General David Petraeus’ record for proficiency is outmatched only by his record of versatility. He has been thrown into roles that ranged from analyst to base commander to assistant to combat leader with much official preparation, and shown himself to be extraordinary in each. Now he faces his greatest challenge yet – succeeding at a task which none of his superiors, Congress or the Administration, seem willing to win at any cost.

His appearance in Washington to speak before Congress coincided with the gesture of hamstringing by that esteemed body. Now a timeline for troop withdrawal – which amounts to telling the enemy when they’ll be allowed to claim victory, should they so choose – has been thrown in along with the protracted refusal to fund Petraeus’ forces. Meanwhile, Bush has made some concerted but fatalistic overtures towards talking with the state poised to be the future inheritor of Iraq, Iran. But this diplomacy, which had been recommended from the beginning and has been a critical problem since nuclear programs and the Lebanon conflict flared up two years ago, may be too little, too late. Already Arab states that have been traditional supporters – read: recipients of billions in business and unqualified financial aid – such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt have looked at Bush’s track record of dismissive negligence to diplomacy and thrown their hands up.

This is the situation Petraeus is in – one in which his higher ups seem dead set on a course to bring him down. But with a combination of rock-ribbed will and inspiring innovation, he has presented nothing but progress in reply.

His reports have been fair and objective – not afraid to address the impact of the big number bodycounts that insurgents have been driving for in response to the surge restricting their actions, nor afraid to shed light on the Iraqi government’s hindering divisions, while still demonstrating a way to overcome these problems and achieve his mission. And his actions have shown determination – in the case of improved Baghdad security – and a focused brilliance.

One aspect of that is that Petraeus has gone after the terrorists on their own playing field – the collective consciousness. He’s opened up a way for the world at large to see exciting victories for our side, just as the insurgents have for theirs, via the ‘net. He didn’t need big funding, or a bill of approval to drag its pork-inflated bulk under the pen of the Democratic Congress; he uses, as he always has, whatever he has at hand and he gets it all done better than expected.

I strongly encourage any interested in getting the proper level perspective on the war to view this site:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=MNFIRAQ

Even if you accept it as the propaganda that it is – the counterweight to the insurgent horror stories and US media’s sensationalist hand-wringing – and so dismiss its potential to turn opinion on the war around where it counts, it is still a site to see. Like Leonidas at Thermopylae and Churchill after the Battle of France, it is that rare testimony that life can not just endure, but flourish, in times of deepest darkness: the best of men in the worst of times.

A recent spate of headlines has my hackles up, and brings again to light that the media’s job nowadays it not to be informative but provocative.

Answers do not get people turning the page nearly as well as questions. Questions that make you scared or angry, doubly so. Check out the questions these raise:

Giuliani warns of ‘new 9/11′ if Dems win

Pelosi Won’t Attend Petraeus Briefing

It seems like, their noses wet with the blood from the VA tragedy, the media is more eager than ever to keep the frenzy going. For neither of these headlines tell the whole story – only enough to get the pulse racing.

First off, in Giuliani’s statements, he doesn’t mention a “new 9/11″. And his comments are more about Democrats wanting to go on the defensive, and the defensive being the wrong stance. But the writer makes sure that the readers think he’s going right for the other party’s jugular with great, gory jaws of generalization, using statements like this:

“If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses
and it will go on longer.”

Now in actuality, he hadn’t yet mentioned a Democratic president. Which means, in actuality, without writer Roger Simon’s slant, Rudi said:

“If we are on defense, we will have more losses and with will go on longer.”

Not nearly so stimulating as a full-frontal attack on another party, using threats of dooming America, now is it?

On the other side of the aisle, the Pelosi article makes one think she’s snubbing Petraeus totally, as if a Versailles artiso not deigning to receive him at her court.

But the article at least goes on to admit:

A Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with
Petraeus but that could not be worked out. He said their phone conversation
lasted 30 minutes.

…before returning to stirring the political pot to a fever pitch with fiery statements about her actions.

Now, granted, Nancy better have a damn good excuse. For the sake of her own integrity, if not for her party’s. Unanimous approval of Gen. Petraeus – if the Democrats’ actions as a party are any indication – meant only that they all agreed on him to be their sacrificial animal. There’s been no support for his plan or him since.

I would posit that they unanimously approved him because they don’t care who captains a ship they’re going to sink. They’re opening the shuttlecocks on “Bush’s war” anyway.

But regardless of the conflict between the Democrats’ stance on the war and Petraeus’, Pelosi did not show utter disinterest in meeting with him. What kind of good news would that make, though?

