: Obvious evidence of progress in Iraq cannot be argued

Dan Hemp, regular columnist

Thursday, February 28; 12:00 AM

This past Tuesday, the Senate agreed to advance a bill that would cut Iraq war funding in the near future.

The bill was overwhelmingly supported and it passed with a vote of 70-24.

However, the motives of each party's senators might surprise some. Democrats want the bill to come to a vote and pass to end the war. But Republicans, in a shrewd political move, want the bill to be extensively debated so they can point out the recent successes in Iraq.

In recent news, coverage of the war in Iraq has been minimal. Even among the presidential candidates, issues like health care and the economy have taken the forefront. Not surprisingly, when what was considered to be "a mess" by some suddenly turned around for the better, it was no longer viewed as newsworthy.

After the troop surge, violence all over Iraq decreased significantly, and there are even talks of holding elections on Oct. 1.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Republicans would "like to spend the time talking about the dramatic improvements in Iraq." In fact, even though many Republicans voted to bring the bill to a debate, they remain almost entirely opposed to a timeline for withdrawal.

Nonetheless, just as the two Democratic presidential candidates have ignored the recent accomplishments in Iraq, so have their congressional leaders. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) still claims that Iraq is bogged down in a civil war. Even though it is in America's best interest to have the situation there end peacefully, the Democrats do not want to see that happen.

Because they have been anticipating an American defeat in Iraq for so long, Democrats can't politically afford for the U.S. to win. If we show major signs of improvement in the region, the people who claimed all along that it is impossible to stabilize the nation will look like fools. And as a result, their electoral hopes will diminish.

Although this debate has been raging for five years now, nothing really has changed in terms of where each side stands. Most Democrats, with a few noble exceptions such as independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), have been rooting against the U.S. military from the beginning.

Most Republicans, also with some exceptions, have steadfastly supported our troops even through hard times in terms of the war and regarding the political popularity of the war.

Now, with the new Senate bill coming up for debate to cut funding, the sides have by and large remained in the same positions. The senators will spend hours debating the situation in Iraq and why we should or shouldn't stay there.

However, this time Republicans can use irrefutable evidence that we are winning in Iraq and we should finish the job. Democrats can only resort back to their old talking points of how American troops are "terrorizing" women and children (John Kerry) or that "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management -- U.S. management" (Ted Kennedy).

With luck, this bill will be defeated, and our brave men and women overseas will be able to complete their mission. The people who want to cut off funding for our troops should be ashamed -- especially now that we are making real progress.

Posted by: Kyle Minor at Feb 28 That's a little bit better, in terms of information. On the other hand, the ultimate point here is - what progress has been made? You charge that, if we just left, things would be hunky-dory in Iraq, the sects would hold hands and sing songs together, and the world would be peaceful once again. The trouble is, Iraqi politics don't (seem to) work like that. If you read Petreaus' statements, he makes it pretty clear that the goal of the surge is to increase stability so that political advancement can be made; once the Iraqi miliraty and police forces reach a 'critical mass' where they can handle the internal policing themselves, the need for a US presence will decrease and a troop withdrawl will begin. It isn't so much that I discount Iraqi opinion - I am sure that they know far better than I do how they wish to be governed. But it makes me wonder, with countries like Iran chomping at the bit to stick their necks into Iraqi politics in an unstable, distrusting atmosphere, whether the Iraqi people as a whole recognize the gravity of their situation from a global perspective. I mean, think about it this way - when you are learning to ride a bike and you take the training wheels off, the first time you probably fell. You might have fallen the second time as well. You wanted desperately to do it yourself - but you wanted your dad to be there to catch you if you should happen to fall. In a lot of ways, I think the situation in Iraq is similar - they want to do it themselves, and we want for them to be able to do it themselves - but Iraq can't simply just 'fall' and pick itself back up unless it has the resoucres to do so. A weak military and a meager police force would not be able to control the violence and anarchy which would almost certainly result in an Iraqi political collapse, and the prospect of a nuclear Iran sweeping in to pick up the pieces carries grave consequences for the balance of power in the Middle East and the world as a whole. Flag Abuse

