The media has built this guy up as the possible savior of American strategy in Iraq. It's dangerous and irresponsible to do that. He is an intelligent, competent soldier who will undoubtedly do his best to accomplish the mission given to him. We should give him the chance without all the hype. Excerpts from the Washington Post:

By Jim Hoagland

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the soldier-intellectual chosen by President Bush to provide new leadership in the war in Iraq, got one thing he needed from the president Wednesday night. But what was missing will ultimately be more important than what was provided.

Petraeus, who holds a doctorate from Princeton, is often described as the smartest and most ambitious member of the class of generals and admirals available to Bush. He has been given a rare opportunity to put the theories he has developed as a man of ideas into battlefield practice as a man of action.

The appointment of Petraeus is another indication of Bush's willingness to go on the offensive and his dissatisfaction with the cautious, bureaucratic approach taken to the Iraqi campaign by Gen. John Abizaid, who is departing as head of Central Command. Abizaid's repeated protestations to Bush and his national security team that military means could provide only 20 percent of what was needed to make Iraq secure wore thin in White House meetings, officials who were there have told me.

Petraeus's determination to take charge of any situation in which he finds himself is a widely noticed characteristic. When he commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul in 2003, he turned even a routine briefing for visiting officials and journalists into an all-encompassing, riveting overview of how military commanders had to work continually at winning hearts and minds.

 Dissent and disagreement are hallmarks of our political system, and of a free country. My problem with what the Democrats are doing right now is that it is not merely dissent or disagreement. It is active obstruction of the President while he is attempting to exercise his Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief. Excerpts from the Los Angeles Times: 

By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer

Emboldened by President Bush's deeply unpopular proposal to send more troops to Iraq, congressional Democrats are shedding their wariness about tackling the war and embracing positions once primarily held by the party's most liberal fringe.

Less than two weeks after taking power, party leaders who had promised just an increase in oversight hearings on the war are now talking openly about cutting off funds for additional military operations.

Congressional Democrats, suddenly united in their desire to pass resolutions against the escalation, still face challenges in deciding how far to go in what could become a historic showdown between two branches of government over the course of a war. And any move to cut funding may quickly reveal fissures in the Democratic caucus.

The threat to cut off funds for more troops drew a rebuke Saturday from President Bush, who challenged war critics to offer their own plan for Iraq.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a decorated Vietnam veteran and longtime military supporter, said Friday that he would use his position as chairman of the House appropriations panel's defense subcommittee to try to block funding for any troop increase in Iraq.

Murtha said he also wanted to force the closure of the controversial military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and put limits on how long military service members could be deployed.

Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), a fierce war critic who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, said Friday that, because of the complexity of the defense budget, he doubted that Congress would be able to find a way to selectively prohibit spending for a troop buildup.

With all due respect to General Keane, he sounds like another guy who is upset that the President didn't accept his plan in its entirety (a la the Iraq Study Group). Excerpts from the Washington Times:

By Philip Sherwell, London Sunday Telegraph

The military architect of the Iraq troop “surge” plan is criticizing the Bush administration, claiming the Pentagon is watering down the proposal for political reasons.

Gen. Keane expressed his alarm after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates testified on Capitol Hill that the troop buildup was expected to last “a matter of months” — rather than the 18 months proposed by Gen. Keane.

Meanwhile, Iraqi insurgents allied to al Qaeda declared Mr. Bush’s surge plan a victory and boasted that the extra U. S. troops would give them fresh targets.

I find this interesting. I'm not sure how much of a real impact the endorsements of Jackson and Sharpton would have, but the competition for the African American vote should be entertaining. Excerpts from the Times (UK):