This has been endemic for awhile, but recent years – particularly the Iraq conflict – has brought the media’s ravenous appetite for discord and decay to levels that threaten the course of human events.

The media shoved the case for the Iraq war down our throats, even though they knew full well of reports that contradicted the Bush administration’s evidence and of prominent strategians speaking out about the dangers of occupying the country. They did this because violence sells. And that means the only thing better than a war with a clean ending is a war that doesn’t end.

Let’s face it, World War II was a “good war” for this country, if such a thing as a good war is possible. But not for the media. Not like Vietnam. In Vietnam, the media became aware that they could not only exploit the endless cycle of violence to sell more papers with gore than with greatness, they could also direct the course of events.

Yes, we should challenge our leaders. But it is increasingly important to challenge the institution that would lead us to opinions about them.

Today’s bombing in the Iraqi Parliament was not only a serious heart attack for that fledgling nation. Also, like a heart attack, it illuminated deadly flaws in that central organ.

This was, by all indications, an inside job. Slipping through US military cordons and intelligence to get into that sector almost aborted it:

Two weeks ago, Coalition forces found two suicide vests inside the Green Zone
and there was speculation about the presence of a third in the area.

(Quote from TIME article, linked above)

Once within the Parliament zone, Iraqi security was responsible. Security is elaborate and layered there, and so would have required contacts within to circumvent. In short, as is the case with the worst and most often fatal insurgencies, it seems like the enemy is in the very court of the developing government.

Just as I support the Surge Plan because I give credit to the soldiers and officers who’ve always stood by its tenets, I also see that for too long the Coalition military has been shouldered with almost the entire burden of Iraq. Iraq has always demanded a political solution as well as a military one, and yet it is solely the Coalition military that has borne cost and responsibility for that solution’s ineffectiveness and absence. And, as the Iraq Study Group report notes, that political solution requires regional engagement with surrounding countries /and/ a significant house-cleaning by the Iraqis themselves. This bombing shows that Nouri al-Maliki’s government must work harder to lock down security, even in its most elite quarters. Especially there.

This blow could be seriously demoralizing to an environment that already does not, domestically, support the Surge. Yet just as the Coalition military has been under supported in the past, it must not be blamed for a failure that is not its own now. The plan must continue, but must, as always, be reinforced by more political action by Bush and by the Iraqis.

The military has stepped up. As always. It has done well. Now the politicians must do their jobs.

There is no hope in us giving the growing Iraqi nation thicker skin if it has fatal divisions within its heart.

Yet there is hope, if it is implemented soon and with resolve.

There are plans:

• Iraq Study Group Report
• The Economic Angle from RAND
• The Militia Angle from RAND
• Biden-Gelb Plan

And there are signs that even the insurgents are ready for political solutions.

We have never learned the real lessons of 9/11.

We never struck back at the real enemy.

Everyone must bear this burden – Democrats and Republicans alike – that when the ‘world changed’ for so many unaware of the threat of global Islamofascism, key players refused to change to address that threat’s source. Those players are our leaders, chief among them the Bush administration.

We were attacked. Unlike ever before. And by an enemy that, while not a rival state, had clear allegiances, supporters and centers of power. That enemy, al-Qaeda, spanned the globe, but all of its major resources are and were in one place: Saudi Arabia.

15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda’s funding is based in Saudi Arabia. Its extremist sects of faith – the Wahhabist (Salafist) sects of Islam – dominate in the Saudi government and the high levels of society.

This is not ‘guilt by association’. More of al-Qaeda’s top membership is from Egypt than anywhere else. It is that the foremost funder of Sunni extremist groups like al-Qaeda is the Saudi oligarchy. Not necessarily the monarch himself – though his intelligence services do supply al-Qaeda connected groups with funding and direction – but certainly the nobles around him without whose support he cannot rule.

And now, as Iraq enters a critical phase, we find the administration still unable to combat the enemy. Our belligerence is direct towards Iran, even though the vast majority of American deaths in Iraq have been at the hands of Sunni extremists (500 in Shia areas, 2841 in Sunni as of 4.11.07). Almost daily we hear of Iran funding and training fighters of Iraq’s Mahdi Army, but we seldom hear of Saudi Arabia’s training of the Sunnis who are killing us and provoking the Shia far, far more often.

The true threat to any semblance of progressive global stability is Sunni extremism. They are the ones that literally want to blast the entire world back into the dark ages. This is not Mahmoud Ahmedinajad playing to his base by threatening Israel. This is a cadre of real, active, proven martyrs-to-be who intend the devastation of the modern world. And they are led from one place above all – the kingdom of Saud.

