Americans Want To Hear More About Iraq ...

But the media has moved on. From a Pew Research Center analysis:

News about the Iraq war does not dominate the public’s consciousness nearly as much as it did last winter. Currently, just 16% of Americans name the Iraq war as the news story that first comes to mind when asked what has been in the news lately. In December and January, a period when U.S. policy toward Iraq and President Bush’s troop surge drew extensive news coverage, as many as half or more named the Iraq war as the first story that came to mind.

Despite decreased public interest in the war [this doesn't logically follow the last 'graf -- FP], a growing number of Americans fault news organizations for providing too little, rather than too much, coverage of the war. In particular, the public believes that the challenges and experiences of U.S. soldiers – both while serving in Iraq and after returning to the United States – are receiving too little news coverage.

Fully 63% say that “the challenges faced by some U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq” have received too little news coverage; about the same number (61%) say that reports about soldiers’ personal experiences have been undercovered.

It's no surprise the media's clammed up on Iraq just as the reasons for hope grow steadily stronger. For the last three years, most major media outlets have invested their personal credibility in the all's-doomed angle. Allowing that this call may have been premature is embarrassing. But more interesting is the implicit conceit that there's no such thing as good news, as World News Tonight anchor Charlie Gibson recently opined:

One item from Baghdad today. The news is … that there is no news. The police told us that, to their knowledge, there were no major acts of violence. Attacks are down in Baghdad and today no bombings or roadside explosions were reported.

Apparently, Americans disagree -- this is news.

Quote of the Day

"In a poll that should be shocking, but isn't, one out of of five Democrats think the world would be a better place if the U.S. lost the war. This means that four out of five Democrats are not being represented by their party." -- Rush Limbaugh

Interesting Reading

Watching Matt Drudge

How life returned to the streets in a showpiece city that drove out al-Qaeda

Quote of the Day

From an Investor's Business Daily editorial:

Is has become a familiar refrain among Democrats that the Baghdad parliament is unable to solve the country's deep-rooted ethnic-based political problems over a short period.

But someone should remind the Democrat-controlled Congress that it itself hasn't been able to address the biggest problems now facing America: It can't secure the border from terrorists, for instance. And staving off the inevitable fiscal train wreck on entitlement spending isn't even on its agenda.

Quote of the Day

Via Powerline:

"According to [House Majority Whip James] Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be 'a real big problem for us.'"

U.S. Troops Boogie With Iraqi Police & Tribesmen

"A video of US officers, Iraqi security personnel and Iraqi tribesmen dancing in Anbar Province has been making the online rounds," IraqSlogger reports:

Excerpted from a report on the US-funded Arabic-language broadcaster al-Hurra, the video features a gathering in Ramadi to celebrate gains realized by US-backed tribal forces and Iraqi security forces against al-Qa'ida-affiliated groups in the province.

Voicing over general shots of US military, Iraqi security forces, and tribal leaders dancing and celebrating together al-Hurra’s Omar Muhammad, explains that US forces, Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi tribesmen gathered in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar.

The video is undated.

A banner is shown, proclaiming that the “spark of liberation” has been unleashed in the province.

The first gentleman to be shown addressing the crowd over the public address system is the governor of Anbar province, Ma’moun Sami, who praises the efforts against “terrorists and takfiris.” Takfiri is a term employed for Sunni extremists who adopt takfir, or the practice of declaring less extremist Muslims to be unbelievers.

Then, Shaykh Khattab al-'Amir al-'Ali Sulaiman, son of the head of the Dulaim tribe, addresses the crowd, thanking the “allied forces” including the tribal fighters and Iraqi police.

At the end of the report the US-funded broadcaster’s reporter suggests that the battle continues for other parts of Iraq.

Al Qaeda: No Big Fans of Jews, Children

"The radical leader of Islamabad's Red Mosque, under siege for the last six days by hundreds of Pakistan troops, said the 1,800 children he claims are still in the religious-school complex have taken oaths on the Quran to fight to the death, a frightening possibility confirmed by frantic parents who have spoken by cell phone with sons and daughters who say they soon hope to be martyrs," WorldNetDaily reports.

Ghazi, who has said he and his followers will fight to the end, now says the 1,800 children he holds have been divided into two groups and will join his fighters against any assault. [...]

"The boys are the first line of defense, then the girls," he said. "They have all sworn an oath on the Koran that they will fight to the death."

All Ghazi needed was eight weeks:

Khan, the desperate father and shopkeeper, succeeded Friday in getting his two daughters to leave the compound with a ruse.

Reaching them once again by cell phone, he told them their mother was ill and lay unconscious on the pavement outside. The two girls left the compound and were taken by their father.

Saima, Khan's 10-year-old daughter, denounced the trick.

"The teachers taught us about martyrdom and that it is a great achievement," she told the Times. "I could see the fighting was in front of me and I could understand that we would die. I felt real anger about what my father did. He tricked me."

"I'm taking them back to our village," Khan said. "They were ready for martyrdom and they're very angry with me. I'm just happy I've got my daughters back, and sorry for those whose daughters are still in there."

