What They Call 'Progress' in Iraq

[NNN0LHI]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080117/cm_uc_crjcox/op_454988

Thu Jan 17, 3:00 AM ET


As America marks the first anniversary of the troop escalation in Iraq, at least one thing has become clear. Although the "surge" is failing as policy, it seems to be succeeding as propaganda. Even as George W. Bush continues to bump and scrape along the bottom of public approval, significantly more people now believe we are "winning" the war.

What winning really means and whether that vague impression can be sustained are questions that the war's proponents would prefer not to answer for the moment. Their objective during this election year is simply to reduce public pressure for withdrawal, which is still the choice of an overwhelming majority of voters.

So long as the surge appears to be working, political space is created for the Republican candidates who support the war — especially Sen. John McCain, the hawk's hawk, who said recently that he might keep U.S. soldiers in Iraq for "a hundred years." Although that remark was not well received in the Arab world, they may take comfort in the fact that no matter how determined the Arizona senator is to fulfill that threat, he is unlikely to do so since he is already over 70 years old.

But the revival of McCain's moribund candidacy over the past few weeks would have been impossible without the media's endorsement of "progress" in Iraq. Indeed, war propaganda itself has surged lately on the strength of casualty statistics from December 2007.

Consider the work of William Kristol, who played an important role in selling the war as editor of The Weekly Standard and on the Fox News Channel. From his new perch on The New York Times' op-ed page — proof that being hideously wrong is no obstacle to scaling the heights of American punditry — he proclaims that "we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq" and achieve "real success."

[countryjake]

1. kick

[Disturbed]

2. What will happen when this Surge is scaled way down?

Will the Busholin Regime be able to keep this many Troops in Iraq to subdue the
various factions for another year? Will the Regime keep paying & supplying weapons to
the very Insurgents that have vowed to bring down the Iraqi Govt. for another year?
Will this Regime be able to force favorable Oil deals for the US Oil Corps out of
the Iraqis?

Of course, these questions have not been asked by the US Corp Media that supports
this Imperialistic Regime.

[Bright Eyes]

3. The surge has succeded.

The whole point was to take the pressure off the WH. It was purely political. The fact that some people see this as the "turning point", shows just how braindead Amerika is (DU excluded of course).

[genie_weenie]

4. The Surge was a brilliant Success.

It will allow the 2 criminals in Chief to keep forces in Iraq until they slink away to Paraguay and if a Dem wins in 08 it will allow Limbaugh Hannity and all the Chickenhawk Warmongers to lay the "The Dems lost Iraq" meme across the nation until it is accepted as fact and gives them power for the next 40 years.