We all Win

Speaking of media willing to report that we're winning the war, how about this headline from Ralph Peters in the NY Post: The Army Wins. Yes, he's inviting scorn from the cross town rivals, but what a great contrast this makes with the NY Times insipid coverage of Samarra, as seen here yesterday. Enough of that loser attitude, here's the real story, from the Post (some bold emphasis added):

In a remarkable display of skill, elements of the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division and newly trained Iraqi national forces drove the terrorists from the city of Samarra last week. Killing over 100 of freedom's enemies and capturing many more, our troops lost a single soldier.

The two-day sweep through Samarra incorporated lessons learned on the ground over the past several months ? especially the need to win swiftly in urban settings. Our soldiers performed flawlessly under difficult conditions. Iraqi commandos, backed by our Special Forces, liberated two key mosques before a hostile media could intervene on terror's behalf. The city's population is glad that their oppressors are gone.

Has Sen. Kerry acknowledged the performance of our troops? Has he thanked them? Of course not. The senator and his posse of defeatists resent American victories in the final weeks before our presidential election.

We're supposed to lose, you understand.

There's an enormous and troubling disconnect between the situation on the ground in Iraq and the portrait of disaster hawked by Kerry & Co. ? abetted by the media. The victims of this disinformation campaign are our soldiers, the American people and the law-abiding citizens of Iraq.

Indeed, the Dems have declared defeat so loudly and insistently that they've convinced much of the world that freedom's cause is lost in the Middle East.

But let me tell you who isn't convinced: Our soldiers. Last week, I was privileged to speak to ? and listen to ? hundreds of U.S. Army officers and enlisted soldiers at the Land Combat Exposition in Heidelberg, Germany ? the headquarters of our ground troops in Europe. Even I was surprised by the complete absence of griping. I did not hear a single criticism of our engagement in Iraq.

Now, soldiers complain. It's a hallowed tradition. Yet, not one of the troops with whom I spoke suggested we were losing in Iraq. Those soldiers, from generals down to the junior enlisted ranks, are the ones who pay the bills that come due in blood. And they were proud to have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many were getting ready to go back. They believed in what their country asked them to do.

But the most inspiring exchanges I had weren't with those in uniform. It was the military spouses, left behind while their loved ones went to war, who really got to me.

I recall two splendid young women whose husbands serve in the same infantry battalion ? the most dangerous of assignments ? in Iraq's Sunni triangle. They went out of their way to let me know that they supported their husbands proudly and without reservation

Yet who might be asked to pay a higher price? When protesters pretend to represent the best interests of our troops, how dare they speak for those young wives who risk so much because they, too, believe in our country and its calling?

I was fortunate to hear Maj.-Gen. Marty Dempsey, commander of our 1st Armored Division, share a rigorous analysis of the challenges faced by "Old Ironsides" during the unit's recent tour of duty in Iraq. There was no nonsense in that briefing, no self-glorification ? just an appreciation of what American soldiers can achieve and a determination to do everything possible to help them.

Gen. B.B. Bell, our Army's senior commander in Europe, has the job of preparing his troops for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan ? along with other wide-ranging strategic responsibilities. A charismatic leader, Bell is determined to capture the knowledge bought with blood on Iraq's battlefields so that our doctrine is worthy of our soldiers. What I saw, at every rank, was a level of professionalism and dedication that shames my own generation of Cold War-era soldiers.

We've never had better troops in our nation's history ? and they're winning under very tough conditions.

What do we hear on the home front? A presidential candidate appears determined to provide aid and comfort to the enemy, while encouraging the terrorists to resist with all their might until he's elected.

Kerry and his acolytes revel in reciting casualty figures ? even though Kerry realizes full well that our losses in Iraq, painful though they are, are lower than those from one minor Civil War battle. And the stakes in Iraq are higher by far than any of the senator's supporters can admit.

Our Army deserves better. As do our Marines, who are readying themselves for the job of retaking Fallujah in cooperation with revamped Iraqi forces. How on earth have we sunk so low that a man who would be president is willing to undercut those in uniform, while encouraging our enemies to believe ? against all evidence ? that they're winning?

As this column long has maintained, our troops can perform the mission in Iraq. All they need is stalwart support from our nation's leaders. President Bush has wavered now and then, but last week's win in Samarra suggests that the administration has regained its nerve.

What could our troops expect from a President Kerry? Must we accept that the lives and limbs lost have all been squandered in vain?

When terrorist bombs inevitably go off in the streets of Samarra again, the Kerry crowd will insist that the blasts mean that retaking the city was useless. But the senator, who has seen war firsthand, knows better. Military operations under such conditions are complex, often-lengthy affairs. There is no such thing as a flawless victory.

But there is such a thing as victory. Last week, in a superb lightning operation, Maj.-Gen. John R. S. Batiste and his Big Red One gave the Iraqi people and America a significant win.

Wouldn't it be lovely if Kerry could summon up the decency to thank them?

Thank you sir.

Spread the word: the good guys will win.