Tony Allen-Mills, New York

HE is a media darling, a paparazzi target and a source of inspiration for millions of Democrats who dream of retaking the White House in 2008. But Senator Barack Obama, the charismatic African-American who is shaking up the presidential primary race, has not impressed some of America’s most powerful black activists. Civil rights leaders who have dominated black politics for much of the past two decades have pointedly failed to embrace the 45-year-old Illinois senator who is considering a bid to become America’s first black president. The unexpected coolness between the old civil rights guard and the new Democratic hopeful has added an intriguing twist to the budding rivalry between Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, who hopes to emulate her husband, former president Bill Clinton, in attracting support from black voters. There were contrasting views on the likely impact on Obama’s campaign of black competition or criticism. One analyst argued that a Sharpton candidacy would “put Obama on the spot” by forcing him to address awkward civil rights issues such as police brutality and racial profiling that he tends to steer clear of. One Democratic blogger argued that Sharpton was “just what the doctor ordered to keep Obama on the straight and narrow”. Others suggested that Sharpton would help Clinton by dividing black primary voters. In one interview last week, Sharpton warned that Obama could not take the black vote for granted. A strategist pointed out, however, that Obama could emerge as a “model of reason, compared to that blowhard Al (Sharpton)”.

Mr. Kelly makes some good points about the differences in American attitudes between the World War II generation and the current societal views about the threat we face. Excerpts from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The debate over the new strategy for Iraq mostly has been between those who regard it as a "last chance" for victory, and those who think the war already is irretrievably lost. About this, two observations:

The first is that we have a much lower threshold for what constitutes defeat than our grandparents did. In the summer of 1942, the Japanese were planning to invade Australia, and German tanks were at the gates of Stalingrad and Cairo. But few then said we should throw in the towel.

We have yet to lose a battle in Iraq, and we obviously have many more resources on which we could draw. Yet for most in our elites, it is already too late.

Which leads me to my second observation. Our elites have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without inconvenience to themselves. Defeat would be an embarrassment to President Bush, but nothing more.

But the Islamofascists we're fighting now are just as nasty as the fascists our parents and grandparents fought in World War II. They currently are less dangerous than the Nazis were. But that will change if we are foolish enough to permit them to obtain nuclear weapons, or to seize control of the oil-producing regions of the Middle East. Both of these outcomes are likely if Islamic extremists of either stripe take over in Iraq.

President Bush confessed Wednesday night to having made mistakes in Iraq. We've made mistakes in every war we've ever fought. But in wars past, we corrected them. We didn't give up.

Our fundamental problem is that the government of Iraq is corrupt and incompetent. The people of Iraq showed great courage by voting despite threats of violence from al-Qaida. But mostly they voted for spineless sectarian creeps like the current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

Because of the mistakes we've made, it will take longer and cost more to win. But we definitely can still win if we stop repeating those mistakes.

It sounded Wednesday night as if President Bush is at long last prepared to light a fire under Mr. Maliki. That's vital, because the troop surge (which would roughly double the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad, where about 80 percent of the violence is taking place) cannot succeed if Mr. Maliki retains veto power over their employment.

If the president is prepared to lean on Mr. Maliki, I think there is a reasonable chance the new strategy will succeed. But if it doesn't work, we should keep trying until we find something that does. Because the only cost we cannot bear is the cost of an Islamofascist victory.

---

(Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476). )

I don't think there's any doubt that China is the greatest conventional threat facing U.S. forces in the long-term. Excerpts from RealClearPolitics:

By Richard Halloran

While American political leaders and citizens are concentrating their attention on Iraq, the Chinese appear to have embarked on a long-range plan intended to challenge the United States for military superiority in Asia.

The U.S. National Intelligence director, John Negroponte, reinforced that view on Thursday, telling the Senate Intelligence Committee: "We assess that China's aspirations for great-power status, threat perceptions and security strategy would drive this modernization effort even if the Taiwan problem were resolved." Taiwan is the disputed island off the China coast over which Beijing claims sovereignty.

There was a rather amusing piece in today's Chicago Sun-Times. Excerpts below:

I don't know where they stand on apple pie, but the Democrats have come out for motherhood in a big way. In fact, who needs apple pie when you've got the extra-sugary content of the Washington Post? Last Wednesday, the capital's newspaper of record (now available in print, online and in granulated form) published a column headlined ''Grandma With A Gavel.''

