The Redhunter

Do you find it ironic that the change in strategy in connection with the surge seems to be working because it reversed course from (i) keeping a low U.S. troop profile, (ii) turning things over to the Iraqis sooner rather than later, and (iii) focusing on political reform rather than military success? These three approaches have not worked - and they have also been foremost in the advice of many war critics. The only exception I can think of (other than the advice to withdraw, of course) is the criticism that we did not have enough troops in Iraq. Of course, as soon as the surge was proposed, many critics dropped this line and opposed the surge.

Lowry's right, it is ironic.

The Senate voted to confirm General Petraeus knowing full well what he was going to do. Now that he's actually doing it, and it's working, some of them want to call it quits. This makes no sense and is politically dishonest. If they didn't want to send the additional five brigades that make up the surge, they shouldn't have voted to confirm him.

Of all the Senators who spoke last night in favor of continuing current operations, Jim Bunning (R-KY) and John McCain (R-AZ) stand out.

First, a few excerpts from Sen Bunning's remarks

The ink isn’t even dry on the President’s plan and Democrats are already declaring it a failure. This type of defeatist strategy is irrational and unfair.

It is important to remember the dangerous effect our debate here in Washington can have on the message we are sending to our enemies. Make no mistake our enemies are watching us.

They are watching us and using our debate on the war on Iraq to strengthen themselves.
...

Wake up America! If we withdraw from Iraq, the terrorists will likely follow us home. Democrats would like for us to believe that we can responsibly leave Iraq and the conflict will end. This is delusional.

Make no mistake if we leave Iraq prematurely there will be widespread chaos in the Middle East. Iran will work with Syria to dominate the region while Sunni states scramble to oppose them. They will use any means possible to acquire the resources to bolster their nuclear weapons program in an effort to combat the United States.

Next, from Senator McCain's speech

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. ...

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably.