The General's Long View Could Cut Withdrawal Debate Short - Karen DeYoung and Thomas Ricks, Washington Post

If Gen. David H. Petraeus has his way, tens of thousands of U.S. troops will be in Iraq for years to come.

Iraq's armed forces are improving, Petraeus told Congress yesterday. Overall violence is down. Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq, and many Baghdad neighborhoods are more peaceful. Political reconciliation, said Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, who testified alongside the general, is a now-visible light at the end of the tunnel. But the two men offered no clear pathway or timeline to reach the end…

Judging by the relatively mild congressional reaction in a joint hearing of the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees, Petraeus and Crocker may well succeed this week in deflecting Democratic demands to bring the troops home sooner rather than later. They are likely to face tougher questioning -- and stiffer challenges to the emerging trends they described -- from two Senate committees today. But by the time President Bush speaks to the nation later this week, September's much-anticipated battle over Iraq policy may be all but over…

Bush Policy to Bequeath Iraq to Successor – Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

The talk in Washington on Monday was all about troop reductions, yet it also brought into sharp focus President Bush's plans to end his term with a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq, and to leave tough decisions about ending the unpopular war to his successor.

The plans outlined by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, would retain a large force in the country -- perhaps more than 100,000 troops -- when the time comes for Bush to move out of the White House in January 2009.

The plans also would allow Bush to live up to his pledge to the defining mission of his presidency, and perhaps to improve his chances for a decent legacy. He can say he left office pursuing a strategy that was having at least some success in suppressing violence, a claim that some historians may view sympathetically.

"Bush has found his exit strategy," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former government Mideast specialist now at the Brookings Institution. As Petraeus met with lawmakers and unveiled chart upon chart showing declining troop levels, the U.S. commander seemed to have opened a new discussion about how the United States would wind up its commitment to Iraq. Yet viewed more closely, his presentation, and that of U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, were better suited to the defense of an earlier strategy: "stay the course." …

Amateur Experts – Thomas Sowell, Real Clear Politics

Sometimes I feel as if I must be one of the few people left in America who is not a military expert.

For example, all sorts of politicians have been talking about all sorts of ways we ought to "redeploy" our troops. The closest I ever came to deploying troops was marching a company of Marines to the mess hall for chow.

But people who have never even put on a uniform are confident that they know how our troops should be redeployed. Maybe this is one of the fruits of the "self-esteem" that is taught in our schools instead of education.

The biggest flurry of amateur military pronouncements occurred just before General David Petraeus testified before Congress on the situation in Iraq. Many Democrats publicly dismissed what he said before he said it, and some implied that he was a liar before he opened his mouth.

The real problem is that many Democrats have bet the rent money on an American defeat in Iraq, and without that defeat they could find themselves in big trouble in the 2008 elections.

Politically, the Democrats are caught between Iraq and a hard place. Their left-wing base has been angrily pressing them to cut off financial support for the war in Iraq but Congressional Democrats dare not outrage the rest of the country by doing that…

Don’t Ask Me What I Think about the Petraeus Report - Michael Yon, National Review

Weeks ago, as the deadline for General David Petraeus’s progress report on the war loomed, journalists were already asking me what I thought of it. Then, as now, I do not know what to think of the report since it is not yet published. Even this coming week, after listening to the general’s testimony before Congress, I will have to read the report and transcripts numerous times, sleep on the information, and reflect on it in light of my own observations of the situation in Iraq. The outcome of the war in Iraq, and to some extent the greater War on Terror, will largely depend upon our decisions today. The outcome is too important for quick words. Many will try to be the first to report on the report, and their reports likely will be the most unreliable...

The reaction and input of military people will also undoubtedly be folded into the news about the General Petraeus’s report. I recall times when mainstream reporters flitted from soldier to soldier doing what I call “opinion shopping.” A variation on this theme would be the more typical tactic of asking a retired general or a newly minted private to render an opinion on a tactical or strategic matter, about certain salient points with which they couldn’t possibly be well acquainted.

But here is a hint to journalists who are seeking truth — good or bad. There is one group of officers whose input has invariably proved both relevant and revelatory for me in compiling my work: battalion commanders who are commanding infantry or special operations units. Special operations people are unlikely to go on record, but the special operations people that I’ve talked with tend to be very knowledgeable and frank, and their input on background is critical. As for the infantry battalion commanders, they are the proverbial sweet spot. Battalion command sergeant majors can be excellent, too, but they often will not go on record. Battalion commanders will tend to be willing to go on record, and will tend to talk to journalists...

General Defends Report, Integrity - S.A. Miller and Eric Pfeiffer, Washington Times

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus began his highly anticipated report on the Iraq war yesterday by asserting his independence and rebuking attacks on his integrity by Democrats and antiwar groups.

"It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress until it was just handed out," Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, said of his assessment of the war.

Ahead of his presentation to a House panel, Democrats portrayed the general as a flunky for President Bush who couldn't be trusted to tell the truth about the war.

The attacks on his character culminated yesterday with MoveOn.org buying a full-page ad in the New York Times that read: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Calls for Democratic congressional leaders to denounce the MoveOn.org ad went unheeded…

Empty Calories – New York Times editorial

For months, President Bush has been promising an honest accounting of the situation in Iraq, a fresh look at the war strategy and a new plan for how to extricate the United States from the death spiral of the Iraqi civil war. The nation got none of that yesterday from the Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It got more excuses for delaying serious decisions for many more months, keeping the war going into 2008 and probably well beyond.

It was just another of the broken promises and false claims of success that we’ve heard from Mr. Bush for years, from shock and awe, to bouquets of roses, to mission accomplished and, most recently, to a major escalation that was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation. We hope Congress is not fooled by the silver stars, charts and rhetoric of yesterday’s hearing. Even if the so-called surge had created breathing room, Iraq’s sectarian leaders show neither the ability nor the intent to take advantage of it…

The General Reports - New York Post editorial

"The military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met."