Can you guess which grandma it was, boys and girls? Yes, it was Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has single-handedly, as she put it, ''shattered the marble ceiling.'' And she's right: From CNN to the New York Times, the entire press corps has lost its marbles. ''Grandma With A Gavel'' was written by hard-headed reporter Ruth Marcus, scourge of Republican Justice Departments for many years, and this column reflected her notoriously sharp forensic skills:

''The images as California Democrat Nancy Pelosi took office last week were striking -- and stirring -- in their unfamiliarity. Pelosi, holding her infant grandson swaddled in a white receiving blanket, as she sat in the well of the House, awaiting her election. Pelosi, with the assurance of a mother experienced at dispensing cookies to impatient toddlers, giving each child his -- and her -- turn with the gavel. Pelosi raising her hand to take the oath as her grandson, at her side, fiddled with grandma's papers.''

Golly. One only hopes the wee ones understand that, post-coronation, Queen Nancy's ascension to the throne might cut into all this quality time. "Gran'ma Got Run Over By Her Reign, Dears,'' as the old song so shrewdly warns. 

''Having five children in six years is the best training in the world for Speaker of the House,'' Speaker Grandma said. ''It made me the ultimate multitasker and the master of focus, routine and scheduling.''

''How different is this?'' cooed Ruth Marcus. ''Imagine Margaret Thatcher threatening to deploy her 'mother-of-five voice.' ''

Boy, did Thatcher get it wrong! That old Iron Lady shtick, talking about communism, and inflation, and boring old ''issues,'' when eve feminist reporter in town was dying to hear her favorite cookie recipes.

I would wager that, when the young Nancy Pelosi had ''five children in six years,'' a hefty percentage of that parenthood wasn't planned. She is, in that sense, philosophically at odds with her party -- and, indeed, with her congressional district. 

I think the GOP should give up trying to demonize Nancy Pelosi. The Botox gags and bug-eyed photos won't work. Tonally, she seems very normal, in ways that, for example, certain presidentially inclined New York senators can never quite manage. But Pelosi's fellow California liberals and those gushing feminist columnists ought to ponder why ''the most powerful woman in America'' is quite so untypical: What does it say when it's the exception that proves the ruler?

There was a good piece on OpinionJournal.com about the Sunni - Shi'ite dynamic and American involvement in the Middle East. Excerpts below: 

BY EDWARD N. LUTTWAK

It was the hugely ambitious project of the Bush administration to transform the entire Middle East by remaking Iraq into an irresistible model of prosperous democracy. Having failed in that worthy purpose, another, more prosaic result has inadvertently been achieved: divide and rule, the classic formula for imperial power on the cheap. The ancient antipathy between Sunni and Shiite has become a dynamic conflict, not just within Iraq but across the Middle East, and key protagonists on each side seek the support of American power. Once the Bush administration realizes what it has wrought, it will cease to scramble for more troops that can be sent to Iraq, because it has become pointless to patrol and outpost a civil war, while a mere quarter or less of the troops already there are quite enough to control the outcome. And that is just the start of what can now be achieved across the region with very little force, and some competent diplomacy.

Although it was the U.S. that was responsible for ending Sunni supremacy in Iraq along with Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, it remains the only possible patron for the Sunni Arab states resisting the Shiite alliance. Americans have no interest in the secular-sectarian quarrel, but there is a very real convergence of interests with the Sunni Arab states because Iran is the main enemy for both.

The U.S.-Sunni alliance, which is a plain fact in Lebanon, is still only tentative over Syria; but it would be greatly energized if Iran were successfully deprived of its only Arab ally. At the same time, the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq has been strengthened in the wake of Mr. Hakim's visit. The Sunni insurgency is undiminished, but at least other Shiite groups are jointly weakening the only actively anti-American Shiite faction headed by Mr. Sadr.

When the Bush administration came into office, only Egypt and Jordan were functioning allies of the U.S. Iran and Iraq were already declared enemies, Syria was hostile, and even its supposed friends in the Arabian peninsula were so disinclined to help that none did anything to oppose al Qaeda. Some actively helped it, while others knowingly allowed private funds to reach the terrorists whose declared aim was to kill Americans.

The Iraq war has indeed brought into existence a New Middle East, in which Arab Sunnis can no longer gleefully disregard American interests because they need help against the looming threat of Shiite supremacy, while in Iraq at the core of the Arab world, the Shia are allied with the U.S. What past imperial statesmen strove to achieve with much cunning and cynicism, the Bush administration has brought about accidentally. But the result is exactly the same.

