the houston conservative: Editorial Page: Deconstructing Obama's War Myth: Troop Surge Instrumental in Iraq Victory

Since they have been proven so wrong about the troops surge over the past year and a half, Democrats, and their messiah have been attempting to construct a new mythology about the progress we have seen in Iraq, the troop surge was only peripherally effective.

For Obama and the Democrats, the 20,000 additional combat troops aren't the reason for the amazing progress we've seen in Iraq, it was the "Sunni Awakening" and Muqtada al Sadr's declaration of cease fire that ushered in the growing successes in Iraq.

Of course Democrats and Obama will say anything to prevent them from having to admit they were wrong about the troop surge. The fact is, the so-called Sunni Awakening occurred as a result of the successes our troops were having in driving al Qaeda out of the Sunni areas.

The Sunni Awakening could never have occurred without the presence of the additional 20,000 combat troops. Muqtada al Sadr would never have left Iraq and never have called for a cease fire if American combat troops hadn't been so successful in killing them.

So let's get the story straight. First came the much maligned and dismissed troop surge, and then came the Sunni Awakening and the al Sadr cease fire.

How wrong were the Democrats and RINO's about the troop surge?

Idiot Senator Chuck Hagel led the RINO charge in opposition to the President's troop surge (or as Democrats were calling it, "The McCain Plan"). On January 11, 2007, Hagel was on the Charlie Rose show calling the idea of the troop surge, a "dangerous foreign policy blunder."

"[The troop surge would be] the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.

I do not believe this administration, uh, has, uh, anywhere near an accurate assessment on what is going on in Iraq, uh, if they do, uh, they are preferring to look the other way hoping that things like adding 22,000 more troops and spending billions of more dollars is somehow gonna fix it. Uh, it is too deep. This is coming unraveling [sic] at a rate that I don't believe any of us can calibrate.

Way to call it Chuck! "Missed it by that much."

It looks as though you and your Democrat buddies were the ones who lacked "anywhere near an accurate assessment" of what was and is going on in Iraq. Talk about letting your arrogance and stupidity show.

Hagel, like retired NATO Commander Westley Clark, proved that having served in the military, while worthy of our nation's gratitude, doesn't make you an expert in foreign policy or fit to be Commander in Chief.

Of course, we are talking about the man who, amid rampant speculation that he would run for the presidency, called a press conference only to say "I'm here today to announce that my family and I will make a decision on my political future later this year." Yep, Chuck Hagel is truly a man of vision and decisiveness.

As for the Democrats:

January 11, 2007 Dennis Kucinich, that world renown foreign policy expert, declared:
"In Iraq, his new plan is a plan for more door-to-door fighting, more civil war, more civilian casualties, more troop deaths, more wasted money, more destabilization in the region and more separation from the world community. The President wants to send more troops to Baghdad, where they will work to quell a civil war. Only a small portion - less than 20 percent - of the new effort will be spent in al Anbar, to fight al-Qaeda. Does anyone in this Administration have any sense left at all? They are sending more US troops into the middle of a civil war!"
July 12, 2007 Mad Captain Jack Murtha on CNN called President Bush's description of the success of the surge,

"Well it's delusional to say the least. As I said earlier, and you heard me say it, it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing's gotten better. Incidents have increased. We have had more Americans killed in the last four months than any other period during the war.

"I don't acknowledge there has been any progress made. Maybe in Baghdad. But it just breaks out someplace else...there's no progress being made."
April 20, 2007 Harry Reid declared:

"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."
December 03, 2007 Harry Reid said of Iraq,

"The surge hasn't accomplished its goals... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war."
May 16, 2007 Dick Durbin stated,

"This morning, the White House announced that the president has finally found a general who will accept the responsibility for the execution of this war. Why did four generals before him refuse this assignment? Because those four generals know, the American people know, and this Senate knows that the administration's policy in Iraq has failed."
February 10, 2008 Nancy Pelosi asserted, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, that the President's Iraq policy:

“is a failure. [It has] not produced the desired effect...There haven't been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."

It never ceases to amaze me how people who have been proven so completely wrong about events in Iraq...from the very outset of the war...and be so unbelievably arrogant about it.

This new narrative Democrats and RINO's are now espousing in order not to have to admit how wrong they have been, by crediting successes in Iraq to "the Sunni awakening," Muqtada al Sadr's call for a ceasefire, and only peripherally, the troop surge, just doesn't wash.

The troop surge was announced by the President on January 11, 2007 with troop levels standing at 132,000. By the end of March, troop strength is up to 150,000.

On April 26, just seven days after Harry Reid declared the War in Iraq "lost" and the troop surge "a failure," General Patraeus tells Congress, "We are just getting started with the new effort.”

So according to General Patraeus, the man assigned to execute the President's new strategy, it began at the end of April, 2007. Progress on the ground began almost immediately, though it was accompanied by a not to be unexpected spike in U.S. casualties.

In spite of real progress being made, on June 13th Democrats in Congress once again declare the surge a failure, three months before the last of the troops destined for Iraq via the surge were in place (troop strength reached 168,000 in September).

By then (mid-June) the Sunni's, having discovered that U.S. troops were not going to be withdrawn and witnessing significant progress by American troops in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, began to fight alongside U.S. troops in Anbar province - the so-called Sunni Awakening had begun.

By August, Moqtada al Sadr declared a "ceasefire" after his Mahdi Militia had been repeatedly pounded by his rivals and Iraqi Army troops supported by U.S. troops from the surge.

Military progress was rapid and extensive, so much so that by November the only people who were still denying success were Democrats and their pet RINO's.

So there you have it, first the surge (“the McCain Plan”) then the “Awakening” and the ceasefire…simple cause and effect.

Now, progress on the political front in Iraq, which not unexpectedly lagged behind military progress, is beginning to accelerate with 15 of the much cited 18 benchmarks, placed by Congress as a means to measure the success or failure of the troop surge, having been met.

Democrats are so unhappy that we are winning the war in Iraq, that they continue to deny the efficacy of the surge, which officially ended this week with the withdrawal of the last units called up for the surge.

I have said over and over that Obama is an empty suit, singularly unqualified to be President and he has proven by his inability or unwillingness to admit he was wrong about the surge that he lacks the character and integrity to occupy the White House.

He's not a man, he's an Obamouse.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!