Iraq Progress...

Powerline has a very good post on the Iraqi campaign of the war on terror.

There are big issues that clearly warrant supporting McCain over Obama. AJ-Strata lays it out. The country needs to win the global war on terror farmorethan we need to placate conservatives on immigration.

With screw-ups like this... no wonder people don't respect the law

It seems that the folks who decide on legal immigration have bollixed things up once again. This time, they are refusing to grant a visa to an interpreter who helped our troops in Iraq, even though he and his family are clearly facing death or physical harm from terrorists.

The bureaucrats at INS would not even take note of the letters in the file from Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter and General David Petraeus. One would think any reasonable person would take note of said letters, the medal awarded, and the fact that this guy is facing the very real risk of physical harm.

This is not the only situation. I became aware, via a second-hand account, of a Colombian family who faced a somewhat similar dilemma. They didn't translate for the US, but they had heard of a FARC "recruiting campaign" that was to take place at the school where one of their sons attended. They tried to get here legally, but ultimately, when faced with the likelihood of their son being kidnapped and used as cannon fodder by a terrorist group, they came here on tourist visas and overstayed.

We don't know why the INS decided not to approve this, and to even label him a terrorist. And that is the problem with that bureaucracy. With screw-ups like these, it is no wonder a lot of otherwise good people are deciding that the law is fouled up.

This is why I reject the whole Malkin/Tancredo approach on immigration. Ultimately, we are dealing with people. It's not numbers, it's not about culture, it's people - individual persons who deserve to get equal treatment under the law.

The Marine Corps would be perfectly justified in bringing this translator and his family home, providing them with support, looking after them, and daring ICE to come after them. This man had more than earned American citizenship for himself and his family by coming to our aid in helping liberate Iraq. They should also assign their top JAGs to this and similar cases where the fouled up immigration system is causing problems for them. Other services should do the same. The Army, for instance, had an illegal immigrant who took part in the liberation of Iraq - doing the defense of our country that the likes of Reverend Wright have vehemently opted out of (yes, I know Wright served in the Marine Corps - but that service does NOT cancel out "God Damn America").

But this calls for a total revamping of immigration law in this country. It also means that we pass common-sense reforms that will deal with the real problems. Big Lizards has made a number of good posts on this issue, and the discussion should start there. There needs to be some penalty for breaking the law. But contrary to the assertions we hear from the right, it is not a choice between deportation and nothing. There are ways to ensure that those who broke the law pay a price for their actions. If they are fined, and agree to a form of probation, they have not received amnesty, contrary to the assertions from Michelle Malkin.

It is hard to respect laws when they are applied very poorly. Scrap the system, and start over.

Reading suggestion for Barack Obama...

Eli Lake's January 2007 article is well worth the read.

In fact, Barack Obama should have read it before he spouted off on McCain today.

Money quote:

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.

A gaffe was made, but not by Barack Obama.

al-Qaeda's Nemesis: The Pointy-Haired Boss

The Army's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has studied captured documents from Iraq, and has some interesting things to say. (Hat tip to Richard Saunders at Wild Turkeys.)

This paragraph jumped out at me:

"These documents tell us more about AQI than they do about Iraq," said Brian Fishman, an associate at the West Point center and co-author of its Sinjar analysis. "When you've got hundreds . . . entering the country with different skill sets and different intentions, you have to build a bureaucracy to use your resources efficiently.

(Emphasis added.)

Well, I've been working in corporate America too long, so here's my vision of a young al-Qaeda manager's annual review:

"Abdul, I see that you are not mentoring and grooming enough fedayeen to enter into management roles. Now, we are under a fatwa that requires us to engage in a broader, more inclusive search for managerial talent . . . "

"Selim, the fedayeen I recruit on Monday are going to be blowing themselves up on Wednesday! In case you missed it, I'm running the al-Anbar Martyrdom Department, and we've always had extremely high turnover, it kind of comes with the mission statement! How in the hell am I supposed to mentor some idiot from West Bumf***, Syria--who probably can't even read the Qu'ran, fer Allah's sake--when he's going to be DEAD in a couple of days?"

"Abdul, hey, I know it's frustrating, but you've got to see it from my side of the jebel. I have to keep al-Zawahiri happy. Ever since he read Deming--may that infidel dog roast slowly over a fire of goat feces--he's been going on about 'Total Quality Jihad' and 'suicide vest quality circles,' and don't get me started about how he wants 'proactive efforts to gain and leverage mindshare.' Then there's the 'Allah Akhbar' web portal project . . . I mean, the guy wants to use Java, when all the smart money is going to Ruby on Rails . . . doesn't ANYONE in the executive cave ever read the trade journals anymore? Anyway . . . look, if you find a really smart guy, could you try to talk him into applying for the management track?"