According to Khan, Saima's transformation had taken only eight weeks.

Also, Karol directs readers to this story, from Michael Yon, reporting from Iraq:

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

Politicians make much of their passion for The Children, passing bans on everything from smoking to dodge ball out of concern for their well-being. Meanwhile, House Speaker Speaker Nancy Pelosi is promising a "month of action" to "end the war," thereby ensuring stories like those above become only more frequent. Too bad Iraqi/Pakistani parents don't vote in Democratic primaries.

Good News From Iraq

From Time, of all places:

There is good news from Iraq, believe it or not. It comes from the most unlikely place: Anbar province, home of the Sunni insurgency. The level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me—confirming reports from several other sources—that there have been "a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there." The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters. And, as TIME's Bobby Ghosh has reported, an influential leader of the Sunni insurgency, Harith al-Dari, has turned against al-Qaeda as well. It is possible that al-Qaeda is being rejected like a mismatched liver transplant by the body of the Iraqi insurgency.

Iraq Unplugged

"Throughout history, soldiers have written and played music that has rarely been available to the public. However, today's technology allows us to share our music with you, straight from Baghdad."

Tune in.

Paging Andrew Sullivan

Ralph Peters asks:

Whether you're left, right or in between, ask yourself this yes-or-no question: If torturing a known terrorist would save the life of the person you love most in the world, would you approve it?

If your answer is "no," you're not a moral paragon. You're an abomination. And please make your position clear to your husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter. Just tell 'em, "Sorry, honey, but I'd rather see you dead than mistreat a terrorist. It's a moral issue with me."

Has the Media Learned Nothing?

In today's D.C. Examiner, I expand on some earlier thoughts, taking Washington's press corps to task for it's curious lack of interest in asking tough questions to Democrats proposing "a new way forward" in Iraq:

Having failed to survive Bush’s veto, Democrats are now scrapping “timetables” in favor of “benchmarks.” Ostensibly these make America’s continued support conditional upon verifiable progress from Iraq’s government.

Again, the press, Washington’s (with its closer access) in particular, has an opportunity to prove its mettle. Tough questions:

» Does it make sense to threaten American allies?

» How can Congress be sure “benchmarks” won’t increase short-term violence, whereby insurgents could ensure discontinued U.S. support?

» Who creates the benchmarks? How will they be verified? How will it be determine they’ve been met to satisfaction?

Read the rest here.

Quote of the Day

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials -- after the fact."

Robert E. Lee, 1863

Where's the D.C. Press Corps Now?

“The war is lost,” Senate Leader Harry Reid announced last week. As if to ensure the reality matched the rhetoric, this week congressional Democratic leaders followed up Reid’s statement with votes mandating troop withdrawals from Iraq starting as soon as July.

Reid has not been particularly circumspect in describing his motivations, admitting rather unashamedly the Senate vote is baldly political. “We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” he predicted.

Is this the right strategy? Hard to say — no prominent Democrat has yet to really be challenged on it.

Which raises the question: Where’s that famously ruthless D.C. press corps?

Both Democrats and the media never tire of informing just how grave the stakes in Iraq . People are dying -- American troops, innocent Iraqis. America’s reputation is being ravaged. Iraq’s imploding into civil war.

And this is the Democrats’ cure-all -- a pork-laden war-funding bill pronouncing America ’s impending surrender?

For a press corps that takes itself as seriously as Washington’s, one might hope at least a few basic questions would be put toward Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and every other politician advocating timetables.

Rather obvious, and natural, questions — like:

• Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten a U.S. victory — or defeat?
• If it’s victory, how will a withdrawal help?
• If it's defeat, how does that help U.S. national interests?
• How will abandoning Iraq ’s burgeoning government affect America ’s reputation in the region?
• A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to simultaneously fight the War on Terror but not insurgents in Iraq ?
• What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from Iraq ?
• Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency plans?
• The recently passed war-funding bill mandates the last of the U.S. troops stationed in Iraq leave by September 2008. What’s significant about this date other than being two months prior to the next presidential election?

We don’t get these questions because the answers are obvious: abandoning Iraq will hasten an American defeat; leaving the country halfway broken will leave a permanent scar on America’s regional reputation; it’s impossible to fight the War on Terror but not Iraq’s insurgents; leaving Iraq could beget a full-fledged regional war; Democrats have no plan should such a contingency arise; the final pullout date is arbitrary aside from its intent of removing Iraq from the next election’s political equation.

Reid wouldn’t answer this way, of course. He’d say this is President Bush’s war and that any such negative externalities are in his hands.

Which is precisely the problem. Having expended so much effort using Iraq to bring down Bush, the credibility of Democrats and the major media now hangs in the balance. Diverting even a fraction of energy spent challenging the president over his war plans to do likewise with Democrats threatens not only Democratic leaders, but the D.C. press corps itself.

Herein lies the provenance of a subtle bias, perhaps subconscious, that poses an enormous threat American security.

In keeping their personal interests on high -- thus ignoring possible consequences of Democratic actions -- Democrats and their D.C. press corps brethren invite the very dystopic Iraqi finality they’ve spent so long predicting the Bush administration was inspiring.

And all because reporters are still not doing what they now blame themselves for failing to do in the run-up to the war: asking tough questions.

Iraq, Indefinitely

Drudge has an e-mail from a soldier currently serving in Iraq who takes issue with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's argument that the war is already lost. Give it a read. Just another data point that would seem to favor an indefinite American commitment to Iraq.

Good News From Iraq

Courtesy of ABC News. Seriously.

Good thing congressional Democrats want to revert back to the bad old days.

Quote of the Day

"I so admire the courage of the new voters we had on this," Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said moments after Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) helped deliver a 50-48 majority on the [decision to announce an American surrender in Iraq] issue.

Interesting, Reid's conception of courage.

The Middle East's Fading Anti-Americanism

For those interested in formulating an opinion on what America's doing right now in Iraq, Amir Taheri's writing is indispensable. In his latest for the Post, Taheri apprises of how political parties are developing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most interesting: leftist groups are allying, and rejecting their ingrained anti-Americanism.

Here are a few nuggets:

* In Iraq, two rival Communist parties, along with Social Democrats and other center-left groups, supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and continue to play a significant role in the new pluralist system. They are resolutely opposed to a premature withdrawal of American and allied forces, as demanded by the U.S. Congress. ...

BEFORE the U.S.-led inter ventions in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, much of the Middle Eastern Left shared the views of its U.S. and European counterparts with regard to America.

"We looked to the Left in the West and imitated it," says Awad Nasir, one of Iraq's best-known poets and a life-long Communist. "We heard from the United States and Western Europe that being Left meant being anti-American. So we were anti-American. And then we saw Americans coming from the other side of the world to save us from Saddam Hussein - something that our leftist friends and the Soviet Union would never contemplate." ...

IRAQ'S parties of the Left were shocked when the new So cialist government in Spain decided to withdraw from the U.S.-led coalition in 2004. "We had hoped that with a party of the Left in power in Madrid we would get more support against the Islamofascists, not a withdrawal," says Aziz al-Haj, the veteran Iraqi communist leader.

Tareq al-Hashemi, vice president of Iraq, has also gambled his impeccable progressive record on the success of the pluralist experiment in his country. "Our enemy is al Qaeda, not the United States," he says.

Jumblatt, the Lebanese leader, says he realized that his life-long anti-Americanism had been misplaced when he saw "long lines of people, waiting to vote in Iraq, in the first free election in an Arab country. ...

SKIMMING through the Middle Eastern press these days can produce unexpected results. It's not rare to see a virulently anti-American article by an American or Western European leftist - and, alongside it on the same page, a pro-American article from an Arab, Iranian or Afghan progressive figure.

We're winning.

Quote of the Day

The Senate March 2008 withdrawal plan "does not incentivize the government of Iraq to make tough decisions on reconciliation -- it sets the stage for the government collapse. The arbitrary deadline informs our enemies when they need no longer fear American military power. It signals to the population that their best bet for security really does rest in the hands of militias, rather than the government. It demonstrates to the government that they cannot rely on us -- after all, we are pulling out regardless of the situation or consequences. And it tells the terrorists that they -- not we -- will prevail."

-- John McCain (via Debra Saunders)

Today's Question

For any senator or congressman who voted for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq:

Without using the words "President Bush," or some variation thereof, please name one good thing a timetable will accomplish.

In the event given responses include the words "policing a civil war" it should be stated for the record that this congressman/senator does not believe in American intervention in Sudan.

Thanks for playing!

Questions for Democrats

Roll Call reports today that "Senate Democrats emerged Wednesday from a closed-door meeting with details of a new Iraq resolution calling for phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country beginning within three months."

This brings to mind a number of questions. Were I a Washington-based journo, here are 10 I'd think to ask:

1) Yes or no: Is victory in Iraq possible?

2) If no, What does it mean that America can conquer the Axis Powers of World War II but not Iraq-based Islamic insurgents?

3) If yes, Is victory an outcome you favor?

4) If it is, How does a phased withdrawal help achieve victory?

5) If it is not, Is failure consistent with upholding America's national security? If so, how?

6) A recent Pentagon statement credits heightened Baghdad patrols for insurgent attacks falling off 80 percent. If, then, the "surge" is working, why demand its end?

7) What's the worst that could happen from a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq?

8) What are Democrats planning should such a contingency arise?

9) If Osama bin Laden says Iraq is the central front in his Jihad versus the West, how does withdrawal advance the War on Terror, or, less specifically, America's general national security?

10) According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan for withdrawal, the latest possible date American troops could remain in Iraq is September 2008. Is there anything significant about this date, other than the fact that it's two months prior to America's next presidential election?

These questions are fairly basic. I'd like to think any halfway serious journalist would ask at least a couple of them. So why is it we won't hear the answers to any?