That was yesterday's bottom-line assessment from the commander of multinational forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, in his pivotal testimony before Congress.

It's terrific news.

And the U.S. envoy to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, essentially agreed with Petraeus - adding that he believes "a secure, stable, democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable."

OK, so neither man guaranteed all-out victory in Iraq by, say, next Monday - which is, it seems, the only thing that would keep many Democrats from declaring a total loss there. (Actually, they did that long ago.)

But considering that Iraq has been a cauldron of extremist violence - and remembering, also, the huge stakes involved - yesterday's testimony offers tremendous grounds for hope.

Petraeus' plans for the coming months - and thereafter - are equally encouraging: "I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains," he said...

A Long View – Washington Post editorial

Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker testified yesterday that the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq has led to military and political progress and that ultimate success in the mission is possible. But the real bottom line of their presentation to two congressional committees was a deeply sobering one: "Substantial U.S. resolve and commitment," as Mr. Crocker put it, will be needed for some time to come, not only to meet U.S. goals but also to avert the devastating consequences of an early withdrawal. "Our current course is hard," said Mr. Crocker. "The alternatives are far worse."

Gen. Petraeus cited statistics showing a sharp drop in violence in Baghdad and Iraq as a whole in recent months -- in marked contrast to congressional auditors who last week reported that they could not determine whether sectarian violence had been reduced. He said a Marine detachment and an Army brigade could be withdrawn this year and overall U.S. troop strength returned to pre-surge levels by next July. But the general said it would be seven months before he could deliver a judgment about a further reduction of U.S. forces. "Like Ambassador Crocker, I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort," he said.

Mr. Crocker's testimony was striking for its defense of Iraqi political leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who have been written off as hopelessly sectarian even by some Washington-based administration officials. The ambassador argued that Mr. Maliki and other leaders have "a deep sense of commitment and patriotism" and "the will to tackle the country's pressing problems, although it will take longer than we . . . anticipated." …

Listen to Petraeus – London Times leader

For three years, the Bush Administration clung to a strategy that underestimated Iraq’s political and social instability and, consequently, the demands on American military and political staying power. Every time the Pentagon announced that the United States would soon be able to reduce its military presence and concentrate on a “support role” for Iraqi military and security forces, the internal battle for Iraq intensified.

Washington altered course only this year. General David Petraeus, the architect of America’s new counter-insurgency strategy, is the first to say that it is too soon to tell whether this neighbourhood-based approach marks the beginning of a turning of the tide. Encouraging as they are, none of the recent improvements in security can yet be described as irreversible. Yet the progress after a matter of no more than weeks is nonetheless remarkable - not only in districts of Baghdad that are no longer warzones but in the most recalcitrant areas of Iraq, the heartlands of the Sunni insurgency, where tribal leaders have turned against al-Qaeda and thousands are queueing to enlist in the Iraqi Armed Forces. Markets have reopened in places where people cowered in their homes; ministries are beginning to function; and, thanks to a greatly improved flow of local intelligence to US forces, the number of suicide bomb attacks and murders has decreased significantly. Feelers are out to US commanders from rival militia leaders in the Shia south.

Slowly, the dynamics in Iraq are changing - changing enough to make rule-of-thumb withdrawal deadlines a damaging irrelevance…

Patience is the Key to General Petraeus's Surge - Allan Mallinson, London Daily Telegraph

General Petraeus wants more time. Unlike Napoleon, who told his generals to ask of him anything but time, President Bush is prepared to give it him.

No one who has seen the post-Vietnam US Army in action can doubt its fighting qualities. American officers are intensely focused and professionally educated, their commitment total. Soldiers and marines are highly trained, patriotic to a humbling degree. They have the best equipment that money can buy. They enjoy popular and political support at home which materially enhances the moral component of their fighting power. And there are lots of them.

The surge has raised troop numbers to 168,000 - more than twice the fighting strength of the British Army. The motivation of the surge troops is singular: having won the war against Saddam in spectacular fashion, and lost the opening rounds of the insurgency, winning is now a professional imperative. Numbers and sheer determination will continue to deliver a measure of success. As will General Petraeus and the US Army's new counter-insurgency doctrine, of which, unusually for the commander who has to put doctrine into practice, he is author.

The US Army is doctrine-driven. First, it decides how it will fight; then it organises, equips and trains accordingly. It is doctrine-driven because it is big enough and has the resources. The British Army has to be more pragmatic, often making it up as it goes along. The Petraeus doctrine is different for its being more historically analytical, notably of French and British experience. It places a premium on patience, something that does not sit easy with the US democratic system.

Nor, indeed, with the Pentagon. For the surge is placing a huge strain on the military. Tour lengths are increasing, and tour intervals decreasing. Like our MoD, the Pentagon wants a reduction in troop numbers as soon as possible: there are other places they are, or will be, needed. There is also suspicion of the doctrine itself. Because counter-insurgency is not primarily a military doctrine, the military cannot deliver success in conventional terms, although they bear the greatest burden. This is not a comfortable situation for generals and admirals. There is, too, a long-held fear among US officers that "Operations Other Than War", with their emphasis on patience and restraint, are bad for the army's health because they dull the soldier's fighting edge and that "Warfighting" is the function of the Army and Marine Corps. General Petraeus is reporting on the success of his own doctrine, and some will regard him as a false prophet.