"Selim, I did that--HR shot him down for being a Alawite."

"Oh, yeah, I forgot." (Pause) "Did you find another job for him?"

"Selim, when I said 'HR shot him down,' I wasn't using a figure of speech."

"Bummer."

And that will be the downfall of al-Qaeda and Islamism in general: they will gradually become just another sclerotic bureaucracy managed according to the buzzword du juor.

The decisive battle won?

The anti-war movement has retreated from its efforts to de-fund Iraqi campaign, which might not sound like much, but this is probably a sign that the decisive battle may be decided soon.

Let's lay this out very clearly: Our troops were winning on the battlefield. The terrorists have no hope of forcing us out. Their only hope was for the anti-war movement here to force us to prematurely quit.

And the anti-war movement has failed, and in their failure, they have tied the Democrats to working for defeat. Now,they are trying to keep us from a "long-term presence" in Iraq. They are clearly in a retreat, and they will not have the votes to override a veto. Nor can they stop President Bush from making an agreement without looking like they are undercutting the troops.

George W. Bush may have just managed to win the decisive battle in the war on terror.

They want us there...

The Iraqi government seems to be eyeing a long-term American military presence.

If I'm a Democrat running for Congress or the White House, the "Oh, crap!" meter is running very high at this news. If there is this formal request that the United States of America maintains a long-term presence in Iraq, it becomes much harder for the Dems to please their political base. It would put them in line with Muqtada al-Sadr as well as Iran and Syria, but that would be it.

Oh, and they would be leaving an ally in the lurch. Typical of them (see their treatment of Colombia under President Uribe), but it won't play well here, especially if the declaration of intent becomes public.

0-for-40

That is the Democrats' track record on cutting and running from Iraq.

And now, the surge has shown signs that it is succeeding. And it is causing a turnaround in public opinion, according to Pollster.com.

Republicans (including the president) have made real progress in swaying opinion to their side, while 10 months of Democratic efforts have failed to persuade citizens that the war continues to be a disaster. The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect.

In essence, the battle of public opinion is being won here, and that means our troops have a chance to win the war over there.

And the Democrats now get to explain reality to their base.

2008's dynamics just changed...

In 1995, the dynamics of the 1996 Presidential election changed due to the government shutdowns over GOP efforts to reform Medicare. The Republicans, with the best intentions and in trying to do the right thing, embraced a very poor strategy that enabled Bill Clinton to gain the upper hand in the 1996 election.

The same is happening in 2007, albeit it is not getting the play that the 1995 budget battle did. AJ-Strata has the details. The short version is that the Democrats were essentially banking on the troops to fail - and now that they have NOT failed, but instead have succeeded, the Dems are now in a huge pinch.

Their base is demanding an end to the war, and they have proven they can knock off those who displease them (see the 2006 primary for the U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut). However, in the 2006 general election, Joe Lieberman came back and won as an independent. In essence, the anti-war position is held by a majority of the Democratic primary eelctorate, but it is a very tough sell to the general public - and this was before things like the "General Betray Us" ad.

In essence, the Democrats are now going against the one institution that is held in high regard across a very broad spectrum of the American public. Meanwhile, the Republicans are not only sticking up for the troops and their commander, they are also following the miliary advice they are getting.

The Dems just put themselves into a hole... even though they may not realize it yet.

Slow-rolling the troops...

Looks like Democrats are going to just not take up any funding for operations in the Iraqi theater of operations of the Global War on Terror.

It's really the only option they have left. Our troops' success on the ground means that there is no support for cutting and running as the Democratic leadership wants to do. So now, they will have to try other approaches... and this one will have the added benefit of punishing the troops for their success - which derailed the Democrats' plans for political power.

And they claim the support the troops.

I think we know the proper response to such a claim.

The decisive battle begins...

The decisive battle of the Iraq Campaign in the Global War on Terror is starting.

In essence, General Petraeus now has to face off against the only entities capable of throwing away the gains of the last eight-plus months of effort: The Senate and House of Representatives.

The anti-war Democrats are already attacking Petraeus, largely because he's about to tell them something they don't want to hear.

Of course, the fact is, the military is the entity the American people trust the most to deal with Iraq. Hence, with the success of the surge, the Democrats now have to take down Petraeus... and it will come down to a fight between an Administration that says the military needs to make the call against a Congressional leadership that seems determined to inflict a defeat on the United States of America.

And they claim they support the troops...

