With Support Like This …

Will there be no “General Betray Us” this time around, as Gen. David Petraeus faces Senate confirmation for his appointment to U.S. Central Command? One might think so, reading this:

WASHINGTON (AP)- A top Democrat has indicated he supports President Bush’s decision to promote Gen. David Petraeus to head U.S. Central Command and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno as the next commander of troops in Iraq.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, said confirmation of the nominations would enable unprecedented continuity of leadership in Iraq by officers whose knowledge of the war effort is unparalleled.

Smooth sailing, then? I think not, and so does CNS:

“I don’t think there is any anticipation of trying to block the confirmation of Petraeus,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Cybercast News Service at a Capitol press conference.

“But the three of us [Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.] have talked about questions we think ought to be asked Petreaus,” said Reid. “I think there are a lot of questions members of that [Armed Services] committee have and that senators who are not in that committee have.”

Reid seems to be having some trouble counting … I get to four on that calculation. Be that as it may, Petraeus should brace himself for some tough questions because the Dems will be using him as a proxy to question Pres. Bush:

“I don’t anticipate [an effort to block the nomination],” said Levin. “You have to remember this Iraq strategy is a Bush strategy. I want to hold Bush accountable. He is the guy who is responsible. The buck stops with him. I want to hold the president, who is the civilian leader, accountable for the strategy and not act as if the military people have the final say, because they don’t.”

So expect the usual Dem “blindsight” — you know, the inability to see what’s in front of them.

Combat On The Hill

Good generals know how to prepare for attacks, so I imagine David Petraeus enters the Capitol Hill combat zone today well armed in anticipation of some serious grandstanding by two junior senators with very senior ambitions.

Basra and Iran are sure to come up, so thank you Mah- I’m in the moud to goose-step Ahmadinejad (rhymes with “Mohammed makes me loony-mad!”) for giving us this little news item this morning:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Iran has begun installing 6,000 new centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, state television quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Tuesday.

Iran already has about 3,000 centrifuges operating in Natanz, and the new announcement is seen as a show of defiance of international demands to halt a nuclear program the United States and its allies say is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

Nice of AP to concede that the US still has allies …. 9,000 centrifuges — seems like an awfully big investment in electrical generation for a country that literally has oil to burn. Whatever can they be up to?

As Clinton and Obama do their best to ignore realities like this and appease the hard Left by bashing a perfectly fine general, it’s interesting to muse about their direct involvement in the recent surge of violence in Iraq. Reuters almost gets it, but characteristically doesn’t see the forest for the trees:

In testimony over two days, Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will assess the uneven progress made in a year-long “surge” of force meant to create the calm for Iraqi politicians to advance legislation and factions to reconcile.

The upturn in violence has thrust Iraq back to the forefront of campaigns for the November presidential election.

Put another way, the upturn in violence is part of a concerted effort by al Qaeda in Iraq, Shi’ite militia, Iran and others to ensure the election of a Democrat in November, because they know that will make their dreams of chaos and conquest much more realizable if John McCain is not in the White House.

Update: Here’s what he said this morning in his opening statement to Congress:

Gen. Petraeus also said the recent flare-up of violence in Basra, in Baghdad and elsewhere points up the importance of the cease-fire declared last year by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and highlighted the role Iran allegedly plays in funding and training Shiite militias through cells the U.S. military calls “special groups.”

“Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq,” Gen. Petraeus said. (WSJ)

(end of update)

So our enemy, monitoring proceedings over CNN and al-Jaz, will grin with every insulting probe from Clinton, Obama and the other Dems today, and listen very attentively to everything said by McCain.

Like I said, Petraeus is entering an important combat zone today, and I for one am hoping he emerges victorious, leaving a couple junior senators with senior headaches.

Big Stick Diplomacy

In Iraq, “You don’t go from bad to good. You go from bad to less bad,” Gen. David Petraeus is quoted today in a WSJ interview. Syria’s involvement in the Iraq war is one example of “less bad,” as the Syrians seem to be getting a message:

Another factor [in the improving situation in Iraq], he said, has been unexpected, “robust” measures by Syria to reduce the number of foreign militants crossing into Iraq to carry out suicide attacks. Gen. Petraeus estimated that the number of foreign fighters coming into Iraq through Syria has fallen by at least one-third.

“Unexpected” and “robust” seem not to go together. For Syria to robustly alter their policy on the Iraq border, there must have been some discussions that would make the unexpected more expected. There’s no further hints in the article.

Over on the other border, guarded hope was expressed by Petraeus:

Gen. Petraeus said the U.S. hasn’t found any large-scale caches of EFPs since the Iranian-Iraqi accord was announced several weeks ago. But he said it was too soon to tell how much credit, if any, Iran deserved for the recent falloff in EFP attacks.

Iran made “unequivocal pledges to stop the funding, training, arming and directing of militia extremists in Iraq,” he said. “It will be hugely significant if that’s the case.

“Having said that, there is very much a wait-and-see attitude by everyone involved to see if Iran will live up to those commitments,” Gen. Petraeus said.

I would have liked to see Petraeus’ reaction to this idea by Steve Forbes:

As a matter of fact, we should conduct in-and-out military strikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. These corrupt thugs are the praetorian guards of the fanatics running Iran these days. Iran is the biggest funder and trainer of terrorist organizations in the world. Now that we’re getting it right in Iraq–fighting the insurgents neighborhood by neighborhood and not allowing the rebels any internal sanctuary–a cross-border policy would bear rich military harvests.

If this were policy, the Iranian regime could be humiliated without our having to engage in a formal occupation or use air strikes against its atomic facilities. Such an approach might fatally weaken the regime by emboldening antiregime forces to forcefully act.

Currently the mullahs’ security police are too pervasive and too ruthless for peaceful insurgents to be able to oust the mullahs the way Solidarity ousted Poland’s communist government in the late 1980s. But strikes across the border would give the Iranian army a powerful incentive to strike at its hated government.

Seems like an idea worth trying. A little probe and punch here and there, circumspect, justifiable, intimidating. What do you think, General?

We Remember And We Mourn

This sickened my heart this morning. No, in fact my heart was sickened even as I typed dailykos into my browser, knowing something like this would be there:

We remember and we mourn
by wiscmass
Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:31:08 AM PDT

[Today], the sixth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on US soil, we will hear many platitudes about the fallen. Instead of buying into the hype, we choose to remember and mourn the actual people who are no longer with us. We remember and we mourn our friends and family and complete strangers who lost their lives on that terrible day.

We remember and we mourn all the US soldiers who died in a war of retaliation against the wrong people. We remember and we mourn the Iraqi victims, the journalists, the coalition soldiers, and the US soldiers killed in Operation Enduring Freedom as well.

I sense wiscmass really mourns very little with this troubling mess of a list, this list designed to sound all right but really poke a finger at America for 9/11.

We don’t see President Bush’s name in this little entry, neither do we see jihad, bin Laden, al-Qaeda or Islam. It’s as if 9/11 just happened, then America responded with death. It’s as if all wiscmass and his/her fellow travelers mourn is that there is a war.

The nation that was united six years ago was a chimera; this is the nation we have today. A nation in which our leading general isn’t rightfully questioned about his policies, but instead is accused (thanks to a hefty ad discount from the NYT) of being a traitor. And a liar. Why? Because he’s doing what the Left has demanded be done: Changing administration policy in Iraq.

For a moment six years ago, America could look at itself proudly as the nation it is supposed to be. Unbent, committed, strong, we looked a vicious attack in the face and reacted with calm assurance. No mobs of Americans took to the street shouting, “Death to the Islamic devil!” No Muslims were torn from their homes and stoned or stomped to death. And no wings of aircraft took off, laden with weapons of war, to strike back viciously at some target, any target.

Instead we grieved, cried and prayed. The voices of dissent were quieter then. Maybe they were afraid to say anything; maybe they truly felt as we did for a moment. But that moment is gone now and it’s up to us who don’t play games with historic moments to remember and mourn correctly.

We remember and we mourn because the world changed for the worse on that day due to the acts of a few utterly intolerant, hateful men from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

We remember and we mourn for the souls who were not a part of any war, who were not confronted with any choice regarding their fate, but were subjected to painful, fearful deaths at the hands of the most intolerant and hateful of extremists.

We remember and mourn the heroes from NYFD, NYPD and the just everyday folk who rose to the occasion and put others’ lives ahead of their own.

We remember and mourn the ribbons, flags and bumper stickers that for a while seemed to say we were united.

We remember and mourn those two great towers, and that massive heap of dust, twisted steel, blood and snuffed life.

