Victory in Iraq

One problem with fighting a war against terrorists is that no single event marks final victory. However, the signs that we are winning in Iraq are now accumulating so quickly that victory in that theatre seems almost inevitable. This is particularly striking and encouraging when one considers that defeat seemed inevitable just several months ago.

The latest landmark on the road to victory comes with the announcement, expected on Friday, that Moqtada al Sadr intends to disband his infamous Mahdi Army. The Journal explains why this is so important. "Coupled with the near-total defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, this means the U.S. no longer faces any significant organized military foe in the country. It also marks a major setback for Iran, which had used the Mahdi Army as one of its primary vehicles for extending its influence in Iraq."

Despite the best efforts of liberals and Democrats, we are winning in Iraq. We have defeated both Sunni terrorists and Shiite thugs. While mainstream media institutions emboldened and enabled our enemies, the men and women of our military quietly went about their business beating an impassioned, determined, and dishonest enemy.

God bless the men and women who serve us in uniform. God bless the fast-maturing Iraqi government. And God bless America, preserver and defender of freedom and hope.

Where has this been all along?

This video of President Bush pushing back against MSM idiocy on the war is solid. If only he could show these colors more often.



Hat Tip: Hot Air

The cost of freedom

Antiwar liberals in Washington have taken too a new line of attack of late. With the 5-year cost of the war in Iraq closing in on $1 trillion, they sense an opening. The war, they say, is the reason for a declining economy. The war is the reason we cannot have universal government-run health care. The war is the reason we cannot be responsible and reign in entitlement spending that threatens to bankrupt the nation in the near future.

Thankfully, Larry Kudlow blows this argument up in his column today:

First point: The U.S. has spent roughly $750 billion for the five-year war. Sure, that's a lot of money. But the total cost works out to 1 percent of the $63 trillion GDP over that time period. It's miniscule.

But here's the real question we ought to be asking: What is the cost of freedom? While the Left refuses to acknowledge it, the U.S. homeland has not been attacked since September 11. Right there is a big economic plus. Since President Bush went on the offensive and took the battle to Iraq, al Qaeda and other extremist terrorist groups have been utterly routed by U.S. forces. But in tying the jihadists down on their home turf, and keeping them from mounting another coordinated attack on the U.S., our economy has benefited incalculably.

Then again, the anti-war forces might want to recall John F. Kennedy's inaugural address, in which he called on Americans to "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to ensure the survival and the success of liberty."

Do these folks actually think 1 percent of GDP is too large a price, too heavy a burden? I sure hope not.

Now, let's talk numbers:

And by the way, despite the current slowdown, the U.S. economy has performed remarkably well during the five years of the Iraq war. Real GDP has increased by 16 percent, or 3 percent annually. The unemployment rate has hovered below a historically low 5 percent for quite some time. Nearly 10 million jobs have been created. Household net worth has increased by $20 trillion. Industrial production has expanded by 13.5 percent. Even home prices, despite the current correction, have increased by 20 percent.

But this matters not to Washington liberals. They see a sticker price approaching $1 trillion and they immediately begin to think of a liberal wish list of policies that they could purchase for the same price. This is their real motivation for cutting funding for Iraq; to funnel it towards their big-government Utopian schemes.

Dems planning to hold war funding hostage for liberal spending

Congressional Democrats have been buzzing incessantly of late about a second "stimulus" package in the wake of Bush's package past last month. The Bush economic stimulus bill, which conservatives rightly criticized, has given Democrats license to spend like the drunken sailors they are. Despite the fact that the checks for the first stimulus have not even been printed, Americans are about to be saddled with more deficit spending.

This time though, it will be tied to funding for the Iraq war and it will be directed to liberal spending priorities rather than direct tax rebates. The NY Times reports on the high-stakes game of political chicken:

It is not easy to draw a straight line from the slumping economy to the war in Iraq and a trade deal with Colombia, but Democrats are trying to connect those dots.

Party strategists say that President Bush’s opposition to additional economic recovery proposals and his strong support of the trade pact provide an opportunity to portray Mr. Bush and his Republican allies, notably Senator John McCain, as being insensitive to the economic struggles of Americans while spending billions each month on Iraq.

“There is an economic argument to be made,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. “This administration has not done what it should for the middle class.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said Tuesday that he was preparing to link the war spending directly to the economy at home by using a pending bill to finance combat in Iraq as a proxy for a second stimulus measure. He plans to try to attach to the Iraq money Democratic favorites like an extension of unemployment benefits, a summer jobs program and perhaps local building projects.

“That will be war,” promised Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina.

As it should be.

The General Comes to Town

Army General David Petraeus will be in Washington today testifying before multiple Senate Committees. A media feeding frenzy will no doubt follow as all three Presidential candidates have returned to their committee perches to question the military leader.

The media will cover today's proceedings through their very simple lense: Republicans = pro war and Democrats = no war. They will score the proceedings accordingly.

I will be interested to see how both Obama and Clinton handle some of Petraeus's testimony. He will bring some good news about the status of the surge, which the Democrats have all but declared a defeat already. Will Obama or Clinton be able to be happy with some good news? I am not holding my breath.

UPDATE: Time Mag -- How Petraeus will make his case

"Slow down our economy"

We here in the Cloakroom commend Bill Clinton for his candor.

Now, if Mrs. Obama is inclined to advocate for emboldening our enemies by withdrawing from Iraq, we would gladly provide a forum for her comments.