But the surge is, at least, a straightforward strategy of ends, ways and means. The end is political and economic progress, in which al-Qa'eda is defeated as the "brand" choice for Iraqis (that al-Qa'eda was not in Iraq to begin with is another matter). The way progress is advanced is by reducing violence in Baghdad. The means of reducing that violence is the troop surge…

A War Still Seeking a Mission – George Will, Washington Post

Before Gen. David Petraeus's report, and to give it a context of optimism, the president visited Iraq's Anbar province to underscore the success of the surge in making some hitherto anarchic areas less so. More significant, however, was that the president did not visit Baghdad. This underscored the fact that the surge has failed, as measured by the president's and Petraeus's standards of success.

Those who today stridently insist that the surge has succeeded also say they are especially supportive of the president, Petraeus and the military generally. But at the beginning of the surge, both Petraeus and the president defined success in a way that took the achievement of success out of America's hands.

The purpose of the surge, they said, is to buy time -- "breathing space," the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq?

Many of those who insist that the surge is a harbinger of U.S. victory in Iraq are making the same mistake they made in 1991 when they urged an advance on Baghdad, and in 2003 when they underestimated the challenge of building democracy there. The mistake is exaggerating the relevance of U.S. military power to achieve political progress in a society driven by ethnic and sectarian hatreds. America's military leaders, who are professional realists, do not make this mistake.

The progress that Petraeus reports in improving security in portions of Iraq is real. It might, however, have two sinister aspects…

The Road to Partition – David Brooks, New York Times (subscription required)

… If you look around, you see this is the wrong time to give up hope, for circumstances in Iraq are better than they were in the spring.

First, there’s clearer evidence than ever that U.S. forces can inhibit violence. Despite all the debates over the data, violence over all is on the decline. In neighborhoods where 30 and 40 bodies used to show up a night, now only one or two do. After rising in 2006, violent civilian deaths of all kinds are down 45 percent since December.

Second, the worst of the ethnic cleansing may be over. For years, Shiites and Sunnis have been purging each other from towns and neighborhoods. That ugly process may be nearing its completion, and stabilization may be possible. As Damien Cave and Stephen Farrell wrote in The Times last Sunday, “Iraq’s mixed neighborhoods are sliding toward extinction.”

Third, the tribal revolt against extremism is real and growing. Few anticipated it. Few predicted that it would spread from Anbar to Diyala to Salahaddin and beyond. But it has, and U.S. troops are essential to its success.

Fourth, U.S. commanders finally have a realistic definition of their mission. We’re not trying to determine the future shape of Iraq, Petraeus said yesterday. We’re just trying to ensure that Iraqi sects compete for power in less violent ways.

Fifth, American diplomats are no longer waiting for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Yesterday Crocker made some dubious assertions about Iraqi elites discovering the virtues of power-sharing. But the concrete parts of Crocker’s efforts do not require those virtues. They involve bulking up municipal governments and disbursing money from Baghdad.

What we have then, is a confluence of events, a series of processes that weren’t happening four months ago. Obviously, these processes are tenuous. But, given the consequences, it would be foolish to give up now. It would be foolish to weaken U.S. support for the sane sectarians just when they are striving to create a segregated yet inhabitable Iraq…

Two Messages – Frank Gaffney Jr., Washington Times

In recent days, the people of the United States have received two messages from afar — both involving the front known euphemistically as the "War in Iraq." The two messages offer Americans starkly different visions of our future and should be considered with care.

One is the report by Army Gen. David Petraeus, our senior commander in Iraq. At this writing, its thrust is known from a letter sent to his troops by their commanding officer. The text of his report has not yet been made public.

The second is the videotape released last week by Osama bin Laden, leader of the Islamofascist terrorist group, al Qaeda. It features the Saudi in his usual pose, reading from a script in a meandering, yet menacing fashion.

The central thrust of the general's report can be described this way: It is a message of resolve, determination and courage in the face of adversity. It recognizes all is not satisfactory, let alone well, in his theater of operations. Yet, the Petraeus assessment makes clear there is progress in providing the security in Iraq that is a prerequisite for the sort of political evolution that will ultimately determine whether the Iraqis can enjoy a future of peace and prosperity, or are condemned to continued conflict and/or renewed despotism…

Peace amid the Ruins – Ralph Peters, USA Today

In 1945, it seemed unthinkable that the people of Berlin would ever applaud anyone in an American uniform. Our bombers had destroyed much of the city, and the Red Army ravaged what remained.

Three years later, Berliners cheered the American pilots overhead. The remarkable shift was provoked by their experience with Soviet brutality.

That's an approximation of the turnabout in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. In 2004, U.S. firepower left swaths of the city in rubble. Three years later, local residents realized that, while the Americans couldn't be defeated, we intended to leave eventually, and that a far harsher enemy, al-Qaeda in Iraq, meant to remain and rule through sharia law in its fiercest interpretation.

Today, the children of Fallujah wave at passing U.S. troops much as the children of Berlin once waved at the "candy bomber."

After spending the last two weeks of August in Iraq, speaking with privates and generals, with sheikhs and Iraqi officials, I returned more optimistic than I've been in many months. Real progress is evident at the local and regional levels. Exasperating difficulties remain, but the strategic landscape has shifted — largely to our advantage.

Paradoxically, our former enemies, Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents, have embraced a new reality while, here at home, politicians and pundits remain frozen in stances they assumed in 2003. The war has evolved profoundly, but the home front remains unchanged…

Democrat’s Last, Best Hope – E. J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post

Even before Gen. David Petraeus began his account of the "substantial" progress brought about by the troop increase in Iraq, congressional critics of President Bush's policy had come to the depressing conclusion that the surge has done what the administration needed it to do.

It has not won the war. It has not achieved reconciliation at the national level in Iraq. But it has bought more political time in Washington, bringing Bush closer than ever to reaching one of his main objectives: keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq beyond Election Day 2008.

Yet if the testimony of Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker was the central act at yesterday's House hearing, Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, signaled within minutes of opening the session the one hope that critics of the war have to force a change in course.

