The NYT - "Run Away! Run Away!"

Things are rapidly coming to a head politically on Iraq.

A number of GOP senators have recently begun to advocate an immediate pullout from Iraq, along with many of their Democrat counterparts. Recent converts to the cause include Richard Lugar ( R-IN), Lamar Alexander ( R-TN), Pete Domenici ( R-NM), Judd Gregg ( R-NH), and John Warner ( R-VA).

None of these GOP legislators is quite ready to openly embrace Democrat legislation to compel an immediate troop withdrawal. But they are using language like `draw down strategy' and `phased withdrawal' and branding the troop buildup a failure...and forcing the president to reassess his plans in Iraq.

Even if that's what's in the works, it's hardly something that should be communicated to our enemies.

Always on top of any negative trend is the Paper of Refuse, as the New York Times openly calls for an immediate retreat in its editorial, The Road Home, a piece rife with disinformation, defeatism and conclusions that have nothing to do with reality. It also includes a 180 degree turnaround on Kurdistan that I'll discuss later, although even that is tainted by the NYT's lack of reality and hunger for an American retreat:

"It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost."

And that's just the opener!

There are some fairly deliberate lies here. For instance the US didn't `destroy Iraq's police, economic structure and army' - Saddam took care of the country's infrastructure and the army and police mainly melted away after the invasion, especially the Sunnis, to hunker down and see what would happen next. And a discussion could definitely be had about `sufficient cause' or the necessity of `global backing'.

One of the most pathetic parts of this rant is the part where the Times laments that the Iraq War is `a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists' in one spot (like the NYT ever gave a rip about that), and then admits in another paragraph that al-Qaeda has new base camps, new recruits and new prestige and that the war is 'a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces.'

I mean, which is it? Are we fighting al-Qaeda there, or aren't we?

Even more disgusting is the NYT easy acceptance of possible genocide in the country, as well as the creation of a new Islamist haven:

"...Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate."

Apparently a couple million Vietnamese and Cambodians weren't enough for these people.

Oddly enough, the NYT now suddenly advocates something I have long advocated on these pages...the establishment of bases in Kurdistan. But rather than permanent bases and an alliance with the Kurds, which is what we should have done a year and a half ago when the pitfalls of Bush's `Arab democracy' and the Maliki government became apparent, the editorial calls for them as mere temporary `staging areas' to help evacuate our troops and military equipment, without addressing why the Kurds would allow something that doesn't benefit them in the least long term, and ties them to the fleeing Americans!

The piece then goes on to bloviate about how Kuwait and Saudi Arabia need to be pressured by the `international community' to accept Iraqi refugees,something neither country will ever do. And the `international community'will likewise never pressure them to do so.

And in the same section, it calls for that mythical `international pressure' on Iran and Syria to end their meddling in the country, and for President Bush to negotiate directly with Iran and Syria.

Hey, the` international community' has worked wonders talking to Iran and Syria so far, haven't they?

The Times is correct in saying that the current Iraqi government is a corrupt mess, riven with sectarian factions and more allied than we'd like with our enemies. But it is disgraceful - and that's putting it mildly - for a so-called serious newspaper to publish drivel like this when our men are still in the field and being shot at.

None of their recommendations make any sense whatsoever in the real world. Like many of the people in Congress whom favor this approach, they have no thoughts about what a legislated defeat and pullout will do to our war effort, how it will strengthen our enemies, or what it will do to the morale of our military. Unlike the minions at the New York Times, our troops have seen first hand how evil the people are that they're fighting....and those are the stories, like the one Michael Yon recently wrote,that papers like the New York Times won't touch with a ten foot pole.

Even more disquieting than the New York Times are the moves in Congress to short circuit General Petraeus.

Congress voted to confirm him in command of our forces in Iraq, knowing full well what his intended strategy was - they grilled him on it exhaustively. Congress also agreed to allow him to implement that strategy until September, when they would reassess his progress.

Now, a number of them are reneging and trying to cut the ground out from under him, in spite of his having a fair amount of success thus far.

In truth, it may be that General Petraeus has been a little too successful, and with more time and effort might have things squared away to the point where the US could withdraw in a proper fashion....which wouldn't suit the political agenda of many the Democrat's leadership in Congress and their allies on the Angry Left in the the least.

Congress can do whatever it wants, of course. But they and we will have to live with the consequences.

The Iraq War has been sadly mismanaged. Billions of dollars have been squandered and outright stolen, unnecessary lives lost, and most of all, a reactive and defensive strategy has been pursued in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has allowed our enemies safe havens in neighboring countries, to regroup and strike at our military and at civilian targets at will. What's worse, due to the president's constant wavering in Iraq between his fetish for `Arab democracy'and placating the Saudis and the other Sunni autocrats, we've sacrificed a lot of time and advantage.

Now, when at last we seem to finally be on the right path at long last, forcing a defeat on our troops from the home front is dishonorable and will have effects on us and our war effort that will be with us for a long time to come.

At the very least, Congress should keep its word and allow General Petraeus until September, without trying to sabotage him, before making an assessment.They owe him that much.

In Iraq, that may very well mean an alliance with the Kurds, redeploying our troops there and building bases to confront Iran and Syria. Better late than never. In fact, unless we neutralize Iran, our war effort everywhere, not just in Iraq, is doomed to failure.

The key to a winning strategy in this global war in which Iraq is just one front lies in fighting this war offensively, and confronting, militarily or otherwise, the nation-states that harbor, arm, fund and export jihad against the West. We will have to do this sooner or later, and the longer we wait, the higher the cost in blood and treasure.

That's something you will never read in the New York Times.