General Petraeus -- The Man "In The Arena"

(Update, o8/08, below:)
Ever the educator, Col. Austin Bay, Army Reserve (Ret.), a PhD (English & Comp. Lit.) from Columbia, and a graduate of the U.S. Army War College, has just launched a half hour web-based telephone interview presentation with the newly-confirmed head of CENTCOM, General David Petraeus, PhD, who has, since January, 2007, commanded the Multi-National Forces in Iraq, and overseen the implementation of the surge.

The Arena Channel:

Entitled, "A Conversation With General Petraeus," the interview presentation can be found on Bay's relatively new and ambitious website, The Arena Academy, or the Arena Channel. The interview turned out to be a thorough and in-depth look at a variety of issues related to our ongoing mission in Iraq, set in the context of the war on terror. You will need to register for entry into the Arena Channel site, but that is a significant benefit, as you receive timely e-mail notices of breaking and up-coming postings.

Austin Bay views this new and ambitious project as,

"an example of the Internet’s real contribution to serious discussion – space for the expert to elaborate, for concepts to evolve, for significant facts to receive due emphasis, for the experts and the audience to explore."

It certainly does not disappoint. More on the Arena website, below.*

The Petraeus Interview:

The interview, I think, speaks for itself, and really should be heard in its entirety. The West Point and Princeton-educated General broadly addresses what has been happening in Iraq, what we can hope for in the future, and what additional needs remain to be addressed.

In describing the current period of strategic change in Iraq, Petraeus pointedly emphasizes that those changes have not been, nor are they now "light switch" moments. He says they are what he would rather describe as a whole series of "rheostat" moments throughout the provinces and local areas, gradually giving rise to an emerging and improved overall security situation. In other words, he emphasizes that progress in Iraq has consisted of incremental progress, the difficulty at times even resembling a "Sisyphean endeavor."

Petraeus discusses the important role of interagency coordination and cooperation (diplomatic and military) throughout the surge, and the remarkable string of successes both he and our coalition troops, and the Iraqi Defense Ministry, including their security forces, military and civilian, have achieved over the course of that effort. He also specifically notes the importance of the appointment of Lt. Gen. Lute as the "point man" on Iraq and Afghanistan, within the White House.

Petraeus identifies areas where there are additional needs, including continuing the emphasis on improving the "entire arena" of the role of the rule of law to further reduce AQI, and other groups resort to mafia-style gang violence.

He sets it in the overall context of the Iraqi security force growth, their increasing ability to operate independently of MNF command, and their improving professionalism. Responding to another Austin Bay question about historical context, he also addressed the overall makeup of the Iraqi military on the ground at the beginning of the operation, and talks a bit about the pros and cons of disbanding that military at the time. He also opines on the flexibility and benefits of the CERP, or Commander's Emergency Response Program, which allows a commander to quickly fund small, non-military humanitarian projects, to help maintain stability within a region.

Petraeus also speaks cautiously but candidly, for example, about where we are headed, even including expectations regarding current verbal commitments being made by Moqtada-al-Satr to "return" his Mahdi army into a "human resources" or social-services network, a commitment al-Satr has made and broken in the past.

Noting that the General is about to assume the position of CENTCOM Commander, which will put Afghanistan within his bailiwick, Austin Bay asked Petraeus if he "had any thoughts about the campaign in Afghanistan right now?" Petraeus cautiously demurred: "Austin, I do, but I think it would be premature to offer them candidly."

Recently, Petraeus did offer a hint about his possible views in a recent AP interview story run in the Boston Globe, and written by AP military writer, Robert Burns, to the effect that al-Qaeda may be shifting some of their emphasis from Iraq to Pakistan and possibly Afghanistan, having seen the string of substantial defeats in Iraq:

"We do think that there is some assessment ongoing as to the continued viability of al-Qaida's fight in Iraq," Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press in an interview at his office at the U.S. Embassy.

Whatever the result, Petraeus said no one should expect al-Qaida to give up entirely in Iraq.

"They're not going to abandon Iraq. They're not going to write it off. None of that," he said. "But what they certainly may do is start to provide some of those resources that would have come to Iraq to Pakistan, possibly Afghanistan."

He said there are signs that foreign fighters recruited by al-Qaida to do battle in Iraq are being diverted to the largely ungoverned areas in Pakistan from which the fighters can cross into Afghanistan. U.S. officials have pressed Pakistan for more than a year to halt the cross-border infiltration. It remains a major worry not only for the war in Afghanistan but also for Pakistan's stability.

However, he also said he was cautious about the reliability of the intelligence. But it could indicate that al-Qaeda is having to reassess their long-held desire to establish Iraq as a militant Islamic state.

That goal, of course, would have required driving the United States out by political means, through a forced withdrawal, a reactive position long favored by many Democrats in Congress, including Senator Barack Obama. But the notable success of the surge over the past year has, at least temporarily, forestalled that pressure.

Finally, asked by Austin Bay to address a topic of his own choosing, the General immediately took the opportunity to credit the extraordinary contribution of the young men and women of the American military who have served there, under extremely difficult conditions.

He said of our young soldiers that they had performed magnificently, especially in conducting counterinsurgency warfare, requiring them to perform "offensive, defensive and civilian support operations, sometimes all in the same hour," and adding at the end of the interview that they have been called "'the new greatest generation,' and I absolutely buy into that."

Update: Early today, 08/08, Powerline posted more on the importance of this interview, together with a link to a transcript and audio located at Pajamas Media, located here.

* More on the Arena Website:

Bay's web presentation format itself proves to be quite user-friendly, consisting (with this interview) of a five-frame page, with three on the left side, starting at the top with a controller frame from which you stop or start the presentation. That window contains four summary choices to chose from, -- Summary, Credits, Chapters, or Resources. I kept it on the Chapter frame, a general bulleted outline that tells you at a glance where you are in the interview and presentation.

The third window, located beneath that is a feedback survey frame with a few queries that are posted during the course of the presentation, i.e., asking whether you supported or opposed the surge, or, toward the end of the interview, whether you found the presentation useful. It gives you instant summary feedback on the percentages and number of respondents.

The fourth and largest frame, really the focal point of the presentation, is located on the top right corner of the screen. It complements the audio with simultaneous "running" summary slides, in this case with Petraeus' responses, the text of each generously laced with links to a separate and considerable body of additional background information, accessable in separate windows.

In other words, during the interview, and while Petraeus is responding to a question about our coordination with the growing Iraqi army's responses to AQI, you see in that the upper right-hand quintrant of your screen, a slide containing a bulleted summary of Petraeus's response.

So, when he refers, for example, to the special groups, you could, if you wish, click on the embedded link for special groups and read background information about them, while listening to hs answer -- or, you could pause the interview, read the separate window, and then return right to where you left off in the interview, as you wish.

In the introduction portion of the interview, you can also follow any of the many links to read General Petraeus' bio, or link to descriptions of West Point, or to information about units he has commanded, or other related material. So you could click on and open a separate window and read and view public domain information about Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, or MNSTCI, as he succinctly describes its development and role.

And the final frame at the bottom right is set up to be either an automatic "feedback" e-mail window, a notepad, or comment thread, allowing participants to forward the link to friends or share comments with Austin Bay.

This website is, therefore, an extraordinarily informative and interactive tool for anyone seeking solid information on our ongoing role in Iraq. Prior to viewing the interview, I clicked on and viewed the entire Academy presentation on the consequences of a premature withdrawal, "A Rapid U.S. Military Withdrawal from Iraq," updated to, "CONSEQUENCES IRAQ UPDATE: Strategic Overwatch." It is hard to imagine anyone writing informatively about Iraq today without at least perusing the ample material available at Austin Bay's new website.

Obama Takes On His Own Campaign:
Who Is Right?

How could it have happened?

Perhaps, just before he left on his whirlwind tour, Barack Obama mused out loud in front of aides, "Won't someone rid us of this troublesome surge?" We'll probably never know.

Surely, all of the admitted and utterly shameless Obama apologists will now rush in to explain to us why Barack Obama's campaign has suddenly purged his web site of anti-surge propaganda, while claiming that his opposition to the surge has not abated, not even a teeny-weeny bit? The New York Daily News reported it today in a story by James Gordon Meek of their Washington Bureau.