Their goal, Skelton made clear, was to move away from a narrow argument over whether the surge has succeeded or failed -- the subject on which Petraeus, in a clear and steady voice, offered a small mountain of statistics -- to a broader debate about "the overall security of this nation."

The issue, Skelton insisted, is whether "Iraq is the war worth the risk of breaking our army and being unable to deal with other risks to our nation." Thus did the Missouri Democrat issue an indirect plea that those inside the Pentagon who are skeptical of a lengthy engagement in Iraq make their views known. Facing the Petraeus challenge, congressional Democrats are discovering that other generals may be their strongest allies…

No Choice, Withdrawal Starts in ‘08 - Graham Allison and Kevin Ryan, Los Angeles Times

In his testimony to Congress on Monday, Gen. David H. Petraeus announced that he was withdrawing the first "surge" troops from Iraq this month and recommended bringing home the first combat brigade in December, followed by an additional four brigades over the following eight months. But he postponed any decision about the baseline force of 130,000 troops until next March.

In making his case for withdrawal, Petraeus cited improvements in Iraqi security forces, cooperation by Sunni sheiks in Anbar province and successes against extremists and Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. Legislators who challenged his comments, as well as those who supported him, focused on these strategic variables in Iraq.

What all of this debate about withdrawal missed, however, is that the driver is not conditions in Iraq or politics in the United States but the hard realities of Army and Marine Corps readiness. As the troops' extended 15-month tours of duty end, the Army and Marine Corps simply don't have more troops to replace them. The withdrawal will be, in effect, the flip side of the surge…

Pay Heed to this Warrior Statesman - Bob McManus, New York Post

Gen. David H. Petraeus yes terday strode purpose fully into a Capitol Hill hearing room to the rattlesnake buzz of still-camera shutters and the muffled disapprobation of the ladies in pink T-shirts at the rear of the chamber.

He was there to make his case - emphasis on his - for a modified continuation of "The Surge" - the controversial military and political initiative that has brought precarious hope to the tortured nation of Iraq.

And let's be clear here: That case is strong...

Petraeus - diminutive and be-medaled - sat with Ryan Crocker, ambassador to Iraq. His message was strong and his charts were masterful (though, frankly it was hard not to wonder whether the energy that went into their production might better have been spent killing Islamist fanatics).

One element in his assessment needs special emphasis: "The fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources."

Competition that must be held in check, lest the entire region dissolve into chaos and collapse.

Progress has been made toward that very goal - again, as the general detailed yesterday...

Setting the Stage for Civil War? - Tulin Daloglu, Washington Times

Today marks the sixth anniversary of al Qaeda's attack on America. In the aftermath of September 11, as the country was shocked and New York and Washington were sifting through the rubble, President Bush promised the nation that "[t]he people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." Unfortunately, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden continues to be heard in many ways as well. Analysts agree that bin Laden's latest taped message, the first after three silent years, is less significant for its content than for its timing. Bin Laden continues to pop up to inflame people's exasperation with the war by talking about how events in Iraq have gotten "out of control." "[T]he innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th — were I to claim to such a thing," he said.

I have visited the Middle East many times over the last few years, and while I've never heard anyone praise Mr. Bush's policies, I have heard a variety of people affirm the thinking of the world's most wanted man. The depressed environment of the region — high unemployment, displaced populations, centuries-old hatreds and violence — is a natural breeding ground for recruiting radical Islamists. Muslim nations are united against any criticism of their faith, but so far they have been wholly ineffective in presenting a united front against radicals committing violence in the name of Islam. And their lack of cooperation in Iraq is killing more Muslims. Hussain Al Sha'ali, the United Arab Emirates' minister of state for foreign affairs, told me during a recent visit that if Muslim nations were to cooperate more effectively in Iraq, "we don't know whose interests we will be protecting — Americans or Iraqis." …

Force of Gravity – Bruce Fein, Washington Times

In "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Edward Gibbon anticipated President Bush's criminal stupidity in post-Saddam Iraq: "History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind."

Mr. Bush's mulish insistence that Iraq's Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds can be cajoled into harmony with American guns and tutorials after 4,000 unbroken years of despotism and division is wasting the lives of brave Americans every bit as prodigally as the ill-conceived Charge of the Light Brigade wasted the lives of the British warriors in the Crimean War. Will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid please stand up and protest: "Mr. President, you shall not crucify any more our sacred soldiers on a cross of ignorance?"

President Bush scorns the wisdom born of reading and discerning the vexing variety of motivations that inform human behavior: power, avarice, fame, domination, compassion, indulgence, fear and charity. Author Robert Draper in "Dead Certain" quotes Mr. Bush as follows: "You can't learn lessons by reading. Or at least I couldn't. I learned by doing." …

Team Bush's False Optimism - H. D. S. Greenway, Boston Globe

Nations find it infinitely more difficult to get out of wars and military occupations than to get into them. The British stayed in Palestine trying to bring political reconciliation for years after it was clear that nobody wanted to reconcile. The French clung on to Algeria long after it became hopeless. It took the Americans five years to clear their troops out of Vietnam after they had decided to throw in the towel.

Today, President Bush clings to David Petraeus as if the general were the administration's rabbit foot. "Buying time for Iraqis to reconcile," was the way Petraeus originally described his mission, and according to that measure there has been no progress at all.

Statistics on levels of violence have been as messaged as was the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction before Iraq was invaded. Bush says Anbar Province is "one of the safest places in Iraq," while others say that it is the second most dangerous place for Americans after Baghdad.

As soldier-scholar Andrew Bacevich has written: "the cult of David Petraeus exists not because the general has figured out the war, but because hiding behind the general allows the Bush administration to postpone the day when it must reckon with the consequences of its abject failure in Iraq." ...

Patriot Games – Washington Times editorial

We've heard one too many antiwar partisans shout "You're questioning my patriotism!" to let this sorry display pass. The far-left organization MoveOn.org's disgusting "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" advertising campaign sets the new standard for bad-faith, motive-impugning argument. This is beyond the pale, sinking swiftly to the level of Klansmen and Neo-Nazis, to accuse the commander of American troops in Iraq of being a traitor. It's enough, or ought to be, to persuade the legislators who feed on the swill at this group's trough to return MoveOn.org's donations and send this organization back to the lunatic fringe where it thrives.

It will take more than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's expression of "frustration" to right this wrong. The standard is to renounce campaign contributions from such organizations. MoveOn.org, which previously compared President Bush to Hitler, is one such. This organization and the crazies of the far left cannot countenance U.S. military action anywhere. This group is so radical to deny the nation's inherent right to self-defense, having opposed intervention in Afghanistan after the attacks on America six years ago this morning.

The Democrats who take MoveOn.org's money are the same ones who cry "my patriotism!" whenever someone observes how weak they are on national security. They're either silent or engage in Mr. Reid's tepid talk in defense of common decency. Democrats dismiss Gen. Petraeus as not being an "independent evaluator" — that's Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California — or accuse him of "carefully manipulating the statistics" — that's Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois. Others who cannot summon the boldness to say anything in public praise MoveOn.org's ability to do the dirty work…

Trashing Petraeus – Wall Street Journal editorial

Important as was yesterday's appearance before Congress by General David Petraeus, the events leading up to his testimony may have been more significant. Members of the Democratic leadership and their supporters have now normalized the practice of accusing their opponents of lying. If other members of the Democratic Party don't move quickly to repudiate this turn, the ability of the U.S. political system to function will be impaired in a way no one would wish for.

Well, with one exception. MoveOn.org, the Democratic activist group, bought space in the New York Times yesterday to accuse General Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House." The ad transmutes the general's name into "General Betray Us."

"Betrayal," as every military officer knows, is a word that through the history of their profession bears the stain of acts that are both dishonorable and unforgivable. That is to say, MoveOn.org didn't stumble upon this word; it was chosen with specific intent, to convey the most serious accusation possible against General Petraeus, that his word is false, that he is a liar and that he is willing to betray his country. The next and obvious word to which this equation with betrayal leads is treason. That it is merely insinuated makes it worse.

MoveOn.org calls itself a "progressive" political group, but it is in fact drawn from the hard left of American politics and a pedigree that sees politics as not so much an ongoing struggle but a final competition. Their Web-based group is new to the political scene, but its politics are not so new. More surprising and troubling are the formerly liberal institutions and politicians who now share this political ethos…

Grappling with PetrAEus - Rich Lowry, National Review

Welcome to Washington, Gen. Petraeus. You had better get used to being called a liar.

Even before Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress, Democrats launched offensive operations against his credibility. Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), accused him of “carefully manipulating the statistics,” and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that he “has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual.” MoveOn.org charmingly called him “General Betray Us” in a full-page ad in the New York Times, capturing the gravamen of the Democrats’ attack on him — that he’s dishonestly exaggerating progress so America can keep expending blood and treasure in Iraq.

Why Petraeus would risk his professional reputation with such tawdry lies is unclear. If it were just opportunism, surely this Princeton Ph.D. could have figured out that there were shrewder professional moves than hitching his career to an unpopular war at a time when it seemed well-nigh unsalvageable and at the behest of a president with approval ratings below freezing.

The Democrats are angry at Petraeus because they hate his message so much — that we have achieved some progress with the surge. This might be the first time ever that a messenger has been shot for bringing a message of good news. Petraeus did it in a sober and careful way, leaving little doubt in his testimony that he has a better command of the war — and a more realistic appreciation of all its devilish difficulties — than his congressional interlocutors...

MoveOn's McCarthy Moment - Peter Feaver, Boston Globe

... We may be about to witness a McCarthy-Army-Welch moment in the debate over Iraq. This time, the role of McCarthy is played by MoveOn.org, a liberal political group that launched its own attack on a respected US Army figure. In yesterday's New York Times, the day that General David Petraeus would give his long-awaited, congressionally mandated report on his military activities in Iraq, MoveOn.org ran a full-page advertisement that accused Petraeus of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without evidence, that Petraeus is not going to give his honest, professional assessment of the situation in Iraq but instead will be "cooking the books" to curry favor with the Bush White House. The heart of the advertisement is a juvenile pun on Petraeus's name: General Betray Us?

The MoveOn.org ad is vicious, and would garner comment even if it were merely one more primal scream in the coarse blogosphere debate over Iraq. But it is not an angry e-mail or blog entry. It is a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his credibility as possible so that his military advice could be more easily rejected by antiwar members of Congress.

The attack was part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the Iraq war, and was foreshadowed by an unnamed Democratic senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful special interests, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign...

Today’s Defeatists - Donald Kagan, National Review

Observers of today’s fierce partisan conflict between those demanding immediate or rapid abandonment of the war in Iraq at any, or almost any, price, and others who refuse to give up the fight, might think this a rare event in American history, but it is not unprecedented. In the two World Wars of the 20th century, to be sure, the country was essentially united and fought on to victory without much dissension. In the Korean War, however, there was considerable division, and a new administration that itself had not begun the war accepted a draw — a draw that has demanded a commitment of troops ever since and presents a serious threat to this day. In the Vietnam War, deep and violent dissension at home was, perhaps, the major element in compelling the United States to accept a humiliating defeat. In neither war were the American military forces defeated and driven from the field. It was the political victory of enemies of the administration and the war it has undertaken that brought defeat.

