Question: If success in Iraq isn't reported, does that mean it's not news?

Last month saw the trickle of positive news from Iraq turn into a flood. Our troops, our allies and the people of Iraq are winning the war against fanatical jihadists murderers. By any measure. But curiously, the American media, the same media that gave 24/7 coverage of Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and the "quagmire" in Iraq, has suddenly gone silent.

Here's a sampling of the astonishing good news out of Iraq in just this last week. News our American media either overlooked or relegated to a couple paragraphs - sandwiched between winter holiday advertisements and the exciting news of how presidential Hillary is looking:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, just back from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq, said the recent surge of U.S. troops is so successful, it's "history in the making."

Nearly 6,000 Sunni Arab residents joined a security pact with American forces last Wednesday, in what U.S. officers described as a critical step in plugging the remaining escape routes for terrorists. That's 6,000 Sunnis now working with us instead of against us. Very good news.

Neighborhood Christians and Muslims attended a mass to celebrate the reopening of St. John's Church in Baghdad on November 15. Imagine that. Christians and Muslims celebrating together. In Baghdad. Awesome.

A Rasmussen poll showed confidence in the war on terror increasing for the fourth straight month. It's now near the highest level of President Bush's second term in office.

The number of civilians killed in violence in Iraq fell in November to the lowest level in nearly two years. U.S. combat deaths in Iraq fell in November to the lowest level since March 2006, continuing the downward trend following the surge earlier this year. It appears the "surge" is working.

The best news of all last week, (as reported by The London Telegraph) but curiously absent from American media, was the astonishing announcement by Lieutenant General Douglas Lute that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Bush's presidency.
Headline news, all. The tide has turned and the mission is well on its way to being accomplished. Despite an all out effort by media elites to sabotage any successes and highlight only the failures. Despite a concerted effort by Democrats, who have indulged their egos and quest for power instead of protecting America - who have campaigned for failure from the very start. Who continue to indulge and cater to their constituents on the far left who have put their hatred of Bush ahead of any other considerations. Despite the furious anti-war left, whose worldviews are invalidated by America's success in Iraq.


Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress continue to work furiously to deny, delay and hold hostage critical funding for our troops. President Bush called on them to approve money to fund the Iraq war before leaving for the Christmas holidays, something congressional Democrats have already indicated they will not do. They'll show Bush he can't get away with winning, by God.

The media reluctance to report success in Iraq is media malfeasance. The inescapable conclusion is the "mainstream media" is invested in and rooting for American defeat. For shame.

The democrat leadership's continuing obstruction and complete denial of increasingly possible American success is something else. What would you call a political party who's every effort is to sabotage, obstruct and demolish any and all success in the war on terror? I'd call it a party totally invested in American defeat. I'd call it a party that has no qualms about putting their own political agenda ahead of the good of our country. I'd call it the Democrat Party. I'd also call it treasonous.





Nancy Morgan is a writer and a news editor for Conservative News 24/7, Breaking News, Media News, Political Humor, News at RightBias
She lives in South Carolina.

I'd like to agree with everything you said, and add some other good news:

- 77,000 CLC (Concerned Local Citizens) are now patrolling and protecting their neighborhoods (jointly Shiite, Sunni, Kurd and Christian).

- Many of them are now being officially supported by the GoI (Government of Iraq) and wages / health benefits are beginning to find their way to these people

- Oil production and revenue are higher than during the last few years of the Saddam Regime

- Electricity, Clean Water and Sewage/sanitation are higher than pre-war levels

- The education system is much more successful than under Saddam

- Average income for Iraqi citizens is $300 - $500 per month; under Saddam it was $5 - $30 per month

- The Iraqi Dinar is more valuable in the world market than it has been in 20 years

- 45,000 (of the 1.4 million estimated displaced) Iraqis have returned to their homes. The GoI is working on ways to control and organize the returns of tens-of-thousands more. And the UN is pledging $11.4 million to assist returning refugees.

- The Iraqi Cabinet approved the final 1-year extension of UN authority over the coalition. Which means the US government and GoI will now need to enter into formal agreements for troop levels and troop authority in 2008.

I have way more than that, but I think that is sufficient enough for even the most die-hard "Iraq is a lost-cause" crowd. If not, then read a history book...the world (and America) have been in worse predicaments than this, and gotten out alive.

All that means nothing to Dems invested in defeat. i can just hear them say, "Well, we're still in a quagmire because we have no 'political' solution.

The good news is, the word is getting out. Good info

Unfortunately, the reality is that we are in a quagmire. We've been there for years and even the most optimistic scenarios have us leaving in years.

Even if things are getting better, we should not have gone in there in the first place.

That is exactly the attitude that keeps the Left from finding solutions. You are focused on the would-have, could-have, and should-have. How does that help find a solution to the problem? Seriously how?!?

We have been in Korea, Japan, and Europe for between 50 and 60 years now maintaining peace and all that jazz for those regions. Why should Iraq be any different? We've been stationed in the Middle East since 1990 (Saudi Arabia) and no one really complained about it then. We've had 20,000+ forces in this region for almost 2 decades, how is Iraq all of a sudden the quagmire?

If we come up with a SOFA like we have in Korea, Japan, and Europe how is that a bad thing? If we can maintain a presence in this region for years (yes years) in order to help maintain some semblance of peace and prosperity like we have in other regions of the world, why shouldn't we. Don't forget that a SOFA is agreed upon by all involved parties...not just the US. It's not the US imperial evil that everyone always thinks about. Under a SOFA the host-nation can ask us to leave at any time.