And, according to a post by Mike Allen at Jonathan Martin's Blog on Politico, entitled "Surge meets purge" which was just put up just this morning citing that Daily News story, Barck Obama has now "refined" his website, BUT NOT HIS POSITION.

From Allen's post:

The McCain camaign [sic] is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today's New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq.
. . .

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is 'not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.' "

Got that last comment? Barry is NOT softening his criticism of the surge, but his website is being updated "to reflect changes in current events."

Like . . . the success of the surge, Wendy?

Does that mean that Barack Obama is now officially divorced from reality, or maybe the campaign spin will be that he is merely "of two minds" on the subject?

What is he going to say to our American troops when he gets to Iraq? You’ll remember them. They were the ones who put their lives on the line to turn the situation around. They were also the ones who succeeded in doing that? The surge policy that both Barack Obama and his new best friend, Senator Timothy "Chuck" Hagel (R - Nebraska) vehemently opposed? Tim is going to join Barack in talking to the troops there. He was dead wrong on the surge when he told CNN that it would be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."

Maybe Senator Obama will say something like this to the troops in Iraq:

"I continue to oppose the surge, but you guys sure did a good job in the surge."

And, by having officially taken on his own campaign now, will that not seem strange to the American people?

He says he wants them to elect him President, which would make him the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Or, do you think the American people will just laugh that off as "politics as usual" from Obama?

Mind you, Barack Obama has had, shall we say, "differences" with his staff in the recent past on the topic of Iraq. In fact, his campaign spokesmen and strategists have taken to lying out loud about what his position on the surge was at the time it was initiated.

Check the side-by-sides below, and note the dates!

Here is Obama spokesman, Robert Gibbs versus Barack Obama:



and, here is Obama Campaign Chief Strategist, David Axelrod versus Barack Obama:



In the second clip, note exactly what Barack Obama said back then:

"I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the ground."

That was because at the time he said that, he had refused to talk to General Petraeus, the man who literally wrote the book (commercial version here) on counter-insurgency warfare. Petraeus was well known to be the military expert on the subject, from long before the surge was implemented.

Of course, Obama actually has talked to him, as you can see here:



So . . . what's next?

Well, for one thing, I suppose that honest comics will no longer have any trouble at all getting laughs about Obama, regardless of what Bill Carter reported in the New York Times today!

Anyone Seen A Chicken With Lips?

Radiovice (ht: Powerline, here) has posted a clip from the Hillary Clinton's interview with Tim Russert on "Meet The Press," earlier today. In it, you will hear that she actually claims credit for the success of the surge, through her demands for troop withdraws. Hillary says she and the Democrats scared the Iraqis into compliance with the benchmarks, by all their talk of withdraw, and, therefore, they now deserve the credit for the success of the surge.

Oh, . . . so it was all just a big ruse on the part of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats to demand the immediate withdraw of our troops in order to underscore the U.S. success! Boy, they sure had me fooled!

So, all along the Democrats must have been working in complete concert with the Bush Administration in order to "fool" the Iraqis into successfully meeting so many of those pesky benchmarks.

Please, watch the clip of her telling Tim Russert why she personally, and the other Democrats who at the time vehemently opposed the surge, now deserve all the credit for the success of the strategy!

Years ago, comedian Tommy Smothers, one of the Smothers Brothers, had a very funny line about someone whom everyone obviously knew was lying. He would say, in his inimitable mock-serious tone,

"Some people believe that. And, some people believe the've seen a chicken with lips."

I was also trying to think of possible analogous historical "antecedents" to this utterly preposterous claim by H. Clinton -- you know, like Neville Chamberlain taking the credit for Churchill's wartime successes, asserting that it was really he who had deliberately lulled Hitler into overconfidence through his appeasement policy at Munich.

Or, perhaps Jimmy Carter claiming that the success of Ronald Reagan's upending of the Soviet Union, was in large measure due to Carter's own efforts in convincing the Soviets that the United States was willingly tossing away any notion of eventually prevailing in the Cold War.

And then it hit me what this Clinton claim really reminded me of.