Mr. Luttwak, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace" (Belknap, 2002).

There was a great rundown on free trade on RealClearPolitics. Excerpts are below. Bottom line is this: barriers to free trade with other nations ultimately hurts American consumers. We end up paying more for our goods and the range of items available to us as consumers shrinks. If country A can make a give product more cheaply than we can, why would we force Americans to buy from domestic producers at a higher price?

By Steve Chapman

It's an elementary axiom of economics that if Person A sells something to Person B, it's good for each of them. Otherwise, why would they bother? It should follow that if Country A sells something to Country B, both again benefit. But Democrats have turned against that basic insight. They think if Americans buy something from abroad, it makes us worse off, and they want to protect us from such folly.

Demanding the imposition of American-style labor and environmental standards on poor nations is merely a ruse for rejecting trade liberalization altogether. To say developing countries shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of their workers' willingness to accept low pay or hard conditions is like saying we shouldn't be allowed to make use of our high-tech factories or our skilled labor force.

It's the equivalent of telling them they shouldn't produce anything until they've advanced to our standards -- which they can't do unless they start from where they are and work their way up. Sort of like we and every other rich country did. Likewise with environmental rules. Poor people can't afford to put a priority on clean air and water until they stop being poor, a process for which trade is indispensable.

Blaming international trade for wage stagnation in this country is like blaming lettuce consumption for rising obesity. Trade is about selling American goods abroad as well as buying imports here. Exports have been rising, and studies indicate that the jobs created by exports pay better than the ones destroyed by imports.

Brown and others cling to the superstition that we can get rich by sealing ourselves off from the world and paying each other high prices for products made entirely in the U.S. of A. If they manage to erect new barriers to trade, we'll learn once again that protectionism is nothing but fool's gold.

John Bolton wrote a good piece for the Washington Post. I really wish President Bush had pushed harder to keep him. It wouldn't have worked with the Congress, but a new position at State not requiring Senate approval was a viable option.

Ban Ki-moon, the new U.N. secretary general, has done some unusual things to kick off his tenure. At the recent annual dinner of the U.N. Correspondents Association in New York, for instance, he entertained the guests briefly by singing, to the tune originally written for Santa Claus, his own arrangement: "Ban Ki-moon is coming to town."

On Tuesday, Ban is coming to this town, his first visit since assuming office on Jan. 1. The former South Korean foreign minister has already made it clear that he intends to be a different kind of "SG" from his predecessor. The United States backed Ban for his new post, largely with such a change in mind. Nonetheless, his first few days in office have already raised some questions. The struggle is underway to determine what sort of leader Ban will be: Will the status quo of the U.N. system overwhelm him, or will he follow his instincts and those of his supporters, including Washington?

Much to his credit, Ban has already made history early in his tenure. He announced last week that he will make public his financial disclosure report, the first U.N. secretary general ever to do so -- and something that Annan repeatedly refused to do. Ban has stressed that he wants to restore trust and confidence in the United Nations, which it sorely needs. And although much more must follow to even approximate the recommendations of the Volcker Commission in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal, Ban's disclosure will be a good first step.

Accountability begins with transparency, and within the U.N. system, the secretary general is especially well-placed to lead by example. That Ban's decision was even newsworthy underscores how much work still remains, and how easy it was to start. As a longtime civil servant in South Korea, Ban is likely to offer a short and boring financial report, as one may have also expected from Annan, a longtime U.N. civil servant. In fact, Annan could go a long way toward regaining trust and confidence even now by disclosing his U.N.-era finances.

Based on what we have seen so far, I hope they encourage him to let Ban be Ban.

John R. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006.

I actually differ with a lot of conservatives on this issue. I am in favor of lifting the economic sanctions on Cuba for two reasons: 1. They don't make a difference. Virtually every other country in the world participates in trade with Castro, despite our embargo. Unilaterally imposed economic measures just don't work. 2. The sanctions have provided Castro a scapegoat for Cuba's economic woes. He blames the U.S., when in reality the problems stem from the Communist government's economic policies. Excerpts from The American Thinker:

By Pamela Meister

"refuse to listen to the voices of their citizens calling for change...That a small minority holds sway in Cuba isn't surprising - it is a dictatorship. However that it does in the United States is disturbing. We have a right to expect something different from our own government which is after all a democracy."