Debra Burlingame also remembers. Her brother was on the airliner that was stolen by al-Qaeda and redirected into the west wall of the Pentagon. She writes this morning, six years later:

There is a disturbing phenomenon creeping into the public debate about all things 9/11. Increasingly, Sept. 11 is compared to hurricanes, bridge collapses and other mechanical disasters or criminal acts that result in loss of life, with “body count” being the primary factor that keeps it in the top spot of “worst in the nation’s history.”

Misremembering is as dangerous as forgetting. If we must know one thing, it is that the Sept. 11 attacks were neither a natural disaster, nor the unfortunate result of human error. 9/11 wasn’t the catastrophic equivalent of a 3,000-car pileup.

The attacks were not a random act of violence or insanity. They were a deliberate and brutal act of war committed by religious fanatics engaged in Islamic jihad against the United States, all non-Muslim people and any Muslim who wishes to live in a secular society. Worse, the people who perpetrated the attacks have explicitly told us that they are not done.

Sept. 11 is a date that comes and goes once a year, but “9/11” is with us every day.

And that is why we remember and mourn the soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. They understand, unlike MoveOn.org, Code Pink, Daily Kos and the other defilers of the memory of 9/11, that the jihadists are not done and that making excuses and placing false blame is not going to stop them.

Some will mark today by trying to disrupt the Senate hearings for Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker with anti-war, anti-American slogans. Fortunately, most of us will remember the day correctly, with a prayer of remembrance to those who died, a prayer of good will and protection for those who defend us, and a prayer for this world, and for a true and just peace.

OC Hangs Its Head In Shame

Loretta Sanchez, who defeated B-1 Bob Dornan for her House seat by banking on her Hispanic maiden name much more than any credible ability, disgraced OC’s conservative Republican roots today with questioning and grandstanding during the Petraeus/Crocker hearings.

It was embarrassing to hear her read her questions, stumbling over words most of us had pretty well nailed by 9th grade and worse, being condescending to Ambassador Crocker and insulting to Gen. Petraeus, who are both actually taking risks and doing something for their country.

She was asking a convoluted three-tier question based on a poll she identified only as a BBC poll which showed (natch) that Iraqis are fed up with the war and with us:

Sanchez: So how concerned are you that this apparent decine … decline in public confidence is happening due to [the perception among Iraqis that we will have a long-term military presence in Iraq] and how do we address it? Is it a public relations problem or is there a substance .. tive … strategy issue that we have to face? And I’ll start with the Ambassador?

Crocker: Thank you very much Congresswoman. No, I have not seen this particular poll. As you know, there are a lot of polls out there, and to see the least, I think that polling in Iraq now is a fairly inexact science, which is not to call into question this particular poll. I simply don’t know. I know that I have seen other

Sanchez: (Interrupting) It’s an BBC/ABC poll. They usually know how to conduct surveys quite well, I would say.

Crocker: Yeah, they

Sanchez: (Interrupting) I certainly find that they know how to count better than most of our generals count in Iraq, and Gen. Petraeus will know what I mean by that.

Would some Loretta flunky please tell the Congresswoman that the counting that goes on in polls is delegated to the junior intern from Downriver State? It’s the designing of the poll that requires real smarts … and with BBC/ABC, real bias. But what does Sanchez know about smarts?

What Sanchez obviously does know very well is that the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, long the home of the Marine 3rd Aircraft Wing, was closed in 1999. Were the base, located just a few miles south of her district, still open, I doubt very much if Sanchez would feel comfortable bitch-slapping our generals, especially Gen. Petraeus.

After all, there were about 7,500 Marines on El Toro at its peak, and while they might not have thought much of the Army, I’m sure they would have been ready to defend Gen. Petraeus with a hoo-rah or two.

About Time: U.S. Confronts Iran

U.S. forces in Iraq are finally confronting the Iranian threat in Iraq head-on, long after the need for a military response became evident:

BARDA, Iraq — The Pentagon is preparing to build its first base for U.S. forces near the Iraqi-Iranian border, in a major new effort to curb the flow of advanced Iranian weaponry to Shiite militants across Iraq.

The push also includes construction of fortified checkpoints on the major highways leading from the Iranian border to Baghdad and the installation of X-ray machines and explosives-detecting sensors at the only formal border crossing between Iran and Iraq. …

Iran denies supplying weapons to Iraqi militants, but the accusation is at the center of escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran that have sparked talk of a possible American military strike on Iran.

“We’ve got a major problem with Iranian munitions streaming into Iraq,” said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the commander of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division. “This Iranian interference is troubling and we have to stop it.”

He said 48 advanced roadside bombs — a type the U.S. says are made in the region only in Iran — have been used against his forces in central and southern Iraq, killing nine American soldiers. Gen. Lynch also said the U.S. stopped a planned attack on an American base that would have made use of 46 Iranian-made rockets.

U.S. officials acknowledge the difficulty of stemming the flow of weapons across a border that is unfenced and thinly patrolled in many parts. But they hope that forcing smugglers off the main roads will make it easier to spot the militants through aerial surveillance. (WSJ)

In his Congressional testimony today, Gen. Petraeus is expected to address Iran’s expansionist role in the region, especially its work with Shi’ia militia intent on destabilizing the Iraqi government.

The proposed base at Barda puts some oomph behind his words.

photo: New York Times

Spin Cycle Going Full Bore On Petraeus

Tomorrow we’ll know what Gen. Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker have to say about the situation in Iraq, but no one is content to wait for the real thing.

Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, the Dem’s pit bull, is sure he knows what it says:

“Petraeus is a military man first, but he is clearly conscious of his political surroundings and of the administration’s position, and I think you’ll see that reflected in his testimony.” (WashTimes)

WaPo and ABC News, not exactly known for their support of the president’s war effort, have helpfully contributed a last minute poll on the matter:

Most Americans think this week’s report from ArmyGen. David H. Petraeus will exaggerate progress in Iraq ….

The LA Times brushes aside any comparison of Petraeus to Ulysses S. Grant, who turned around a failing war effort, and replaces it with this:

” ’67 was the year you really saw erosion of public support starting, and that is why Johnson brings Westmoreland back, because he senses the public is getting tired,” said Mark Moyar, a military historian and author of a book about the Vietnam War, “Triumph Forsaken.”

“Westmoreland comes back and says progress is being made and there is light at the end of the tunnel,” Moyar said. Westmoreland’s comments in Washington led some to accuse him of being a political pawn of the White House, a charge that has begun to be leveled at Petraeus.

AP isn’t speculating; it says with confidence it knows what will be said on Monday:

President Bush’s top two military and political advisers on Iraq will warn Congress on Monday that making any significant changes to the current war strategy will jeopardize the limited security and political progress made so far, The Associated Press has learned.

All this spinning isn’t exactly happening in a vacuum — Petraeus has spoken with the president and others, and there was his letter last Friday to the troops — but the fact of the matter is, no one outside the general’s and ambassador’s staffs has seen the Petraeus and Crocker testimony.

The White House said it has not yet seen the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker on the situation in Iraq, defending President Bush from criticism that he has not shared a preview of the report with top Republicans. …

Republican leadership aides said their requests for briefings went unanswered by the White House. They said they could not even obtain colorful anecdotes or other previews of Gen. Petraeus’ and Mr. Crocker’s testimony.

“It would sure make things easier if we could get a heads-up on what the testimony will be,” said one Senate aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Gen. Petraeus has not submitted his testimony to any of the congressional committees, a military source close to the general said.

“This may be frustrating, but everyone should understand that they are delivering the testimony, and we’ll all have to wait to hear them,” Mr. Fratto said. (WashTimes)

Spin is a good measure of significance; matters of slight significance go unspun, and matters that matter are pre-spun, spun and post-spun.

Bush’s spin is that he’s not spinning, that he (a tad disingenuously) doesn’t know what Petraeus will say and (more genuinely) isn’t forcing his hand. The Dem’s more than a tad disingenuous spin is that both Petraeus and Crocker are firmly in Bush’s pocket and the entire game is a charade.

Unspun, this is what we’re likely to see: Petraeus authored the surge policy and is likely to speak more of progress than backsliding, but he will not slap a happy face on the situation. Crocker will use the opportunity to deflate the very unfair GAO report on benchmark attainment on the Iraq political front, but will make sure the Maliki government hears loud and clear that if political progress doesn’t follow soon, America will be forced to shift policies.

The pundit machine seems to have only one setting: spin cycle. Tomorrow, we’ll see how things turn out in the wash.