General David Petraeus Was Right

Better Numbers, Violence in Iraq drops dramatically, and MORE GOOD NEWS… Casualties Continue to Drop in Iraq!

NEWS COVERAGE and debate about Iraq during the past couple of weeks have centered on the alleged abuses of private security firms like Blackwater USA. Getting such firms into a legal regime is vital, as we’ve said. But meanwhile, some seemingly important facts about the main subject of discussion last month — whether there has been a decrease in violence in Iraq — have gotten relatively little attention. A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that “civilian deaths have risen” during this year’s surge of American forces.
A month later, there isn’t much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 — down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004. …

This doesn’t necessarily mean the war is being won. U.S. military commanders have said that no reduction in violence will be sustainable unless Iraqis reach political solutions — and there has been little progress on that front. Nevertheless, it’s looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus’s credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq’s bloodshed were — to put it simply — wrong.

Ed:

Let’s put it a little more simply: they lied. Being “wrong” would have meant them saying, “General Petraeus, your numbers appear to be incorrect,” or alternately, “We don’t believe these trends will last.” That’s not what Petraeus heard. He heard a Senator — someone vying to become Petraeus’ Commander in Chief — tell him that his testimony required a “willing suspension of disbelief”. MoveOn greeted Petraeus’ testimony with a full-page ad declaring him a potential traitor to his country.

All of that was very wrong on many levels, but his critics were much more than just incorrect. They lied about Petraeus, and the Washington Post lets them off far too easily.

They appear to do the same with their colleagues in the media. The Post notes the lack of “attention” given to the improving numbers, but never asks why this story hasn’t gotten more press. The same agencies that reserve room on the front page for endless Blackwater stories somehow can’t find room to report on military progress in Iraq — and political progress as well. Somehow the story becomes much less interesting to editors when the American military reverses violent trends, starts saving lives, and starts beating terrorists.

That’s not just a lack of attention, as in someone simply neglecting a wire service output. Those are deliberate editorial decisions to ignore or deprioritize news that shows the progress of Petraeus and the surge. Referring to these deliberate decisions as a “lack of attention” is equivalent to calling Petraeus’ critics “wrong” rather than “exposed for what they are”.

Joe:

General Petraeus’ change in strategy pushed US forces from the large, secure bases into combat outposts, forward operating bases, battle positions, and patrol bases in the urban, suburban, and rural areas of Iraq. The change has yielded real results. Coupled with a planned, concerted offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq and Shia extremists groups’ safe havens and with a renewed engagement in reconstruction efforts, the new strategy allowed Sunni and Shia tribes to step up and provide security. The new strategy also enabled Sunni insurgent groups unhappy with al Qaeda’s attempts to dominate the insurgency to turn on the terror group and join the reconciliation process at the local level.

With the onset of “The Surge,” Sunni and Shia groups began forming local and provincial Awakening councils modeled after the successful Anbar Awakening Council that succesfully drove al Qaeda into the shadows in Anbar province. Many groups received assistance from members of the Anbar Awakening, a grouping of Sunni tribes and insurgent groups such as the 1920s Revolution Brigade and the Mujahideen Army. These tribes and insurgent groups are organized across provincial boundaries. With Anbar as a model, Awakening councils formed in Diyala, Salahadin, Babil, Ninewa, Wasit, and Baghdad provinces.

ALLAHPUNDIT:

Even the AP felt moved to marvel at the daily snapshot yesterday. The WaPo piece is getting all the traffic in the ’sphere today but it’s less important than this story, which is also optimistic and a must read in light of the reports a few days ago about the possibly waning influence of the Shiite militias in the south and Baghdad. Ammar al-Hakim is the son of and future successor to Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, leader of SCIRI and chief rival to Sadr for political power among the Shiites. Check out where, and with whom, he spent his Sunday

Tons more at memeorandum, Wizbang
Don Surber who had this to say on Hillary:

Hillary lied. For political gain, she flat-out lied. She voted for this war 5 years ago to give her credibility in this presidential campaign. In September, she dumped on the efforts of Gen. Petraeus, whom she dared to portray as a liar.

William Safire pegged her well in January 1996 when he called her a “congenital liar.” He took heat for that. He spoke the truth to power before the phrase was co-opted by the power mad on the left.
The Post’s objective in its editorial on Iraq. It concluded, “This doesn’t necessarily mean the war is being won. U.S. military commanders have said that no reduction in violence will be sustainable unless Iraqis reach political solutions — and there has been little progress on that front. Nevertheless, it’s looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus’s credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq’s bloodshed were — to put it simply — wrong.”

But there is a greater war, one which a free people must always guard against and that is the demagoguery of people who seek power for power’s sake.

In 1996, the controversy was her money-grubbing activity in the Whitewater scandal. They were able to put away a governor of Arkansas but her friends protected her by lying and refusing to testify.

12 years later, nothing has changed. Some lefties are distrustful of her. Given the choice between an ill-prepared young man and a third term for a congenital liar and her congenial liar husband, I would select the former.

Bookmark to: