Internet Scofflaw

Eric Posner collates various pronouncements of doom made by the NYT and its columnists on the Surge:

• The only real question about the planned “surge” in Iraq — which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation — is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. — Paul Krugman, NYT, 1/8/07
• There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq. — NYT Editorial, 1/11/07
• What anyone in Congress with half a brain knows is that the surge was sabotaged before it began. — Frank Rich, NYT, 2/11/07
• Keeping troops in Iraq has steadily increased the risk of a bloodbath. The best way to reduce that risk is, I think, to announce a timetable for withdrawal and to begin a different kind of surge: of diplomacy. — Nicholas Kristof, NYT, 2/13/07
• W. could have applied that to Iraq, where he has always done only enough to fail, including with the Surge — Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/17/07
• The senator supported a war that didn’t need to be fought and is a cheerleader for a surge that won’t work. — Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/24/07
• Now the ”surge” that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr’s militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq’s army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. — Frank Rich, NYT, 3/11/07
• Victory is no longer an option in Iraq, if it ever was. The only rational objective left is to responsibly organize America’s inevitable exit. That is exactly what Mr. Bush is not doing and what the House and Senate bills try to do. — NYT Editorial, 3/29/07
• There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left. — NYT Editorial, 4/12/07
• … the empty hope of the “surge” … — Frank Rich, NYT, 4/22/07
• Three months into Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, there is no real security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation, while American public support for this folly has all but run out. — NYT Editorial, 5/11/07
• Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It knows the surge is not working. — Maureen Dowd, NYT, 5/27/07
• Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing. — NYT Editorial, 7/25/07
• The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. — Paul Krugman, NYT, 9/14/07

(Via Instapundit.)

These people don’t actually understand military operations.  They have one template, Vietnam.  Somehow, that template failed to work in the Gulf War and Afghanistan, but finally they thought they were getting to use it.  Now, inexplicably, we seem to have won.  What happened?

Despite the left’s love of the Vietnam object lesson, they have never actually understood it.  Vietnam was a counterinsurgency.  That’s why the Gulf War and Afghanistan never looked like Vietnam, because those wars were not counterinsurgencies.  (ASIDE: Afghanistan is a counterinsurgency, now.  See below.)  Those wars had enemies that we could defeat on the battlefield, and we did, easily.  Iraq too had an enemy we could defeat (easily) on the battlefield.  Our failure in Iraq was to anticipate that an insurgency would follow and prepare for it.

But insurgencies can be beaten, with the right force applied using the correct strategy.  General Petraeus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency.  In the Surge, Petraeus changed our strategy and was given the force he needed.  Now we’re winning.  It’s as simple as that.  The usual rule of thumb is it takes 10 years to beat an insurgency.  Iraq isn’t over yet, but it looks like we’ll be done in far less than that.

ASIDE: The Taliban is reforming itself as an insurgency in Afghanistan, and has created a situation where we must employ a sound counterinsurgency strategy there as well.  With General Petraeus in command at CENTCOM, I think we can trust that we will do so, if the next president lets him.

There is a lesson to be learned from Vietnam, but it isn’t the one the NYT thinks.  The lesson isn’t “America will always lose” or even “America will always lose counterinsurgencies.”  Indeed, despite all our mistakes (far more than in Iraq), we didn’t even lose the counterinsurgency in Vietnam.  We ultimately defeated the Viet Cong insurgency, and then we defeated a North Vietnamese invasion.  We left behind a South Vietnam that was able to stand largely on its own.

But then we made a historic mistake.  The anti-war movement took over Congress and cut off all military support for South Vietnam.  North Vietnam was still supported by the Soviet Union, and we stood back and watched as the communists conquered South Vietnam.  At the eleventh hour we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  It was America’s greatest humiliation.

What is the lesson of Vietnam for Iraq?  We have (largely) defeated the insurgency in Iraq, and will leave a country that is largely able to stand on its own.  Will we cut off all support for Iraq as we did for South Vietnam?  The “anti-war” movement would like nothing better.  If we do, we will again turn a hard-won victory into a humiliating defeat.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Sixty-three percent of Americans say that if diplomacy fails to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis, they would approve of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, a new poll has found.

The poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and commissioned by The Israel Project, also finds that 87% of US voters feel that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the US.

Meanwhile, 80% of Americans said it was likely Iran would use nuclear weapons if it acquired them.

The threat of Iran is apparently felt across the political spectrum, with 85% of Democrats and 97% of Republicans believing the Islamic Republic represents a serious threat to the US.

However, 62% of those polled also felt that it was still possible to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

The approval rate for American military action against Iran was lower than that of an Israeli operation, with 55% supporting targeted strikes by the US and its allies.

(Via Hot Air.)

It’s good to see some good sense in the American public.  It is a little dismaying to see the difference in support between an Israeli action and a U.S. action — apparently some people see the threat but want Israel to do the dirty work for us — but there’s still a majority without them.

This is the guy that was supposed to shore up Obama’s foreign policy credentials.

If Obama wins (God forbid), this makes it a near certainty that Israel takes action before the inauguration. They wouldn’t be able to trust us once Bush leaves office.

UPDATE: I don’t think it changes anything if Biden said it three years ago.  It’s being reported in the Israeli media today.