The surge strategy seems to be working. Aside from a few suicide bombers, insurgent activity in Baghdad appears to be down. How do I know? Well, perhaps I should let Patrick Ruffini explain:This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media's near-deafening silence. If it seems like you've heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what's happening. Time magazine worries that it's "Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet." That's right -- a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news.If that analysis doesn't wake you up to which side the media is on, nothing will...
Here are a few factoids to support the theory:
Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return.However, Patrick offers these words of caution that are well worth keeping in mind:
It's too early to claim victory just yet; the operation is just two weeks old. But U.S. troops have been able to accomplish all of this with just one more brigade in-country, with four more on the way by May. These encouraging early returns show the potential for success when we apply concentrated military force to the security problem. When the Army and Marine Corps are on offense, carrying out combat operations and clearing out insurgent strongholds, we win. When we lay back, carrying out routine patrols and playing Baghdad beat cop, we lose.The surge strategy seems to off to a great start and the Democrats in Congress are doing their very best to muck it up in high fashion.
Never give up. Never surrender. Victory is the only option.
UPDATE: In his email to me on the subject, BizzyBlog says: "That's the good news. The bad news to me is that this is beginning to prove that Rumsfeld & Co. were really flailing away and didn't know what they were doing the past 2-3 years -- and you can quote me if you want." Okay, I will. And I'll go ahead and say what Tom won't...it looks like Rumsfeld and the administration knew that the previous strategy wasn't working and were too concerned about the election to do anything about it.
If there is one thing that every first term President wants, it is a second term. I think there were a number of politicos who thought that letting Rumsfeld go during an election cycle would have been seen as a sign of weakness for the administration. I think there was a time and a place for Rumsfeld; but once it became clear that things were not progressing as they should, one his offers of resignation should have been accepted.
Both sides of the aisle have been politicizing this war and it needs to stop. Americans need to get serious about this war or there is a very good chance that we will lose it. The consequences of defeat are not pretty for western civilization so we had better get with the program real quick...