The results of the recent change in leadership and strategy in Iraq have made it plain that the war there is not lost nor is defeat inevitable. And yet, the war’s opponents, even as the situation improves, have rushed to declare America defeated. They offer no plausible alternative to the current strategy and take no serious notice of the dreadful consequences of swift withdrawal. They seem to be panicked by the possibility of success and eager to bring about withdrawal and defeat before events make it too late.

In their embarrassment they, not their critics, have raised the question of their patriotism. However that question may be resolved, such people surely deserve to be called defeatists. My dictionary defines “defeatism” as “the attitude, policy or conduct of a person who admits, expects, or no longer resists defeat.” The term appears to have been invented during the First World War in France during a dark moment when victory seemed remote or impossible. It was also applied to some in Britain in 1940 who thought that Hitler’s forces were irresistible and argued for a negotiated peace with the Nazis. In light of the positive results of recent American efforts in Iraq, it seems an appropriate description of those who have already declared the war lost and their cooperators, even as it is clear that the military tide has turned...

The Real 'Blowback' Behind Osama – Jonah Goldberg, Los Angeles Times

On April 17, 1987, Osama bin Laden led 120 of his most fierce Arab mujahedin into battle. The attack was planned for months and billed as a major offensive for the warriors of God against the atheistic Soviet Red Army and its apostate Afghan puppets. The target: an Afghan government position on the outskirts of Khost.

Things went so poorly one wonders what "FUBAR" is in Arabic. None of the mujahedin positions had been supplied with ammunition, which was stuck in a car far from the battle scene. Men were so exhausted from carrying their own rockets and mortars -- they didn't have enough mules -- that some went back to their cave and passed out from exhaustion before the battle even started. And nobody remembered to pack those pesky wires used for connecting rockets to detonators. A lone government soldier heard the racket Bin Laden's men made and kept the entire force pinned down with a machine gun until Bin Laden ordered a retreat.

This sort of thing was typical among the so-called Arab Afghans, a few thousand ragtag religious misfits imported from the Arab world, interested not so much in Afghan liberation as global jihad. The real Afghans considered the Arab forces clownish and lousy fighters. They were more like the Keystone Kops than battle-hardened mujahedin.

But the following month, Bin Laden helped lead the Arab Afghans in their most successful military effort: defending their mountain lair, the so-called Lion's Den. The battle was militarily successful in the sense that the already retreating Red Army was held at bay on its way out of Dodge.

"From the Soviet perspective the battle of the Lion's Den was a small moment in the tactical retreat from Afghanistan," wrote Lawrence Wright, my source for all of this, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "The Looming Tower." But for Bin Laden and his followers, it was divine proof that the mujahedin crushed the mighty Soviets. There was, according to Wright, "a dizzying sense that they were living in a supernatural world, in which reality knelt before faith. For them, the encounter at the Lion's Den became the foundation of the myth that they defeated the superpower."…

Osama Bin Laden's Dreams Denied by US Might - Michael Burleigh, London Daily Telegraph

Six years separate us from a crime that makes the time of "new world orders" (George H Bush) and "it's the economy, stupid" (William Jefferson Clinton) in the 1990s seem very distant. As if to remind us of who and what fundamentally altered the world's compass, Osama bin Laden has reappeared "live", departing from the manner of his previous media outings since October 2004. This has mainly provoked comment about the shape and colour of the beard of the world's foremost fugitive. Is resort to hairdye a harbinger of war, or merely personal vanity?

Despite the $50 million reward for information leading to bin Laden's capture, he is still at large, somewhere in the greater Palermo of Pakistan's lawless tribal areas. Experts say he has paid off the turbaned Don Corleones while he moves around within concentric rings of security, including men equipped with shoulder-launched missiles and a personal executioner to deliver the coup de grâce if things look really sticky.

CIA analysts will also be poring over the content of "The Solution", the homily bin Laden delivered on al-Qa'eda's As Sahab television channel, searching for coded operational messages. Roman-style, the self-styled "Sheikh" asks Americans to "lend me your ears", appealing to them over the head of President Bush…

Toughness after Sept. 11 - Boston Globe editorial

... There has not been a successful attack on American soil since 2001, and the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan was at least initially a triumph. But more Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than were killed on Sept. 11, not to mention the tens of thousands of civilians dead. Bush's version of toughness, in short, has had tragic and unpredictable consequences.

Yet this attitude helped Bush win reelection in 2004, and this year the major candidates for president in both parties have been paying attention. For instance, John Edwards, a Democrat who opposes the Iraq war, said in a speech last week: "If we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will." That was a hard-edged parenthesis in a sensible speech about the lessons of Sept. 11. But a prospective president shouldn't make an open-ended threat of military action, especially involving a friendly country. Candidates need to realize they are being heard abroad as well as at home...

A War of Ideas – Mike Walker, Washington Times

Al Qaeda has adapted and regrouped, and is operational again. Many analysts believe the criminal terrorist group is planning a cocktail of attacks that would eclipse those on September 11.

Today, al Qaeda is much more than a handful of operatives directed by Osama bin Laden. It is an ideology of violence persuading alienated Muslims that Islam is under attack and must be defended by all means.

As a result, a new generation of terrorists is being born. The Glasgow doctors, Fort Dix Six and the terror cell recently arrested in Germany are a simmering phenomenon that should be called "Jihad 3.0." What is being hatched from al Qaeda's sanctuaries on the Internet, in Wazeristan and in Iraq is a terrorism swarm. Imagine bees swarming, doing their own thing individually, for one purpose, and you have a pretty good idea what Jihad 3.0 could become…

September 11th – Washington Times editorial

… Six years later, the images of that horrible day remain etched in our memories: the chilling reports that United Airlines and American Airlines were each missing two planes; the gaping hole where Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and set it on fire; the television pictures of Flights 11 and 175 hitting the World Trade Center and the collapse of both towers; and watching pedestrians near Wall Street running away from a massive cloud of dust from the collapse of Twin Towers. Some of the most sobering sounds from that day were the recorded telephone calls from the brave people on the doomed airliners, passengers describing the hijackings and announcing, on Flight 93, their intentions to die fighting the hijackers for control of the plane.