Posted by: Brett Morris at Feb 28 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802262.html Iraqi public opinion has been quite consistent since the invasion. This latest report is in line with that; they believe that the U.S. invasion is the root of all violence in the country and think national reconciliation is most possible if U.S. forces leave. Flag Abuse

Posted by: Kyle Minor at Feb 28 That's an old report - the polling data to which you are referring is out of date and not aligned with the troop surge. It would be more interesting to highlight data which reflects the CURRENT view of the Iraqi populace towards American involvement in the growing stability of many regions of their nation - while I'm sure you will find many Iraqi people who are anxious for us to leave, I'm pretty sure you will also find a fairly high percentage who welcome the military and the work they are doing to promote stability in that troubled region. This isn't an argument 'justifying why we went to war in the first place;' rather, it is to highlight the 'clean-up' job we are doing and how it is percieved by the people it affects most directly. Quoting out of date statistics and claiming that they support your contention that they 'want us to leave immediately' is intellectually dishonest - they HAD wanted us to leave, but the situation is now quite different than it was in June 2007 - only a handful of days into the troop surge was when that report you cite was written. Flag Abuse

Posted by: Kyle Minor at Feb 28 Ostensibly, what our military presence is supposed to do is provide the requisite level of stability for political progress to be made. Whether or not we have been successful (yet) in that campaign is certainly a point worthy of discussion, but I don't think it's clear cut either way. Mr. Morris, your op-eds tend to demonstrate your political leanings, but I'd like to know which 'prestegious polling agencies' are reporting such statistics. Is it all Iraqis, everywhere, who want us out? Is it only the US prescence, and not the presence of the rest of the multinational coalition, to which they object? Is a belief that security has been made worse the same thing as saying that security has objectively become worse? Security for whom? Flag Abuse

Posted by: Brian at Feb 28 are you so disillusioned that you still think military success is the solution? Yes there is some military progress, but with no political soutions, there can be no "win". i found the op-ed full of finger pointing at our polititions, but none where it counts, with the Iraqi Government. Flag Abuse

Posted by: MC at Feb 28 The really far left-Democrats would've been unsatisfied with the surge regardless of the results. I agree that getting this bill out in the open is probably going to backfire on them. The surge, combined with innovative COIN doctrine, is working... Flag Abuse

Posted by: Brett Morris at Feb 28 Too bad Iraqis don't want us there. They don't want our "help." They want us to leave, immediately. And they are opposed to the so-called "surge," believing instead that it has made security worse for them. All of this information is from prestigious polling agencies. But, you know, who cares what Iraqis think? Flag Abuse

Posted by: Kyle Minor at Feb 28 Good points, Billy. I think the thing to take away from the troop surge is that, at the very least, we have successfully managed to disrupt many of the day-to-day operations of both smaller and larger terror cells within Iraq. I think, personally, that the troop surge has given the Iraqi people more confidence, and as a result they are beginning to work together more to provide for their own safety and well-being. There is still a lot of progress left to be made, of course (and especially on the political front), but I think that the data we have seen in the last couple months suggest that the surge has had many positive results. Flag Abuse

Posted by: Billy Davis at Feb 28 While deaths and violence are down in Iraq, I think it is an err in judgement to attribute it soley to the recent troop surge. Muqtada al-Sadr's call for a cease fire and his "riening in" of Jaish al Mahdi cannot be discounted as a reasonable cause as well. Flag Abuse


» Compare Prices » Smith Mountain Lake Condos » Student Loan Consolidation » Virginia Tech Hokies	» Basic Computer Terminology » Cricket News » College NFL MLB Neon Signs » Student Credit Cards	» Diamond Necklace Pendant » Student Loan Consolidation » Software Downloads » Career Schools