I rarely comment on the emails that this lady sends to my wife. (In fact, I admire her activism) But this time I had to jump in. Here is her email:
"Iraq is on the mend" says "W" to the UN, and he lies again . . .
Facts:
1) Attacks on US and other troops in August averaged 90 per day -- five times the level last winter.
2) Every day 2 US soldiers are killed, 30 are wounded.
3) The number of insurgents in Iraq may have quadrupled since last year.
4) Crude oil production in Iraq is only 2/3 what it was pre-war!
SOME MEND!
And if you still don't think this war was about oil and oil profits, consider this . . . from the A.P. . . .
"One of the key issues is that the amount of excess production available worldwide is about 1% of total demand (82 million barrels/ day) leaving little breathing room in the event of a prolonged supply interruption.
See National Priorities Project for verification of poionts 1-4.
First, in response to your points:
You point to some statistics, so let's talk statistics.
I'm not sure who is a better judge of how things are going in Iraq, Democratic talking heads or the actual Iraqis.
- A recent survey taken by the respected IIACCS in July and August showed that 51% of Iraqis think things are moving in the right direction (only 31% said the "wrong direction"). Compare that to an Annenburg survey during that same period where only 37% of Americans thought things were going well in Iraq.
- Unemployment is roughly 12% better than some European countries (the figure is 9% in Baghdad).
- Another Oxford survey found that household monthly income increased 72% from October 2003 to June 2004.
- Yes, the Iraqi people are on the whole worried for the security of their families but nearly 70% said "they were hopeful for the future."
- Nearly 87% say they plan to vote in the upcoming elections (what's the rate here in the US?)
- So when George Bush says Iraq is on the mend, he is on solid ground. Is there continuing violence. Yes. Are troops dying. Yes. Are they dying in vain! No. What is an acceptable level of casualties for you? 3,000, 2,000, 1,000, 0? As the great Georges Clemenceau said: "War is a series of catastrophes that results in victory." —
Some say that Iraq is the next Vietnam. Really? We're about 49,000 deaths short of that, there's not nuclear Soviet Union or China nearby and there is no 3 million man army against us under the banner of Communism - in short, the comparison is moot. The best information I've found is from Iraqis themselves and American troops. In closing, here's an email from a troop on the ground who has a very different opinion
[For those of you who haven't gotten my "Thoughts" before, I'm a Major in the USMC on the Multi-National Corps staff in Baghdad. The analysts and pundits who don't see what I see on a daily basis, in my opinion, have very little credibility to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. Everything Americans believe about Iraq is simply perception filtered through one's latent prejudices until you are face-to-face with reality. If you haven't seen, or don't remember, the John Wayne movie, The Green Berets , you should watch it this weekend. Pay special attention to the character of the reporter, Mr. Beckwith (the Journalist in the movie) . His characters experience is directly related to the situation here. You'll have a different perspective on Iraq after the movie is over.]
The US media is abuzz today with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's website says, "[The] National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war." That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency.
From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. Let's lay out some background, first about the "National Intelligence Estimate." The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July . That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring - in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.
The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.
You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.
Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it - probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days - especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people's homes and lives.
So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it's looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of "cutting our losses" and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war "Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here - not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It's terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we're doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week. "
Dan Rather was duped today when he claimed that Castro's regime was harmless and treats its people well.
It seems that Rather, CBS, and other hard left diehards will continue to defend these 
Yesterday on the Corner, 
One of the themes I hear from the left is that of dominance. Somehow, they see Bush and his gang of thugs going around the world imposing their world view and dominating everything in their path. Understanding their mindset can help us better understand how to respond to the left. Here are some of the phrases that are thrown around on the left that you'll encounter:
There is a host of blood-thirsty liberal newsmakers that will make hay of Zell's speech. Here are 5 reasons why his speech was an excellent political move:
First and foremost, you have "the most dangerous liberal in America," 
I guess I'll have to include John Kenneth Galbraith in here. The man is aged now but still only revered by liberals (see 
John Kerry would have to be next since his comments are so prominent. The man (the party really) continues to claim that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression? What!??
Let's throw out a couple more: 
