Please don't leave us to die

Just another first hand account that you will not get in the mainstream media. Straight from the Iraqi people to you. Thanks to Micheal Yon. Some of us hear you, loud and clear. (bold mine)

-------------
There were many family members around, and though the men were happy to see us, they seemed skeptical that we are going to stay, voicing concerns that our soldiers have come there before, but not stuck around. As soon as the Americans leave, the terrorists move back in, which leaves the locals in the middle of what amounts to a gang war, and we are one of the gangs.

LTC Crider, the battalion commander of 1-4, assured the people that the Americans are there to stay until the Iraqis can take over, but I sense that Iraqis are more worldly than we might imagine. Many Iraqis seem to understand that the real decision-makers are Americans at home. Maybe with the 1-4 moving in, some would know they can move back.

Despite so much bad news, much of which I deliver, it’s heartening that most of the Iraqis are not fearful of Americans. What many Iraqis REALLY want—and they say it clearly—is to communicate directly with Americans at home.

The Pull-out Effect

Via Instapundit, Captain's Quarters comments on the southern Iraqi city of Basra where the British have set a withdrawal date:

---------------
A look at the effect of timetables in Basra: "Now that the Brits and Danes have given the people of Basra a drop-dead date for their withdrawal, they have set in motion a fight for power that will only amplify as the withdrawal date approaches. Instead of throwing in with the central government, the flight of the Coalition has convinced Iraqis in that area that they have to find the strongest warlord for protection. We can expect this across the country if the US withdraws precipitately from Iraq. A pullout will embolden the violent and frighten the law-abiding, and the end result will be a completely failed state. Regardless of whether one supported the invasion or not, it is obviously not in the American interest to leave behind a collapsed Iraq where the boldest and most vicious terrorists rise to power in fiefdoms small and large."

Some people don't care, though, if it might give them a leg-up in the next election.

The Party of the People

You can bet that if the Iraqi's could vote in the US, the democrats would not be sacrificing them to slaughter.

Iraqi blogger Omar Fadhil
-----------
I am am an Iraqi. To me the possible consequences of this vote are terrifying. Just as we began to see signs of progress in my country the Democrats come and say, ‘Well, it’s not worth it. Time to leave’.

To the Democrats my life and the lives of twenty-five other million Iraqis are evidently not worth trying for. ...

It is not lost. Quitting is not an option we can afford—not in America and definitely not in Iraq.
...

The political game the Democrats are playing has gone farther than it should have. Before they took over the congress they were complaining that there had been no feasible plan for winning the war. Now that such plan exists and thousands of American soldiers are working hard with the millions of good Iraqis to make it work, they wish to turn their backs on it.
...

In no time al-Qaeda and all similarly extremist factions will start boasting about how America is fleeing Iraq under the heavy blows of the “Mujahideen” planned by OBL himself.
...

“America’s will can be broken, America is not invincible,” they will say in a thousand ways. Is this the kind of message you want to send to the enemy?

Reconsider your position before it’s too late. For us and for yourselves.

Why listen when you know?

Maybe you heard this, but I hadn't.

Sure we've all heard that the congress has put a surrender date in the Iraq war spending bill. But did you know that the leader of the house will not attend the commanding general's briefing to the House? Actually, Leader Pelosi was not even going to schedule a hearing to congress for General Petraeus. Hopefully you heard this through the channels by which you get your news. Hopefully you didn't need to hear this from a co-worker who writes a blog who got it from another blog that pieced it together from and ABC News story and a CSPAN video clip...

The Pelosi-trich - Don Surber

Blog Source

Below are two posts from individuals who have gone to Iraq to tell the story. They are not associated with any mainstream media. But their stories should be heard as clearly as those with the bullhorn.

-----------
J.D. Johannes:

After inspecting my shot groups he took my hand and pulled me close.

"Thank you for being here. Thank you. You are a reporter? Tell America how much we appreciate Marines. Tell the people thank you and that we want the Marines, the Army here to help us."

As he looked at me, the gravity on his face not that of a 1st Lieutenant, but of a man who was a field grade officer in the former regime, who grew up in a country constantly at war and in tyranny.

-----------
Michael Totten:

“If America pulls out of Iraq, they will fail in Afghanistan,” Mam Rostam said.

Hardly anyone in Congress seems to consider that the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan might become much more severe if similar tactics are proven effective in Iraq.

“And they will fail with Iran,” he continued. “They will fail everywhere with all Eastern countries. The war between America and the terrorists will move from Iraq and Afghanistan to America itself. Do you think America will do that? The terrorists gather their agents in Afghanistan and Iraq and fight the Americans here. If you pull back, the terrorists will follow you there. They will try, at least. Then Iran will be the power in the Middle East. Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism. They support Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Ansar Al Islam. You know what Iran will do with those elements if America goes away.”

Progress 3

The car bombs are deadly and dramatic. But these are not tactics that can win over a population. At least not the local one. The new strategy underway by General Petraeus is showing results. Here is a long article by Max Boot on the progress. It's not over, but it is evidence that things are getting better. As long as they continue to get better, we are winning.

----------------
Until recently Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, was the most dangerous city in Iraq if not the world. It was run by al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which had declared it the capital of its Islamic State of Iraq. The Iraqi police presence was limited to one police station, which the police were afraid to leave. Soldiers and Marines engaged in heavy combat every day, losing hundreds of men since 2003, simply to avoid having insurgents overrun the government center and close down Route Michigan, the main street.

That began to change last year when the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Armored Division expanded the U.S. troop presence on the west side of town, losing almost 90 soldiers in the process. ...

"The price was heavy but worth it," says Colonel John W. Charlton, the burly commander of the 1st Brigade who directed the operations. "The enemy lost massively."

...
It is a horrific scene but also a hopeful one. "A few weeks ago you couldn't drive down this street without being attacked. When I went down this street in February, I was hit three times with small-arms fire and IEDs," Colonel Charlton tells me over the intercom system of his up-armored Humvee. Even though this is an unlucky day--Friday the 13th--we do not experience a single attack on our convoy. The only violence the entire day occurs when a rocket lands on the other side of the Euphrates River without hurting anyone. The previous week, Ramadi saw a much-publicized attack--a suicide bomber drove a truck filled with explosives and chlorine gas into a police checkpoint, killing 12 people (not the 27 or more cited in most news accounts). But such violence has become the exception; it used to be the norm. Ramadi, which used to see 20 to 25 attacks a day, now sees an average of 2 to 4 a day--and falling. Entire days go by without a single attack. By the time I visited, no U.S. soldier had been killed in the town for weeks.

....

Lost for Whom?

Harry Reid says the war is lost. J.D. Johannes reports from the war that Reid may be right - lost for the jihadis. Go read the whole thing for a view of the success in what was the baddest part of Iraq, Al Anbar.

------------
A Marine Officer offered this thought to me, "could it be that we have won the war but are too dense to realize it?" From what I saw in Khalidiyah, I would say we are on track. Time will tell if the watchmen and IP will continue to progress and eventually choke out the jihadists. But from what I saw in my time, maybe they already have.

Sacrifices

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to sacrifice the Iraqi people for his own political gain. Neo-Neocon spells it our clearly. There is no other explanation.

-----------

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called the war in Iraq a failure.

How does he know this? Because of the “extreme violence in Iraq this week.” And what did that violence consist of? A series of terrorist bombings that killed around 200 Iraqi civilians.

Originally, Reid voiced his “failure” viewpoint to the President at a White House meeting. I have no problem with that. But to make such a declaration publicly shows a narrow focus on politics as usual that is almost breathtaking in its self-absorption and its ignorance (or dismissal) of the consequences of his words.

So now it appears that the enemy can win a war simply by killing enough civilians to demoralize the Democrats. Their own civilians, that is; not ours.

That may seem like an odd definition of victory—I certainly find it so—but it’s the inescapable conclusion to draw. As such, I think it not only odd but unique in the annals of warfare.

...

You don’t need, in fact, to be actually winning under any traditional (or even rational) definition of winning.

...

If Reid’s motive for his statement is the laudable and humanitarian one of aiming to stop the killing of civilians in Iraq, it would be hard to make the argument that an American withdrawal will aid that cause, either. It’s hard to escape the idea that he is cynically using concern for those citizens as a pawn in his own political game.

...

--------------

I also suggest this the Blog Week in Review podcast on this top.

Monday's Suck

The Belmont Club, commenting on the global political climate in reference to the state of Russia:

----------
The years between the First and Second World Wars are sometimes called the Long Weekend by historians. Future historians may look back on the 1990s as the years when everyone was expecting history to end. But it didn't. The alarm clocks are ringing all over the world. It's time to get up.

Biden - Democrats

Instapundit links to Senator Joe Biden's comment that we should go into Darfur. Also at this link are the sober sentiments from Mudville Gazette.

-----------
The harsh reality is that once we abandon Iraq we're going to have to put all the newly available troops in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda certainly will, and their recruiting is going to soar. Ultimately we'll lose that one, too, because they won't quit knowing full well that we will.

Then we can go to Darfur.

Behind much of the absurd talk of the impact of Iraq on military "readiness" there's a Democratic talking point: "Because we are in Iraq, we aren't capable of waging a war somewhere else." That's valid to an extent (but absurd to a greater one), but a more complete translation is that "because we are in Iraq we aren't capable of executing a war that Democrats could hypothetically support, because Democrats are tough on national defense, by golly, and there are plenty of wars in places other than Iraq we'd prosecute to prove it".

That's disturbing, I'm concerned they would do so a bit too eagerly given the opportunity. Biden seems to be going that route - but he could just be paying lip sevice to it to earn the "hawk" (or "tough guy realist") appellation the media bestows on guys like Murtha. (The actual "go to guy" for Dems when it's time to cut-and-run. See Somalia, for example.)

That's Democracy

This is often my response when something seemingly wrong happens in our government. It's also true for those that I believe are right. It is said, "We get the government we deserve." The truth is, our government is set up like this for a reason. Checks and balances, for good or bad, made America great.

Instapundit on Iran:

-------------
Everyone says that a nuclear-armed Iran is intolerable, but they mostly seem inclined to tolerate it rather than actually do anything, and even mild suggestions about doing anything are treated as beyond the pale. The likely consequence of this squeamishness and sloth, of course, is that when things come to a head more people will die than if we took effective action now. But that's likely to be beyond the next election cycle, which puts it beyond the time horizon of most politicians.

Orwell 1941

At New English Review, John Derbyshire questions the actions of the British soldiers captured by the Iranians. And a he presents poignant quote from Orwell...

--------------
“15 British Agressors [sic] must be EXECUTED.” That was the placard being held up by some beetle-browed Iranian outside the British Embassy in Tehran. Well, I don’t entirely disagree.

...
(Orwell, 1941)

What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment. Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the “sacred soil of the Fatherland”, etc etc), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered form. The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions—racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war—which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.

Deliberation

What Britain should do about Iran and the British hostages - The Belmont Club has some thoughts.

------------
...Teheran's game plan has worked as brilliantly as Whitehall's has been abyssmal and here's why. The principal uncertainty facing the Ayatollahs on the day they kidnapped the British sailors was how London would react. Would Whitehall respond through diplomatic channels or was this going to be treated as a crisis that would jump the green baize routine?

...
Teheran is doing well because they are not playing the diplomatic game. In fact, they are violating every rule in the diplomatic book. Threatening to try uniformed men as spies, demanding apologies from victims of what was essentially a cross-border snatch operation, displaying their captives on TV. And now, pelting the British embassy with stones and firecrackers. They are punching entirely below the belt while their opponent is locked into a Marquis of Queensbury stance. That's asymmetrical warfare.

...
Whitehall should withdraw the entire British diplomatic mission from Teheran and deal with the Ayatollahs through their representatives to the United Nations; they can expel every Iranian diplomat and official from the UK. And if possible, they should convince their European partners -- for whatever they are worth -- to do the same. Make the Ayatollahs beg for a diplomatic solution. Make them ask, "what's next?" Make them beg the British to talk to them.