I remembered a good story I heard many years ago, right after I got out of law school. It was told to me by a guy named John, who had been practicing law for a few years as a public defender here in New Jersey. John was -- and still is, by the way -- a very funny guy. He can locate the humor in the most trying of circumstances, and bring it out.

One night, after having a few beers, John was telling a few of us a "war story" about a criminal client he had had who'd been facing a nearly insurmountable murder charge, arising out of a fatal stabbing that had taken place in the presence of several witnesses. According to John, the defendant simply had no friends. No one liked the guy. His situation was so dire that, as I recall, even the defendant's own brother was going to testify against him at trial!

In other words, he was "going down!"

But, the defendant was also a very active and willing participant in the preparation of his own defense, often to the point of real annoyance. He frequently would call John at all hours of the day or night, to discuss the case.

As John told the story, late one evening John received a very anxious but excited call from the defendant from the phone in the jail.

"John," the defendant exclaimed breathlessly, "I've got it!"

"You've got what?" inquired John, who had been awakened from a nap to take the call.

"I figured out what I'm going to say in court," said the defendant triumphantly.

"What?" asked John, obviously concerned that the guy was even thinking about testifying.

"I'm going to tell them I was pulling the knife out!"

Now, I never knew for sure whether that actually happened, or whether John might have embellished the story a bit. Or maybe it was just John's version of an old defense attorney's tale. Didn't matter. When you heard John tell the story, you willingly suspended disbelief. You could see it in your mind's eye.

But when I watched this clip of Hillary earlier, there was no willing suspension of disbelief! Clearly, she was dead wrong with her politically motivated opposition to the surge. And she was a complete disgrace when she as much as called General Petraeus a liar during the hearings. Now, she is simply and desperately looking for an escape hatch.

The point is, I guess, that if you want to believe what she is saying now, then you will also have to believe that, all along, it was Hillary who was really pulling the knife out! If so, get the lipstick ready. Here come the chickens!

Make Way For the Neo-Deniers!

Neoneocon has a provocative post up regarding "change" which she discusses in regard to attitudes and perceptions of the Battle for Iraq.

As we did earlier, she too notes the articles by "the intrepid Michael Totten" citing them -- among other postings – in the context of her formulation. Please read the whole thing, including the comments.

Neoneocon begins by framing the issue of "change" in clinical terms – she has a background in therapy.

But change of this sort is not easy. This is true for individuals, and perhaps to an even greater extent for societies. The human psyche is resistant to change and struggles mightily to preserve the status quo. Therapists even have terms for this: resistance, homeostasis, denial.

And then she posits as a given, a separating of the opposition wheat from its chaff.

And the same is true, strangely enough, for our effort in Iraq. If you eliminate those war critics in this country who are motivated by a hate-America agenda, and simply look at those who have bona fide objections to the war in Iraq, you might summarize the difference between those who still support our effort there and those who think we must get out now as, "the former believe fundamental change for the better is possible and is actually happening, while the latter believe it cannot and is not."

Well, if can be true for societies, it certainly can be true for political parties – and the political lives of the politicians who populate them.

If the various dynamic factors necessary for the homeostatic maintenance of a credible and sustained opposition to the mission in Iraq fall dangerously out of balance, and that opposition thereby feels threatened, we can expect those politicians who feel dependent on that opposition for their political survival to engage in a pattern of denial and resistance in the face of anything resembling success.

Some of them, i.e., Harry Reid, are simply too transparent for extended discussion. Having declared Iraq "lost" back in April, by mid-June he was claiming Petraeus "isn’t in touch with what’s going on in Baghdad."

Others critics evince multiple reactions, including humorous reactions, such as the revelatory quip of Senator Daine Feinstein (D-CA), noted in Politico (ht, Michael Barone, here), when the Senator was confronted with the stark reality of a measure of success in Iraq.

Asked what the Democrats’ next move on Iraq will be, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, "You will see," with an emphatic fist pump, before turning back to a reporter and saying with a laugh, "That’s assuming we know."

We would also note that she had sniffed to Fox News Sunday about Petraeus that, "I don't think he's an independent evaluator."

So, we feel your denial pain, Senator, but your little slip into shtick was also duly noted!

So, what about Hillary . . .?