For a brief period after September 11, Americans were more or less united in their determination to defeat the terrorists who attacked us that morning. But six years later, Americans are deeply divided as to the nature of the threat and the danger it poses to our nation. Many Americans, especially in the Democratic Party and on the political left, believe President Bush is exaggerating the magnitude of the terrorist threat — which is why we have such heated debate over issues such as electronic intercepts of terrorist suspects' conversations, interrogation methods, "secret" CIA prisons, the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay.

It drives his political adversaries wild, but Mr. Bush says that all of these controversial measures help explain why we have not been attacked again since September 11. Within weeks of the attacks, Congress passed and Mr. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act, the chief feature of which was breaking down the "wall" instituted by the Clinton administration. That wall made it nearly impossible for intelligence agencies and law enforcement to exchange information in terrorism-related investigations. Since September 11, more than 200 persons have been convicted in U.S. courts on terrorism-related charges, and law enforcement officials say that the legislation has been essential in helping them break up terrorist cells in places such as Virginia, New York, Oregon, Washington and Michigan…

Bin Laden's Latest Message - Boston Globe editorial

The latest pronouncement from Osama bin Laden, a videotape addressed to the American people, illustrates the importance of knowing one's enemy. It's a lesson bin Laden himself has not learned. The transcript reveals a pious megalomaniac who recycles an eclectic mix of Marxist and anarchist critiques of American capitalism and then exhorts Americans to liberate themselves from big corporations by converting to Islam.

If there is an ominous note in bin Laden's sermon, it is his assertion that all Americans bear responsibility for "massacres" committed by the Bush administration. The American people knew about these acts, bin Laden says. "Yet in spite of that, you permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you - with your full knowledge and consent - to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan."

This is a rationale for past and future acts of terrorism against civilians. It holds all Americans guilty for whatever their government has done. "Then you claim to be innocent!" bin Laden warns. In a telling loop of self-incrimination, he adds: "This innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th - were I to claim such a thing."

Bin Laden's prescribed solution to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - that Americans turn to Islam - may strike most Americans as a threat or as an eccentric fantasy. But that prescription does express the political aim of the radical Islamist movement in Muslim countries...

What We’ve Lost – Los Angeles Times editorial

America's "war on terror," which enters its sixth year today, now seems destined to redefine our nation for a generation or more to come.

The war goes on in Afghanistan, which has endured more than 100 suicide bombings this year, including a horrific attack Monday that killed at least 28 people. It goes on and on in Iraq, where Gen. David H. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker recommended to Congress on Monday that U.S. troops should stay, albeit in slightly declining numbers, until that fractious nation stabilizes. And it appears to be expanding to a third front, an undeclared but worsening conflict with Iran.

In the years since terrorists struck New York and Washington, we can point to one significant achievement: We have avoided another attack on American soil. Given the ferocity and cunning of Al Qaeda, that is no small feat. For this, we give thanks and credit to the diligence of U.S. and foreign intelligence services, homeland security and law enforcement officials, brave counter-terrorist fighters and wily strategists in every branch of the U.S. military, and alert citizens who have helped authorities foil attacks by would-be mass murderers…

Red Terror, Green Terror – Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal

Thirty years ago this month, Germany's Red Army Faction--better known as the Baader-Meinhof Gang--kidnapped Hanns-Martin Schleyer, president of the German employers' association, and murdered his driver and three bodyguards. Six weeks later, on Oct. 18, 1977, the RAF murdered Schleyer, too, after the West German government refused to give in to RAF demands for the release of its imprisoned leaders. That same day, three of those leaders--Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe--committed suicide. Schleyer's body was found the next day in the trunk of a car, his mouth stuffed with pine needles. An RAF communiqué announced that "we have ended Hanns-Martin Schleyer's pitiful and corrupt existence. . . . His death is meaningless for our pain and our rage."

Today, Germans remember these events--collectively known as der Deutscher Herbst, or German autumn--with a degree of fascination that sometimes borders on nostalgia. (Der Spiegel devotes this week's cover story to it.) They might remember them, too, for what they say about the present: The sixth anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11 is upon us, as is another manifesto from Osama bin Laden, as is another foiled terrorist attack in Germany. Is the autumn of '77 so different from this one? How significantly does the Red Terror of the RAF differ from the Green Terror of radical Islam? …

Preventing the Next Attack - Oliver Revell and Jeff Kamen, Washington Times

The successful disruption last week by German police of the al Qaeda plot to slaughter American military personnel at Frankfurt International Airport and at Ramstein Air Base, demonstrates once again that our allies have made enormous progress over the past 6 years in the global war on terrorism. Before September 11, Germany, like Great Britain, tolerated the growing presence of jihadist Muslims and their preachments of hate and violence.

Today, German, British and other allied intelligence and law enforcement agencies keep a sharp vigil over the militants in their midst, and when those jihadists prepare to commit acts of violence fueled by their loathing of Americans, Christians and Jews highly-trained anti-terrorism units take them down and hold them for prosecution.

On the home front, local and state police, along with multiple federal agencies and led by the FBI, are working smoothly together, smashing jihadist conspiracies inside America.

All of that inter-agency cooperation across national boundaries and among local and federal law enforcement, has combined to keep America free of terrorist attacks since that frightening day six years ago…

Bin Laden’s Mortgage Calculation – Anne Applebaum, Washington Post

And now, ladies and gentlemen, time for a quiz. Three guesses as to who said this:

"And Iraq and Afghanistan and their tragedies; and the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes; and the abject poverty and tragic hunger in Africa; all of this is but one side of the grim face of this global system."

Dennis Kucinich? Naomi "No Logo" Klein? Daniel "Danny the Red" Cohn-Bendit? If you guessed "none of the above," then you are either an astute observer of the anti-globalization movement -- or you have already read a transcript of Osama bin Laden's latest video production. If so, you will also know that bin Laden, after denouncing the "capitalist system" that "seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations," called for Americans to convert to Islam because, among other things, taxes are lower in Islamic states. It's a bizarre, almost ridiculous, video -- and before it is forgotten in the coming debate on Gen. David Petraeus's Iraq report, it's worth spending a few minutes, on the sixth anniversary of Sept. 11, trying to understand what it might mean…

‘America the Ugly’ – Norman Podhoretz, Wall Street Journal

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on us that took place on this very day six years ago, several younger commentators proclaimed the birth of an entirely new era in American history. What Dec. 7, 1941, had done to the old isolationism, they announced, Sept. 11, 2001, had done to the Vietnam syndrome. It was politically dead, and the cultural fallout of that war--all the damaging changes wrought by the 1960s and '70s--would now follow it into the grave.

I could easily understand why they thought so. After all, never in their lives had they witnessed so powerful an explosion of patriotic sentiment--and not only in the expected precincts of the right. In fact, on the left, where not so long ago the American flag had been thought fit only for burning, the sight of it--and it was now on display everywhere--had been driving a few prominent personalities to wrench their unaccustomed arms into something vaguely resembling a salute. One of these personalities, Todd Gitlin, a leading figure in the New Left of the '60s and now a professor at Columbia, even went so far as to question the inveterately "negative faith in America the ugly" that he and his comrades had tenaciously held onto for the past 40 years and more.

Having broken ranks with the left in the late '60s precisely because I was repelled by the "negative faith in America the ugly" that had come to pervade it, I naturally welcomed this new patriotic mood with open arms. It seemed to me a sign of greater intellectual sanity and moral health, and I fervently hoped that it would last.

But I could not fully share the heady confidence of my younger political friends that the change was permanent, and that nothing in American politics and American culture would ever be the same again. As a veteran of the political and cultural wars of the '60s, I knew from my own scars that no matter how small and insignificant a group the anti-Americans of the left might for the moment look to the naked eye, they had it in them to rise and grow again…

President Pervez Musharraf Musharraf Pays High Price for a Little Time - Bronwen Maddox – London Times

By slinging Nawaz Sharif on a plane to Saudi Arabia five hours after the former Prime Minister landed in Islamabad, President Musharraf has bought himself five weeks of peace.

In Musharraf’s bid to persuade the current parliament to award him another term as president by the deadline of October 15, he will be spared direct confrontation by Sharif, the leader of one of the two main political parties, whom he deposed in a military coup seven years and 11 months ago.

But other than the physical absence of Sharif, Musharraf has bought himself nothing. Not certain victory in that parliamentary vote (if it ever takes place); many of his supporters have already switched to Sharif’s side. Not freedom from challenge; the deportation appears to set Musharraf, for the second time in six months, on a collision course with the Supreme Court, which last month gave Sharif the right to return. And not a better future for Pakistan, the creed that all contenders for its leadership claim to be following. No past politician who is still alive is ideal. The best that can be said is that each held office so briefly that little of the mismanagement and corruption that has been the overriding character of government can be pinned on a single door…

Symbol of Hope in the Muslim World – Mona Charen, Washington Times

He is handsome, young and a devout Muslim and his country's leading pop star. But would it surprise you to learn one of his songs, a tune that topped the charts, is called "Warriors of Love"?

Ahmad Dhani, Indonesia's counterpart to Justin Timberlake, has called his song a "musical fatwa against religious extremism and violence." The lyrics are derived from the Koran and Hadith. (Sample: "If hatred has already poisoned you/Against those... who worship differently/ Then evil has already gripped your soul/ Then evil's got you in its damning embrace.")

Mr. Dhani is a soldier in the culture war within Islam. With 190 million people, Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim country — but its religious culture is far more tolerant and humane than that of Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim lands.

A former president of Indonesia, H.E. Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid (popularly known as Gus Dur) has co-founded an organization, LibforAll (www.libforall.com), that aims to contend with the radical Islamists on the extremists' own chosen turf — the true meaning of Islam. Gus Dur denies normative Islam is the faith of the torturers and suicide bombers, of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He finds within Muslim sources the ideas of tolerance, respect for others and humility. Islam is meant to be a "blessing for all the world," he reminds his listeners…

Rationalizing Israel Out of Existence – Richard Cohen, Washington Post

A strange thing happened to me while reading "The Israel Lobby" by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. I went from nodding at the obviousness of it all -- of course there's an Israel lobby, and of course it's effective -- to a mounting irritation at the supposed unrelenting mendacity of Israel and the unrelenting assurance of the authors that they supported its existence. By the time I put down the book, occasional critic of Israel though I am, I was ready to burst into "Hatikvah," the Israeli national anthem.

The book, which almost instantly made Amazon's list of bestsellers (right below the Harry Potter paperback boxed set, when I last checked), has produced the sort of intellectual and emotional storm you don't have to be Jewish to understand -- but it sure helps. Mearsheimer and Walt have been called anti-Semitic by the New York Sun (among others), and they have been praised as gutsy truth-tellers by elements of the British press (among others), an irony we shall return to in a moment. My own reading of the book found no evidence of anti-Semitism but also no evidence that either man has an ounce of sympathy for Israel. They swear they support its existence, but if Israel were to disappear tomorrow, I doubt they would reach for the hankies…

-----

SWJ News Links

SWJ Blog Links