Winning and Losing

Ralph Peters says we're winning in Iraq and losing in Washington in this New York Post piece. Check it out.

JASmius adds: Along those same lines comes the not-all-that-difficult-to-foresee prediction of an al Qaeda "Tet offensive" to coincide with the September Petraeus report to Congress (via HH):

Today, the upsurge of American troops, increasing aggressiveness of Iraqi combat units, and the abandonment of Sunni chieftains who had previously provided at least passive support for the insurgency, have come together to impose an intolerable situation on the enemies of the Iraqi government and the United States. Large areas near Baghdad that they either controlled or could operate in with relative immunity have shrunk radically during the last several months, and there is no sign that this trend will end soon. It is impossible to believe that the insurgents will take this lying down.

al Qaeda and other Islamic militants have displayed over and over again through their public statements that they are astute observers of the American political discourse over Iraq. That a violent "offensive" of some sort will be launched to drown out or subvert the heavily promoted and anticipated appearance of General David Petraeus before Congress in September is practically a given. It is also certain that Coalition forces in Iraq will work aggressively to disrupt the coming offensive - and the "troop surge" itself serves that end. But in the current news environment, any attacks by the insurgents, no matter how reckless or costly to themselves, are guaranteed to generate massive press coverage and criticism of US efforts even if the insurgents fail militarily.

A wise young major once said to me, "It doesn’t matter if two hundred soldiers are killed - or twenty, or two. The size of the headline stays the same." What may matter right now is how well the Pentagon and the Administration communicate to the public that, as in almost all our wars, a desperate enemy is very likely to strike a blow directed as much at the American leadership, news media, and public as the military itself. The media-savvy enemies of the West could choose no better time for this than the days before and during General Petraeus appears before Congress.

Of course, if the Pentagon and the White House do a full-court press to prepare the public for the Islamist "Battle of the Bulge," the Democrats and Enemy Media will dismiss it as fearmongering and ass-covering. And either way, when the last ditch, banzai attack hits, the other side will seize upon it as "proof" that the "Surge" has "failed," and a lot of Republicans will flee to their favorite spot in the tall grass once again - sealing their electoral fate in 2008.

The fix for defeat, in other words, is in.

UPDATE: And as Tony Blankely writes today, the Dem presidential gaggle was sporting collective wood at the delicious prospect:

Only one issue evoked genuine passion, and that was: How quickly would you retreat from Iraq? And here, the candidates had clearly been doing earnest research before the debate. Governor Bill Richardson said he could get all the troops out in five months. Senator Christopher Dodd claimed he could do it in seven months, while Senator Joe Biden was insistent that it would take a full nine months to a year to move American troops and civilians down the two-lane road through Basra to the sea.

Bragging at how quickly they could retreat seems to be a peculiarly liberal inclination. While, as I recall, conservative little boys practice quick draw with their cap guns while playing cowboys and Indians, apparently liberal little boys practice how fast they can throw up their hands to surrender to the guys in the black hats.

In truth, there are nasty rumors floating around in military circles regarding the level of casualties that may be taken during a retreat of 250,000 American troops and others. As unpleasant as the Saigon retreat by helicopter is in American memory, that was for only the last of the embassy personnel. Nixon had carefully removed 365,000 soldiers from Vietnam during the period from 1969 to 1973.

Removing 250,000 Americans from Iraq over even a year on perhaps 20,000 flatbed trucks through a sniper-, mortar- and road-side-bomb-infested two-lane road may result in more casualties than anyone wants to imagine.

But the Democrats on Monday were so hell-bent on quick surrender and retreat that they never even mentioned casualties on the retreat. They should think about Napoleon's withdrawal from Moscow.

Most remarkably of all, not one of the candidates even mentioned the danger of Islamist terrorism the entire night.

I don't think it's remarkable at all. Nor do I think, as Blankely concludes, that this hostility to national security will be an electoral Achilles heel in 2008.

The truth is the past six months of Dem governance pushing retreat and defeat and the six previous years of agitating for retreat and defeat from the minority have completely expunged 9/11 from the public's collective consciousness. The sight of the WTC collapsing and the Pentagon afire on one mid-September morning has been replaced by Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink and Breasts Not Bombs and the Democrats' supine pandering to the whole dirty lot of them by attacking each and every aspect of the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism as if they were al Qaeda operatives themselves. Most Americans just want all the arguing and fighting and fussing and fuming to go away so they can focus on American Idol and what bra size Paris Hilton's going to sport next. And since giving Congress back to the Dems didn't shut them up, it follows by this logic that the voters will (re-) install Hillary! in the White House to complete the nation's escape back to the supposedly trouble-free Clinton years.

Which, of course, was the regime that allowed al Qaeda to become a global national security threat effectively unopposed, and how we got into this war in the first place.

After the Donks have forced us out of Iraq beginning month after next, will the enemy have the discipline to hold off on resuming their North American offensive until after the 2008 election? Or will they figure that Bush will get the blame either way, so Allahu Akbar!?

My guess is the latter. And that they'll be absolutely right.

'NOTHER UPDATE: Clifford May looks at America's bleak post-Iraq future.