Well, maybe I shouldn't give up on the mainstream media just yet. While I have been getting frustrated by the disconnect between what on the ground journalists (such as Michael Yon and Michael J Totten and milbloggers have been saying and the drumbeat of defeat coming from the press and the Dems, something funny happened - the media is hesitantly starting to acknowledge what those who really understand counterinsurgency operations have been saying. Namely, the so-caled "surge", which much more than additional troops represents a radical change of tactics, is starting to have a noticeable impact.
As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory,' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
- Brookings Institution analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack whose report has been broadly covered in the press
Attacks against U.S. forces were down sharply last month nationwide, and military officials have expressed cautious optimism that a security crackdown is workingThis should be a cause for hope - after all we have spent much blood and treasure, and to have a chance for that not to be in vain is in the interest of every American of every stripe. But for certain members of the Democratic party, it is the worst possible outcome:
- Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no 'Plan B,' which would be success. - Miami Herald
- a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders are 'not willing to concede there are positive things to point to' in Iraq.
- House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn said that a favorable report from Gen. David Petraeus '(would be) a real problem for us'
- Freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, who unseated Republican Jim Ryun last fall, bolted from a hearing room when retired Gen. Jack Keane described positive developments in Iraq.
Politicians just suck.