The not-so-jovial Hillary Clinton appears to be a different story. Less obvious than Harry Reid, she nevertheless seems incapable of a slip into candor on this topic. Having already maintained two poles-apart positions on Iraq, she can ill-afford the perception of a further shift.

Hillary Clinton’s portrayal of the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker as "requiring a willing suspension of disbelief" then, is a perfect example of denial masquerading as an accusation of denial on her part – a form of denial standing on its head.

The point is, that what they were testifying to could not possibly be true if her formulation is to remain at all viable.

Therefore, what they were saying must be false – notwithstanding the inconvenient evidence to the contrary. She even went on to say that "in any of the metrics" referenced in their testimony, "a fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post surge, in my view, end up on the downside."

Thus, she is rather plainly saying that even success in Iraq is bad. I think we’ve got it.

Gee. At this rate of "denial" -- or, should we pretend to be clinical and call it "homeostatic interference" -- how will she ever get the opportunity to pen a credible sequel to "Living History?"

Tell 'Em In The Village It's Too Late

Senator Hillary Clinton, (D-NY) obviously flummoxed by the recent successes of the coalition forces in Anbar Province, and elsewhere in Iraq, during the run-up this summer to the recent congressional testimony of General Petraeus, cooked up a standard political response to the evidence of the improvements.

She said it was "too late."

Here she is, in her inimitable "eat your peas"* style, telling General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that very thing, in addition to very strongly implying that they were both lying.

Recently, milblogger Michael Totten, in his Middle East Journal has been reporting in a two-part series on the ground in Anbar Province, first here, in "Anbar Awakens Part I: The Battle of Ramadi" and then again today in "Anbar Awakens Part II: Hell is Over," on the remarkable successes we have seen in Anbar.

And he records the reactions of the many people living there, in an ongoing battle with al-Qaeda that was thought completely lost, just one year ago. Please scroll down to see the joy in the faces of these people, especially in today's article.

Yet, in spite of what our "lying eyes" are telling us through Michael's observations and photographs, Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize the Iraq incursion, insists it is now "a rather grim reality" and that it is "too late."

Well, if that's the case, then, why don't you go to their village, look those children right in the eye, and tell them it's too late, Hillary?

And while you're at it, why don't you tell them the continued improvements to their lives and their prospects would unfortunately "require the willing suspension of disbelief?"

And then, you could also tell them , just as you told General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, "Any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post surge, in my view, end up on the downside."

And, while you are there, you could tell all the troops that it's "too late." You could say, never mind about Donkey Island, or any of the victories. It's too late.

After all, you want to be the Commander in Chief, right?

Boy, that would show them who is boss!

*A phrase attributable, I believe, to Maureen Dowd, in once describing Presidential Candidate Michael Dukakis.

Getting Off On Donkey Island

"Evil news rides post, while good news baits."
John Milton, Samson Agonistes, Line 1538.

This past Sunday, the Washington Post carried a lengthy article on its front page about a recent battle in Iraq, written by Ann Scott Tyson. It is, I believe, a classic study in factually good news from Iraq, caught up in the entrenched bad news analysis meme. She and her editors simply sought to stretch and twist an exceptional story of victory, though it was somewhat modest in size, into a foreboding tale, fraught with the same old and tiresome lessons that certain news outlets continually try to impose on war stories out of Iraq.

Her facts are, so far as we know, accurate. But the headline, and her "lessons drawn" are right out of deep discount central. You almost have the feeling she thought she was on the trail of Tet.

MSNBC also carried the story, but has apparently now -- a mere three days later -- determined it is no longer newsworthy and has actually taken the link down!

Wrechard at Belmont Club analyzed the MSNBC version, and concluded:

Of course, once the local American reinforcements arrived the al-Qaeda unit was doomed, but their fate was sealed earlier. The three Humveee patrol fixed, disrupted and cut up a force three to four times their size and immobilized an enemy unit that saw its mission change instantly from the infiltration of Ramadi to surviving. It's an amazing story.

Yet, neither Belmont Club's link to the MSNBC story, nor a search of the MSNBC news site using MSNBC's own search engine, yields any remaining Donkey Island story link. It has simply disappeared, including the Today Show version. All you get, as of noon today, August 22d, is "Page not found."

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?