Looking at the reaction from Congressional Democrats, I find it harder and harder to believe them when they say they support the troops.

For instance, look at how the Petraeus report is being delivered. Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois (who supports the troops so much he compares them to Nazi Germany and the Khmer Rouge), has already all but accused General Petraeus of being a puppet. So has the rest of the Democratic leadership.

However, in the era of Google and blogs, one can find "the ground truth" (to use Nancy Pelosi's term) over at Strata-Sphere's Iraq subcategory, which has followed the progress for a while now. Compare the posts there (with links to media reporting) to what you hear from the Democratic leadership, and decide for yourself whether or not Petraeus is being honest.

Incidentally, the Democratic irresponsibility on this issue onlyincreases when you consider the fact that Petraeus is wary of any cutbacks because he believes the gains are fragile. In essence, the Democrats seem to have a perverse desire to throw away our troops' hard-won progress. And they claim they support the troops?

That is nonsense.

This Degree of Stupidity Should be Physically Painful

Lynn Woolsey wants us to stop arming and training Iraqi security forces.

Great idea. Stop training the Iraqi security forces, pull US troops out of Iraq, and watch Iraq collapse into --followed by a three or four-sided regional war.

Lynn, please do not take this personally . . . you're an idiot. Nay, you are an imbecile.

To paraphrase the immortal line from Billy Madison:

Woolsey, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

When you hold all the aces...

Standing pat is a good thing to do.

At this point, the strategy is working - and it's time to keep it moving forward.

Furthermore, this is a defensible position. With the military objectives being achieved, and the progress on the political side, the President's position is comparable to that of Raymond Spruance on June 18, 1944.

The Politico's misleading headline...

The headline at the Drudge Report reads, "Romney Calls Situation in Iraq 'a mess'...", however, a closer look at the story shows that he not only backs the surge, his ultimate goal is success.

Seems the Politico needs some work on headline writing - "Romney says surge just a beginning" would be better, if you ask me.

Iran to attack the Kurds?

Seems that Ahmadinejad's cruisin' for a bruisin' if he does go across the border as leaflets are apparently warning.

If they do, then we need to use some seriously excessive force in that situation. No, I'm not talking about giving Ahmadinejad the suicide by STRATCOM he is begging for, but we do need to make it clear to folks that we won't tolerate the type of nonsense Iran is threatening.

When opponents admit the surge is working... it's really working...

Things must be getting very gloomy at MoveOn headquarters. Hillary Clinton is admitting the sure is working. A Democratic Congressman who opposed the liberation of Iraq is coming out against an early withdrawal.

In other words, it is now becomingobvious we are winning - and in the era of Google and Youtube, the "Cronkite moment" sought by some will just not happen. In fact, the conditions for dealing with the political issues will get closer and closer.

Remember, it took us eleven years to get from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution. Iraq's starting from a bit of a hole, but we're there to help. It will take time, but if we keep at it, we will succeed.

Petreaus a target...

Well, it seems that success can make you a target inside the Beltway. Microsoft was targeted after it succeeded - and now, they can't even get into the field of search engines without having to ask, "DOJ, may I?"

Now, according to AJ-Strata, the target is General David Petraeus. A number of people did not want to see the surge have any success in stabilizing Iraq. Well, it's worked - it's gotten the Sunnis mostly on board. Things are getting calmer, which will make it easier to get a political solution.

Of course, that would mean that the liberation of Iraq succeeded. That does not sit well with the Democratic netroots. So Petraeus must be destroyed.

The anti-war movement says they support the troops - yet it seems they are rooting for the troops to fail. With "support" like that, the troops don't need enemies.

Surge working - and gaining support...

More signs that the surge is working are emerging. We've been seeing a lot of these as the plan has started. This is not to knock the last group of folks - Don Rumsfeld and others - they were able to get the foundations for a democracy in Iraq. But this new plan is working.

As a result, the surge is gaining support. Earlier polls had shown a majority willing to keep trying, and now Gallup is showing movement TOWARDS finishing the job.

This could get interesting.

Al-Qaeda admitting its ass is getting kicked?

Things can change, particularly if an al-Qaeda "Hail Mary" can work - like the 2006 attack on the Golden Dome.

That said, AJ-Strata is right when he points out that they are in that same sort of hurt they were in around the start of 2006.

Their only hope is that Congress will throw in the towel. That's a bad spot to be in.

Plame REJECTED!!

Valerie Plame's lawsuit has been shot down.

I admit, I am enjoying this. She got involved in some games, had a husband whose version of events in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq was shown to be a lie, and then tried to play the victim after people merely defended themselves.

Sorry, Valerie, I'm out of pity.