Operation Arrowhead Ripper

If you didn't know, US and Iraqi troops are conducting a major operation in the Diyala province northeast of Baghdad. It's called Operation Arrowhead Ripper, and is featuring 8,000 US and 2,000 Iraqi troops figting to root out al-Qaeda insurgents in the area. Michael Yon has posts here, here, and here.

Not only is this the largest operation we've conducted during the Iraq war, it's also noticeable in the use of Sunni tribes and insurgents who have fought against US troops in the past, but now are turning on al-Qaeda and helping us.

From all accounts, we are winning this battle. Road blocks are in place capturing or killing any insurgents trying to escape Diyala province. The Sunni tribes and insurgents now on our side are providing our forces crucial intelligence on where enemy strong holds are at and pointing out insurgents passing off as civilians.

Jack Kelly has a piece today saying that if things continue to go as well as they are, the MSM will never make light of the operation.

And why should we expect anything different? Even though unfortunately there are still car bombings, overall killings and attacks are down. Civilians feel safer with the added security, and are more willing to supply information and intelligence about insurgent activity in their areas. We've found countless numbers of bomb making factories and arsenals with this info. We encounter more evidence of Iranian involvement with insurgent groups. But if you hear about this in the MSM, it is only a passing reference, or brief note on one of the back pages. Any news you do hear about are bombings or how US casualties are on the rise. Jack Kelly correctly points out that it was Grant's bloody assaults on Lee in Virginia in the spring and summer of 1864, along with Sherman's successes in the West, that brought about victory for the North. It was the failure of the German offensive in the spring of 1918 that opened the way for allied victory several months later. During World War 2, our GIs had to endure the violent Battle of the Bulge before Hitler's army folded in defeat. When one or both sides in a war sense that the end is near, the fighting tends to grow more desperate, particularly on the side loosing. That could very well be the case now.

Meanwhile, back in DC, politicians argue about bringing the troops home. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has called the war lost, and referred to the man leading our efforts in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, as incompetent. Several prominent Democrats are pushing, or at least leaning, for a total defunding of the war. Some Democrats are more concerned with scoring political points against the administration by harping on the US attorney "scandal" or threatening to defund Vice President Cheney's office for not turning over documents.

As September rolls around and Petraeus reports to Congress on the surge, expect the MSM to focus on every car bomb, every suicide attack, every bit of bad news, to discredit anything positive brought about with the surge. To be sure, there is still a lot that needs to be done. The Iraqi government needs to get to work and get some action done on issues such as the distribution of oil revenues. There is more recruiting and training to be done with the Iraqi police and army. Some of these things are hard enough by themselves. It gets even more difficult without the security that we can provide for them in the meantime.

UPDATE: Pete Hegseth takes Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to task for his article last week invoking Lincoln's name in forcing time lines on Iraq. Hegseth served in Iraq, and reinforces a couple of points made in this post, such as this:

My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council -- built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation -- did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.

and this:

Levin says that "our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them." He explains his vote to fund and "support" the troops while simultaneously trying to legislate the war's end. But what kind of "support" and "unequivocal message" do the troops hear from leaders in Congress who call their commanders "incompetent" or declare the war "lost"?

and this:

In his op-ed, Sen. Levin invoked the example of Abraham Lincoln, who endured years of challenges before finding the right generals and strategy to win the Civil War. After four years of uncertainty in Iraq, America finally has both the general and the strategy to turn the tide. The question is whether 2007 will unfold like 1865 or 1969.

President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right. And to me, that sounds more than a bit like the situation our country faces today. What path will we choose?

-----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote