Winning is better than losing. 1991 was a glorious year for Twins fans. 1994 was a glorious year for Republicans. 2004 was a glorious year for George W. Bush. 2008 looks to be a glorious year for anyone who cares about winning the war in Iraq. This from Marie Colvin, in Iraq for the Times of London:
American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.
After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.
A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.
Critics of the Iraq invasion will point out that al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq in any significant way before the invasion. Ok. But given that they are about to be soundly defeated there (12,00 in May to 1,200, about to be smoked out, is what defeat looks like), doesn't this look like a disaster for al Qaeda? Imagine if the United States had withdrawn in the face of terrible violence, and AQI had taken control? That would have been an unparalleled disaster for us. Al Qaeda's stock would have risen world wide, and they would have had Iraq's oil to fund their schemes with. That is what we would have been facing if the Democrats had had the courage of their convictions, and had blocked the surge policy.
As it is, al Qaeda is about as discredited as a political movement can get. It has suffered a terrible defeat on the battlefield, and has alienated Muslims everywhere. Letting al Qaeda into Iraq may certainly be chalked up among Bush's failures. He surely failed to anticipate it. But his surge strategy was the right call and, because of it, al Qaeda's adventure in Iraq is turning out a lot worse for them than for us. Maybe the war was a terrible idea, but winning it is a lot better than losing.
Recent Comments