Basic Truths

With President Bush announcing 21,500 additional troops being sent to Iraq in a bid to quell violence in Baghdad emotions on both sides of the argument as to whether or not this is a good idea have run high.

In a piece in the Washington Post today Stephen Hadley speaks a basic truth:

The Baker-Hamilton report explained that failure in Iraq could have severe consequences for our national interests in a critical region and for our national security here at home.

For example, for the Arab Mujahideen, led by Bin Laden, who fought the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, their victory was of monumental importance in terms of legitimacy, recruiting, obtaining funding and, other forms of immaterial support. Further, when the USSR began its collaps about a year later, it lent further support to the Arab Mujahideen narrative. Not only did they, with Allah's help, repel the infidel invader, this led, directly, to the collapse of the atheist communist state.

This narrative drives much of Al Qaeda's ideology today.

Additionally, Mr. Hadley states another basic truth:

It [the ISG] said: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad . . . if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." Our military commanders, and the president, have determined just that.

The President's new strategy is in accordance with views espoused by the much touted ISG.

Nevertheless, The US Senate, following the lead of some of majority members, has been harranging about a non-binding resolution opposing the strategy. A strategy which, according to the author of the Army/Marine counter-insrugency manual, contributor to the ISG report, and new commander of MNF-Iraq, requires the additional troops to succeed and is undermined by the resolution which would, in Gen. Petraeus' words, "give the enemy some comfort". Gen. Petraeus, was also unanimously confirmed by the same Senate.

Go Figure.