Et Tu, Brute?

It's no secret that, generally speaking, Republicans are more supportive of the military, and of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Very rarely do you read or hear of a Republican "flip flopping" and deciding he or she no longer supports the efforts of US and Coalition Forces to fight and defeat our enemies abroad.

Notice I said "rarely".

It happens. And sometimes, the staunchest of allies will commit rhetorical fratricide on our efforts.

Kind of like what happened yesterday: Key GOP senator says Iraq strategy not working

Here's my question: how the heck could he know if it was working or not? If I remember correctly (and remember, I'm just a lowly tanker with a measly 31 GT score), one of the reasons that General Petreaus is going to brief Congress in September is to report on the success or failure of "The Surge".

We're in June. September is more than 60 days away. (Should we chip in and buy Senator Lugar a calendar?)

Let's be honest here: "The Surge" wasn't complete until less than two weeks ago. That means, the last brigade of the augmenting forces to secure the country wasn't even operational until fewer than fourteen days ago. How is it that Senator Lugar knows more about the success or failure of the Baghdad Strategy than the Generals and Soldiers on the ground fighting?

If I may quote the Senator: "In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."

Really?

Let me deconstruct the good Senator's statement, so that we can really get to the core of what he's trying to say:

Sen. Lugar's Statement: "In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved"

MG's Response: Sir, with all due respect, "the costs and risks"? What are the costs and risks of failure? What current path are you referring to? Would that be the path we are following now? You know, the whole part about working closely with Iraqi Security Forces to combat violence and lawlessness, while handing them the reigns of the mission? Isn't that the whole point? Hunt down bad guys, protect the citizenry, and stand up a capable Iraqi Security Force that can plan and conduct missions on their own? How is "continuing down" this path not the way to win this war? Sir, if that is your "judgment", then I have to stand up and question that "judgment" (and I use that term loosely).

Sen. Lugar's Statement: "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."

MG's Response: No one has asked anyone to do anything indefinitely. All that we asked is that Congress have patience and let the American Soldier do his job. All that we asked was to give us time to let the Iraqi Army begin shouldering the responsibility for planning and conducting the types of operations that we have for the past four years. Let them develop a strong security force capable of enforcing the rule of law, so we can come home, the mission completed. And what "policy judgments" are you referring to, exactly, Senator? "Cut and Run"? The famous Anti-War "Throw up your arms and run away screaming like a little girl" plan? (With no insult to little girls intended on my part.)

See... guys with sand on their boots see the real progress. They see bad guys getting captured and prosecuted for their crimes against innocent civilians. Think I'm making it up? Read just a small example: Night air assault mission nets insurgents.

Every day, Sir, people are putting their lives on the line to set things right. They go out and snatch and grab bad guys in order to protect the Iraqi people and the National Security of the United States of America. All that we ask is for people like you to have just a little bit of faith that we can get the job done. And a little bit of patience.

Please, Sir: give us more than two weeks. Give us until September.

And then listen to what General Petreaus has to say when he testifies in front of Congress.

Two Weeks? It takes mail longer to get to me out here in Iraq.