The President is absolutely right. His new strategy is being criticized, but there are no viable options being proposed by any of those deriding him. Just leaving is not a strategy. It is quitting. Excerpts from Yahoo News:

President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad. "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.

The president, who hosted an informal, mostly social gathering of Republican leaders at Camp David on Friday night and Saturday, asked for patience from lawmakers from both parties. They had grilled Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last week when the officials testified before Congress in defense of the president's plan.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate intend to hold votes within a few weeks on Bush's revised Iraq policy. The nonbinding resolutions would be one way to show their opposition to any troop buildup and force Republicans to make a choice about whether they support the president's plan.

Bush said lawmakers "have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success."

Way to go Senator. Travel 7,000 miles around the world to undermine the President's strategy in the middle of a war. Excerpts from Yahoo News:

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed doubt Saturday that Iraq's government would follow through with its promises to secure Baghdad as she met with top Iraqi officials and American commanders.

Noting she had to travel wearing body armor and surrounded by soldiers and security guards, Clinton called the situation in Iraq "heartbreaking."

Clinton, who was making a one-day visit to the country, spoke to ABC exclusively after meeting with the two top military commanders in Iraq, U.S. Gen. George Casey and Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, according to the network.

She was traveling with U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), D-Indiana, who opted out of the 2008 race, and Rep. John McHugh (news, bio, voting record), a Republican from upstate New York. They also planned to travel to Afghanistan.

The three, all members of armed services committees, also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Clinton, who opposes Bush's plans to send more U.S. troops to Iraq, last traveled to Iraq in February 2005 with Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a Republican presidential contender.

Clinton had planned to meet with the Army's 10th Mountain Division — which is based in New York and deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan — at their base in Baghdad but the visit was canceled due to bad weather, the U.S. military said.

The Army has posted a great slideshow of pics from the last year of your soldiers and what they do:

http://www.army.mil/yearinphotos/2006/slideshow.html 

Troop deployments / extensions announced by the DoD today, after the President unveiled his new strategy:

NEWS RELEASES from the United States Department of Defense

No. 028-07 IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 11, 2007
Media Contact: (703) 697-5131/697-5132
Public/Industry(703) 428-0711

DoD Announces Force Adjustments

 As a result of the President's Iraq strategy review, the Department of Defense announced today an increase of 20,000 U.S. military forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 Specific decisions made by the Secretary of Defense include:
The 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg, N.C., and currently assigned as the call forward force in Kuwait, will move into Iraq and assume a security mission there.

 The 1st Brigade, 34th Infantry Division, Minnesota Army National Guard, will be extended in its current mission for up to 125 days and will redeploy not later than August 2007.

 The 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, based at Ft. Riley, Kan., will deploy in February 2007 as previously announced.

 Three other Army combat brigades will deploy as follows:

· The 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, based at Ft. Benning, Ga., will deploy in March 2007.

· The 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, based at Ft. Lewis, Wash., will deploy in April 2007.

· The 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, based at Ft. Stewart, Ga., will deploy in May 2007.

 The Marine Corps will extend two reinforced infantry battalions for approximately 60 days. Additionally, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) will remain in Iraq for approximately 45 additional days.

 Other combat-support and combat-service-support units may also be deployed as necessary once new requirements are assessed.

 The additional forces will help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods while protecting the local population. These actions will build the capacity available to commanders to 20 brigade or regimental combat teams to assist in achieving stability and security and accelerate Iraqi Security Force development.

 Finally, the USS Stennis Carrier Strike Group and the 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Regiment will deploy to the region to bolster security.

 These deployments reflect the continued commitment of the United States to the security of the Iraqi people. In consultation with the Iraqi government, commanders will continue to assess the situation and make recommendations about the appropriate force levels that best support the Iraqi government.

 The department recognizes the continued sacrifices of these units and their family members.

 For information about the units announced today or other units involved in this rotation, please contact Army Public Affairs at (703) 692-2000, Marine Corps Public Affairs at (703) 614-4309 or Navy Public Affairs at (703) 697-5342.


[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=10387]