There are many hotbeds of Sunni extremism. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya among them. Even the Philippines still has significant al-Qaeda presence. But the crucible in which this inferno of Islamofascism is generated is Saudi Arabia – it is funded, trained and directed from there. Yet though we’ve sent troops and intelligence operatives around the globe, we have never demanded authority over operations in Saudi Arabia. To the contrary, Bush reduced the assets in Saudi Arabia.

I do not argue for war. I do not argue for sanctions. I do, however, argue for all means necessary to destroying our true enemy to be employed.

We have too long attacked the friend of our enemy, while letting our enemy think us their friend. Now, with CIA funding going to al-Qaeda connected groups in order to check Iran’s intelligence operations, we are truly losing sight of our goal.

We must have the courage and conviction to challenge our friends, lest we prove ourselves to all to be lacking in strategic integrity.

The weird “kid-glove” approach the US has been taking on this Iran-hostage situation seems clearer now that an odd coincidence of events has been brought to light.

Looking at the facts only helps a little at understanding what might’ve really gone down.

Facts are one thing. Anybody can accept facts. It’s the conclusions drawn from them – the patterns – that require belief. Faith.

It’s for this reason that people of different political alignments, different cultures or different religions can’t see eye to eye on some things. They can look at the same sets of facts and come away with radically different conclusions.

Look at these events and see if you see a pattern or a coincidence::

Iranian diplomat abducted on February 4 by elite Iraqi Army unit:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBLA62176420070206

British sailors abducted on March 23:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070323/ts_nm/iraq_iran_britain_dc_14

Iranian diplomat released on April 4:
http://www.nysun.com/article/51853

British Sailors released on April 5:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain_141

And now Sharafi’s making noise about being tortured by proxies of the CIA. The pattern is there for those who want to see it: It looks clear that a Commando unit that works with the US snatched their guy, Iran schemed and snatched the sailors, and the whole mess was quietly resolved over the last week by under-the-table deals and plausible deniability.

Here’s the thing – it doesn’t make much sense. Why would we let the guy go when it only makes us look weaker? Even if the public won’t buy the story of the Iranians, the Iranians would still see us as open to negotiating. Not just negotiating – negotiating for troops that /aren’t even ours/.

Sorting out the facts of a counter-intelligence operation just stands to make the public confused. Feeling the results is the way to judge whether it went down or not.

Before deciding whether America traded favors for hostages – and it can happen, remember the Algiers Accords – decide whether the release of a hostage few people in the world knew about for hostages that were turning the world against Iran would be worthwhile to the US.

“Fight fire with fire” never made too much sense to me as a proverb, and it makes absolutely no sense when it comes to solving gross mismanagement.

Congress just went on a break without sending the emergency war funding bill to Bush. This is not a good thing.

I get that Congress doesn’t want a ‘blank check’ war, but, sorry, folks, you signed it back in 2003. Now is not the time to back out by denying him funding.

This is especially true since the gripe by /everyone/ in the know – grunts, Generals, any strategic mind that’s not a neo-Con – is that the primary problem with the war from the beginning has been that Bush didn’t send enough troops or material for an occupation.

Now he’s /finally/ got the message and /this/ is the moment they cut him off at the knees?

“Bush under supplied the troops and got us into this mess. Now let’s cut off their funding altogether when they have a better plan than ever.” Not good thinking.

Oh, but worry not – the Democrats say that it’s not /so/ much of an emergency:

Unless he can sign a bill by mid-April, he said, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on training and equipment repair. The problem will grow even more dire if Congress does not send him a bill he supports by mid-May, Bush said.

Democratic leaders, while eager to show backing for the troops, say Bush is overstating the consequences of missing those deadlines. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for operations in Iraq well into July.

“Into July” – what a comfort. Now the useless political wrangling can go on for months instead of weeks.

As for the length of the war…well, there’s no telling, considering that what gains the Surge Plan has secured might dry up while Congress is flashing its muscle, teasing our troops with turning off the tap.

Nancy Pelosi’s sitdown with President al-Assad can achieve little but further isolating and shaming the administration in Washington. And Washington should be ashamed. It’s been too long – 2005 – since they sent any top delegation to this most-crucial Baathist nexus of strife, and have habitually done nothing positive or engaging to direct that nation in flux. But Pelosi should be ashamed as well.

The chatter in Washington these days about “showing the President a better way” holds no water from the perspective in global strategy. Our allies and enemies abroad don’t see the Democrats as the cavalry, rushing in to save the imperilled world from unilateral barbarism. They just see an America split by internal strife, and a hazardous executive with its hands not tied, but merely encumbered. Put plainly, they just see weakness.

I’m all for diplomacy. It has to be done from a position of strength. Pelosi’s independent delegation to the Middle East – no matter how well planned out or how necessary the dialogue – is little more than a sop to those who think Democrats will undermine Bush at any cost. She may think that she’s laying the groundwork for future talks, either by this administration or the next. The fact is, that’s just not true – not as true as the clear message of divisiveness it sends to the world.

She said she brought a message to Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. Assad gave assurances that “he’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said. She later left Syria, heading for Saudi Arabia, the next leg of a Mideast Tour.

Great – he’s ready to engage. Too bad he’s not doing it with the inspiration or presence of the White House, which is about the only force in the world that could achieve anything on this serious matter. And al-Assad will not just want, but need that kind of protection and support if he’s going to so much as move a finger for Middle East peace.

The same goes for the Saudis and the Israelis. Knowing that a thin Congressional majority stands behind them – maybe – is not going to let these nations’ leaders sleep more peacefully.

It’s not because they’re venal and entrenched. Not necessarily. Consider if you were in Bashar al-Assad’s position. The man’s a former opthamologist. The Air Force – and its intelligence arm, which has based Syria’s regional power on links with the actions of groups like HAMAS and the Iraqi Baathists – put his father in power. They kept him there and they kept him in line. Bashar knows that if he pushes to hard to shake the machine of terrorism that the Syrian intel and Air Force has going on, that machine will chew him up and replace him.

Unless, of course, he gets support. But he hasn’t. His reign began with an immense liberalization which, without support from Washington, has been abridged and languished. He, like his father, even more so, has asked for help from the White House. He’s got only silence.

Silence and things like this:

“A lot of people have gone to see President Assad … and yet we haven’t seen action. He hasn’t responded,” Bush told reporters soon after Pelosi arrived in Damascus on Tuesday

“A lot of people” would be the then-Deputy Secretary for Defense, Richard Armitage, two years ago. He showed up to holler at Bashar about the Syrian’s leaky border with Iraq, and offered zilch in way of substantial security cooperation or diplomatic assistance. Before that, nothing. We don’t even have an ambassador there, out of protest. Protest? We’re in a war. You either talk or you fight; make allies or make casualties. Syria’s intel is glutting Hizb Allah and seeding Baathists into Iraq, and we’re sending neither words or bombs.

Bombs won’t help. Words will. Backing reform in the Middle East means dealing with people who want to see change and can actualize it at home – not the Achmed Chalabi exiles, but the Bashar al-Assads. We’ve ignored that opportunity for seven years. We blew it with Iran, and got Achmedinajad as a result.

Pelosi should be ashamed on account that her trip does, indeed, make America look weak, divided and inept – undercutting the very strength she would hope to make a change in the Middle East. And Bush should be ashamed as well, as the man in charge, for not doing the right thing and engaging Syria with both hands, whether of friendship or of violence.

She can’t show him the way ahead. That’s not how it works – like it or not, he’s our leader. The responsibility to do the right thing is where it has always been: In his hands.

This link on the Drudge Report just popped up to prod an already feisty public with more provocation:

PELOSI DIPLOMACY? Syrian officials claim key role…

Now everyone from the Beltway to Tehran will be tossing invective and political capital around, debating whether Pelosi freed the hostages with a wink and a nod. Why? Because whether the article has that implication or not, rabble-rouser Drudge just put it in your head and lit the fuse.

The article mentions her once. To put context to where one of Syria’s officials was speaking from. Once.

And it specifically says:

He said Syria had been asked “to help positively in the issue of British” crew members since their March 23 seizure by Iran in the Persian Gulf.

“Since”. Not “since Nancy came to town”. Since the 23rd. Which only makes sense, considering that Iran and Syria are like chatty soccer moms when it comes to diplomacy – talk to one and you’re talking to them both.

If Britain talked to Syria, considering Syria aches under EU sanctions, that might get something done. But Pelosi? What’s she going to offer – Syrian labor gets first pick of Schwarznegger’s new highway bond projects? Or further annoying Bush? She’s doing that anyway.

So don’t stir this pot, Drudge. Sure, it gets all the right names in the papers, but it makes a connection for people that’s not only unrealistic and provocative, but distracting and pretty damn far-fetched.