Let's look at areas of the world where we have SOFAs:

KOREA: 14th largest economy in the world, and #1 shipbuilder on the planet. That's up from 80th economy in the early 90's and in a nation of only 48 Million (and the size of Indiana)...to have such a large economic impact on the world is impressive.
JAPAN: 2nd largest economy in the world and #1 auto manufacturer on the planet.
EUROPE: EU has 4th largest economy in the world, and is one of the leading bodies for climate change mitigation and technology advances to better the environment.

All these regions/nations are able to have such vast economies and safe areas to operate because of the blood, sweat, and tears of American forces that fought for/in these areas, and then remained to rebuild and maintain security.

If Iraq can even have an inkling of a chance to be anything like the models we have in East Asia or Europe, I say let's try.

Or you could just maintain the defeatist attitude thereby not actually providing any solutions or answers.

If a man breaks your window do you suffer the cold because you can't stop blaming the man for breaking your window? Or do you fix the window and allow the legal process to work for dealing with the man?

Same applies in our geopolitical situation in Iraq. Fix Iraq and allow the democratic process to work and deal with the Bush Administration's decision to enter the country in the first place. History will judge what we've done here.

You can delude yourself all you want.

FYI Bush's approval ratings are 34% according to a recent poll by NBC/WSJ. That's the worst since Nixon.

Our debt has exploded. The Republican ideal of small government has given us 9.13 trillion dollar debt up from 5.7 trillion when Bush took office. The Iraq dinar may be strong but the US dollar (and economy) is on on ever shakier ground. I could spend my day arguing about this. Good thing you old coots will be off-loading this crap to my generation!

The Brits, Aussies, and Polish are pulling or have pulled out from Iraq. The governments that supported the US have been deposed. We have lost valuable allies are now operating in a more hostile international environment than before.

There is now a generation of terrorists trained from first hand experience in Iraq.

Say what you want about Iraq, until I can walk in the streets of Mosul without getting a shave from an Ak-47 like I can in Berlin, I'm not buying not buying this "success" thing.

Even if we "win," America has come off this war looking like a total jackass. Say what you want, it's still an international PR disaster of massive proportions.

Take a look at the big picture. This is Pyhrric victory if a victory at all.

The approval rating of the Democratic Congress and Senate are lower than the President's right now...so yeah, thanks for the statistical update. But you really aren't adding anything useful to this debate. Approval ratings don't have much to do with success on the ground in Iraq.

I'm guessing you've never been to Iraq, and base your opinions on whatever is available on the news or the net...I can't fault you for the lack of ground experience...so seriously it's not that big a deal.

Things are getting much better here, and if you want to use statistics, there are more daily terrorist attacks on the civilian population in Thailand and the Philippines than in Iraq. And more civilians die in America each day from violent crimes than do in Iraq...just to name a few.

Success is measured by a period of improvement followed by relative peace, and that is exactly what is happening here. Until you spend time on the ground here, I can't force you to see the truth...only convey it from my position. I tell you what, it's nice not having the dozens of rockets and bombs going off daily within a mile of where I sleep (and much closer sometimes)...now that I haven't had (nor my colleagues) to deal with that in many weeks...I would have to say that is just one of many measures of success.

You need to quit watching CNN

After further review of your post I have concluded that you are one of the ill-informed. "Your generation", what is that? I'm not old (26) and have many more decades of tax-paying and full-time work in my future.

The American dollar has weakened some, but it is also recently gaining back ground. Unemployment is it's lowest in 24 years...but hey that's not what we're talking about in this thread (about Iraq).

Now that we've gone completely off reservation from discussing success on the ground in Iraq:

Our Allies aren't "Pulling out" and governments have not been deposed.

The Labor parties in Australia and Britain have taken power, but you'd be surprised to know that they still support operations in Iraq.

Britain has pulled out less troops than you would like to admit (because it doesn't help your case), and did so only because they have completely handed over the Basrah province to Iraqi control. They don't have a mission requirement for as many soldiers now. Just like we are now starting to pull (or getting ready to pull) out several Brigades out in the near future. And Australia is pulling out direct combat troops but leaving 60% of their original force in place for medical and rebuilding efforts, as well as security.

Also in France and South Korea; strong conservative governments have taken charge. Sarkozy's government in France is taking an agenda to the EU to strenghten ties to the US, and wishes France to play a bigger role in military and humanitarian situations for NATO and the EU.

Also; at last check, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, Britain, and many other nations have pledged their trust and strong economic partnerships with the United States.

The new conservative South Korean government is very pro-US and looks to strengthen ties with us, as well as improving economic power in their region.

As far as our economy is concerned, yes it is flawed and it has been "shaky" at times lately according to some. But our nation still accounts for 20% of all goods and money trading hands in the world. Not bad considering the over 200 nations and territories in the world, and we are but 1. We have also entered or are entering free-trade-agreements with more nations than under the Clinton Administration.

Think or say what you will, based on your Bachelors in CNN-based education. The fact is (and point of this thread) is Iraq is getting substantially better; to the point now where they may have a shot at success as a powerful Middle East nation. A free and capitalist Iraq will add to the world economy and provide a progressive and positive influence in the region. I'm not saying that is 100% going to happen, just that by measures of success, they have more of a chance now than they did 2, 5, 15, or 30 years ago.

And don't talk like you know something about strife and being offloaded problems from older generations. Every generation in US history has had to take on the burdens of the past. Imagine what people went through in the 30s after the big crash, or the 40s and 50s after WWII, or the 70s and 80s after the oil embargo, etc.

You need to realize that building a nation is hard work, but maintaining a nation is even harder, and it requires the support of all people with a vested interest in that nation. (of all ages).