The Washington Post version of the story factually relates the circumstances of a rather intense roadside firefight back on June 30th, initially between a small patrol of 9 American troops from the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment, and a vastly numerically superior contingent of 70 or so al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) terror fighters (the MSNBC version said 40). The American patrol unexpectedly came upon them while riding on patrol along swampy trails near the Nassar Canal, just south of Ramadi in Anbar Province.

While both the canal and the Euphrates River tend to "compartmentalize" the city of Ramadi, neither is "wide enough to seriously limit crossing" hence such recon partols are considered a military necessity in the area.

Our guys were driving along near the canal looking for water-based weapons smuggling operations, and at around 9:15 pm, they suddenly happened on the AQI contingent, and two “semitrucks” that, as was later determined, had been used to smuggle the terror fighters and weapons around several checkpoints, and into the area. Both sides were surprised at the contact, and a firefight ensued that lasted much of the night. Our guys won the engagement, big-time.

But the "lessons" portion of the story Tyson tells is fraught with exaggerated concerns and misgivings that seem plainly unjustified in the context of the very facts she cites.

As she reported, captured video and other intelligence from the insurgents later showed, that the AQI terrorists had trained for months in the lake region north of Ramadi, and were apparently seeking to launch terror counterattacks in and around the city, including proof of a desire to assassinate a local tribal chief just south of Ramadi, one "Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, who founded the main pro-U.S. tribal alliance, known as the Anbar Awakening." The clear outcome of the battle, in light of the high AQI casualties, compromised intelligence and captured weapons cache, is that neither of those two AQI objectives will be attempted at any time soon. But she doesn't say that. Instead she describes this demonstrably failed attempt, as a battle,

which would not only reveal their enemy's determination to retake Ramadi but also throw into question the region's long-term stability if the Americans were to leave. It suggested, moreover, that preserving the city's fragile, hard-won calm would call for heavier fighting than anticipated.

Sheik Rishawi was one of the first tribal leaders in the largely Sunni region to begin working closely with the Americans last fall, in order to fight AQI. It was back then that, as stated in the article, several “influential Sunni tribes around Ramadi, weary of the violence and executions of their leaders, joined with the U.S. military to oust the hard-core Islamic insurgents.” Though unstated in the story, they were also outraged by the constant terrorizing of civilians, and the attempted imposition of extremist Sharia, or Islamic law on the populace. No doubt that was buttressed by the fact that recent intelligence obtained from captured AQI demonstrated that the terror organization is teeming with foreign fighters and leaders, which has no doubt contributed to the rivening between Sunni Iraqi tribal leaders and AQI related groups.

Clearly, neither the Americans nor the highly trained AQI insurgents anticipated running into one another that night, but the ensuing roadside battle, later dubbed by someone as the Battle for Donkey Island, turned out very poorly for AQI. Donkey Island was a small strip of land in the canal that a few of the AQI fighters swam to in an unsuccessful attempt to flank the American fighters during the battle. As soon as they discovered the AQI fighters, the Americans quickly backed up their three Humvees about 100 yards, lining them up three abreast, and where they also got cover from a small ridge. The fire fight had ensued. Some time later (around 11 pm) additional reinforcements from the I-77 Charlie Company, and no doubt some form of air cover, joined with the nine Americans in the battle, but at no time did American troops outnumber the insurgents.

Two Americans were killed and eleven were injured in the all night violent exchange, while nearly half, or 32, of the AQI fighters were killed. Both American deaths tragically occurred the next morning while troops were disarming AQI “suicide vests” on the dozens of AQI bodies. They were shot by a wounded terrorist.

Largely disregarding the overall tenor of what she was covering, you could tell that Ms. Tyson, or perhaps an editor, were intent on reporting uncertainty about the outcome of the struggle, including raising questions about the entire current surge operation. But the facts, even as she reported them, simply do not support those conclusions.

