In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we’re deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq.

[Source.]

President George W. Bush said those words on January 23, 2007. The “surge” itself started on January 10, putting us at a year and some change since the new strategy started. Before it had even started, the Democrats had pronounced it a certain failure.

Before it had even been officially announced, Chris Dodd predicted that the military would fail. He told the Des Moines Register, ““The proposal being considered by the administration to add between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers in a ‘surge’ of American troops will do nothing to address this issue.” He added: “It won’t solve any problems.”

Dick Durbin admitted his ignorance to the plan, but didn’t hesitate to doubt our ability to succeed. On January 5, 2007, he said, “I don’t know what the president will propose in specific terms, but if it means sending 20,000, 30,000 more American troops, I don’t believe that’s the answer to our challenge in Iraq.”

Military expert Harry Reid made it simple. He said: “The surge is a bad idea.”

Following the announcement of the surge on the 10th, Dick Durbin appeared again to tell us what an utter failure it would be. In a written response to the president’s speech, he spoke for the Democrats when he said:

Twenty thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we’ve already lost.

On that same show, Barack Obama said his analysis showed the surge would not work. He commented, “I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.”

Two weeks later, there was a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting to discuss “S Con Res 2, A Resolution Expressing the Bipartisan Resolution on Iraq.” Joe Biden started that meeting with a speech. In it, he said:

“And so I look back, I say to my colleagues and repeatedly ask the following question: What is it that I object to most about what this President is doing, beyond my four years of criticism of how he’s proceeded?

And it is that he is moving troops into the most clearly civil sectarian conflict that exists within the country. He’s moving them into the heart of that conflict in Baghdad. That, to me, is a tragic mistake. “

In the same meeting, Sen. Obama said, ““What was striking to me in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near unanimity that the president’s strategy will not work.” Sen. John Kerry agreed, adding, “I tell you what: I’m confident it will not work.”

Because facts are stubborn things, Democrats were not about to let any get in the way of their agenda. They skipped a video conference with General David Petraeus on March 8, 2007. They missed another one on April 9. The Democrats sited scheduling conflicts, but what could have been more important than the progress in Iraq?

Their agenda. The stubborn facts they needed to avoided were that even as early as March. There were more than enough signs that the surge was already having a positive effect. On March 20, the New York Post quoted Gen. Petraeus as saying progress was being made, “but we still have a long way to go.”

“After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they’re not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can’t process it fast enough.”

Another New York paper reported in April that progress was being made in the most violent of areas: Anbar province.

Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

Despite progress being reported in the New York Times, the left wing was secure in their position of impending failure. They knew that the current position they had taken up would be beneficial. Not to the military, or the Iraqi people, but to them:

We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) told reporters yesterday. “Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”

The surge proceeded but, before all the boots were on the ground, the surge had not only failed, but we had lost the war.

“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.” The words of our enemy? That’s debatable, but they are the words of Harry Reid.

Reid’s comment made headlines. In Iran:“US Has Lost War In Iraq: US Democrat” and on al-Jazeera: “Iraq War ‘Lost,’ Says Top Democrat”. One has to wonder how many terrorists found not only comfort in those words, but inspiration.

Before the month of April was up, Reid would tell the world that, unlike other Democrats, he would listen to Gen. Petraeus. He just wouldn’t believe him:

CNN reporter: [The President] said Gen. Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working…will you believe him when he says that?

Reid: (laughs) No…I don’t believe him because it’s not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts…

Facts are stubborn things. Progress was being made. That is a fact. Facts had nothing to do with the Democrat’s agenda.

Soon more liberals started clamoring about how we were losing. Ted Kennedy also declared defeat, this time on the floor of the Senate. On May 1, 2007, he stated, “The “surge” was supposed to bring the stability essential to political reconciliation and economic reconstruction. It hasn’t and it won’t. Only the Iraqi people can save Iraq. It is time for them to do so. American military force cannot solve the problems of the Iraqi people. It is time for the President to put the Iraqis on notice that our military will begin to withdraw.”

Why were these liberal Democrats so blind to the progress that was being reported? Why were decorated generals being ignored and dismissed? There may be one simple reason why.

It was only a few days later that it was reported that top Congressional Democrats met daily with anti-war representatives from MoveOn.org. Moveon.org, which has raised millions of dollars for Democrat Party candidates in the past, sent them a very clear message:

“In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush — passing a bill without measures to end the war — the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.”

The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”

You break from our agenda, not only would you lose the money, you would become the enemy. The Democrats heard it, loud and clear.

Chris Dodd and Dick Durbin again embraced failure as evident. Dodd said, “As much as I wish we were able to secure Iraq ourselves, that the surge would work, or that our military presence in Iraq would bring about the compromises necessary, I think the evidence is clear it is not happening, and it will not happen.” Durbin followed up on the floor of the Senate the next day with, “…this Senate knows that the administration’s policy in Iraq has failed.”

All of the above comments were made before all the troops were on the ground in Iraq. The last of the surge forces didn’t arrive until May 30, 2007. Less than 24 hours after the last boot was on the ground in Iraq, Joe Biden again announced our failure to the world:

“The surge has not worked and will not work because its basic premise – to give time for a strong central government to take hold – is fatally flawed.”

The examples go on and on:

• May 25, 2007 – Sen. Russ Feingold, (D-WI): “We are moving backward…
• July 9, 2007 – Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader (D-NV): “The president’s current (surge) strategy is not working, and we cannot wait until (Gen. Petraeus’s report in) September to act.”
• July 17, 2007 – Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): “We know the president’s surge policy has not worked… (it) has put this nation at greater risk.”
• July 17, 2007 – Sen. Diane Feinstein, (D-CA): “A majority of the Senate sees that the surge is not working…
• Sept. 5, 2007 – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA): “The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made.”
• Sept. 5, 2007 – Sen. John Kerry, (D-MA): “The escalation failed to do the one and only thing it was supposed to do… No amount of parsing or spinning can change those simple facts: the escalation is and was the wrong answer

Also on September 5, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had something to say. He said that progress was being made in Anbar. Violence was, in fact, down. But, there was an exception: “And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.” He later had this removed from the Congressional Record.

Sen. Hillary Clinton took it one step further. She actually insinuated that Gen. Petraeus was lying to Congress:

“You have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”

A year later and Iraq is a different country. It was noticed in July in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. It shows in the cooperation between Sunni and Shia. It shows in the fact that Iraqis have turned against the insurgency. Even the Sunnis, who want the U.S. military to stay away…so they can kill the enemy themselves.

It shows in that fewer foreign fighters are coming to Iraq. It shows in the desperate pleas for help from a now dead terrorist. It shows in the decrease in death.

It shows in Anbar.

It even shows to John Murtha. However, it still doesn’t show to Harry Reid, or to other far left-wing people. Now, rather than admit they were wrong, they cling to talking points.

The surge is a success. It takes very thick left-wing blinders not to see it.