Take for example, just the highly misleading headline attached to the story:

A Deadly Clash at Donkey Island
On a Routine Night Patrol Near Ramadi, U.S. Troops Stumble Upon a Camp of Heavily Armed Insurgents Poised to Retake the City

Deadly Clash –

Plainly, the deadliness of the clash was heavily weighted to the al-Qaeda fighters who were crushed by the engagement. Months of planning for a series of terror attacks, simply went down the drain for them. And in spite of having significant numerical superiority, they were utterly outgunned and suffered nearly 50% killed, or 32 dead. The two Americans deaths both occurred the next morning after the firefight, when two troops were attempting to disarm the suicide vests of the dozens of dead AQI fighters, and were tragically shot by a wounded terrorist.

On a Routine Night Patrol – Stumble Upon Insurgents --

Secondly, the article strongly implies that our troops, while on patrol, only stumbled on the enemy. You would almost think it was a dumb mistake, stumbling upon insurgents. But that is exactly what recon patrols are all about – discovering enemy movements while on patrol in order to keep them from succeeding in surprise attacks on your defensive positions. Prarie Pundit pretty well nailed that aspect of the "battle."

Heavily armed –

Thirdly, the statement that the insurgents were heavily armed is just plain silly. They had AK-47s, a few machine guns and some grenades, as well as the suicide vests. And, in the trucks were whatever arms they had smuggled into the area for future attacks in the area. In any event, all were lost to AQI.

Poised to retake the city –

And finally, the most outrageous statement was that they were "poised to retake the city." That is just plain unadulterated rubbish. This AQI terror group planned to launch a sneak attack on at least one tribal leader of the region, in order to try and undermine local support for us in our mission, and to launch additional terror attacks. But it was seventy (or forty) fighters. They failed miserably at both, and paid a very heavy price. However, the suggestion that they were poised to retake the city is nonsense.

But you have to dig well into the story to find one small accurate assessment in the story, which the author couches in the opinion of the U.S. military.

U.S. commanders said the battle was a major defeat for al-Qaeda-affiliated insurgents, showing how hard it is for them to operate in Anbar, where they face an increased U.S. troop presence and rejection by the Sunni population.

And the story ends with Tyson quoting a general assessment by General Petraeus, noting al-Qaeda in Iraq has largely lost in Anbar Province, which she follows with quotes from local commanders suggesting contradictions -- i.e., that further AQI attacks in Ramadi will likely occur.

Her over all tone is a “forced” note of pessimism that seems largely unjustified.

As Prarie Pundit quite correctly noted:

What the story really shows is that some relatively inexperienced troops overcame a numerically superior force and prevailed. This is the kind of action that deserves medals and commendations. It does not deserved to be used in someones talking points for defeat.

With stories and assessments of success quickly emerging, even among former war critics, there certainly seems to have been a sea change in the statements and attitudes of national Democrat politicians, who all now seem to be scrambling to align themselves with evidence that the mission in Iraq has turned the corner. Today's Washington Post story on the subject notes in a gentile manner, the "refocus" of the Democrat message.

A few days ago, Representative Brian Baird, (D-WA), long a critic of the battle in Iraq, stated that we may need to stay there longer. Some, as today's Post noted, are even beginning to turn on leadership, such as Representative Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who has recently begun waivering on troop withdrawal deadlines.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

If the tide of the battle of Iraq continues to turn, and begets success, he's not the only one who is going to be raising that very question. After all, only two months ago, Harry Reid was calling General Petraeus, "out of touch," and even strongly implying that the General was lying.

As for the Democrat Presidential contenders, watching them scramble for position may well challenge the triggers of the world's least sensitive hypocrisy meters. Not two days ago, Barak Obama confidently assured the world that it was too late . . . there could be no victory in Iraq. But today the Post story quotes him saying,

"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."

What's it going to be, Barak?

And Hillary Clinton is now even saying that the surge strategy is working! But where was she last week?

For the troops fighting and putting their lives on the line, however, all of these positions du jour must seem very unsettling. After all, these people claim to be leaders running for President, which would make one of them the Commander in Chief.

As a child I often wanted to see the noblest of motives in others. So my father used to somewhat cynically remind me from time to time, "Just remember . . . everyone lives on Selfish Island."

For the legions of Americans who had lost a measure of faith in the real liklihood of success in Iraq, the leapfrogging siren songs of the political opposition may have seemed somewhat enticing -- for a while. But now, watching them all hastily swim away from their positions, away from their Donkey Island, just has to furrow more than a few brows.