Three weeks ago BritainAndAmerica reported that the BBC had noticed progress in Iraq. Another unlikely source delivered the same message in yesterday's New York Times. An article by two Brookings Institute fellows - hardly a right-wing, neocon think tank and previously critical of operations in Iraq - included the following key thoughts:
Petraeus has transformed US troop morale: "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."
Iraqi troops are becoming more reliable and more ethnically mixed: "American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq). In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab."
American troops aren't just clearing areas - they're now holding them, too: "The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave. In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so."
Excesses by extremists are leading Iraqis to turn to US troops: "A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help."
Iraq's politicians continue to disappoint but the effort should be sustained until 2008: "In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines. How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."
"The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus"
By all accounts Petraeus is indeed a competent commander, and he seems to have successfully detached Al Qaeda in Iraq from the Sunni tribes of western Iraq; helped by AQI's attempt to oppose extreme Salafism before it had fully consolidated its power.
The problem is though whether there is any path to 'victory' - if victory means a secural multicultural liberal democratic Iraq hosting permament US garrisons of ca 35,000 troops, that seems unachievable. A largely partitioned Iraq with Kurd, Sunni and Shiite sectors, with the Sunni area not under AQI control, is achievable, but Iran is bound to have influence over the Shiite territory. It's worth noting BTW that the ex SCIRI-Badr are Iran's direct proxies in Iraq, Sadr and his Mahdi Army are more nationalist, they work with Iran but are not under Iranian control and would likely be the dominant element in a free Iraq.
Posted by: Simon Newman | July 31, 2007 at 08:21 AM
Indeed, the question at this point is, "to what end?" How does one define victory? I'm afraid we'll have to rely on Justice Potter Stewart's maxim: we'll know it when we see it. We know it can be done, but will our feckless leaders give us the time?
Posted by: JF | July 31, 2007 at 08:36 AM
I don't focus on the 'problem'. That's all that the anti-American crowd has done. The ultimate problem is not acknowledging what will happen if we leave prematurely. That is the PROBLEM that should be focused on above all else.
Sentiment from those so determined has been to focus on the 'problem', one problem after another whether real or not, and pounding on an "arrogant" America as having no right being there. That is arrogance itself. It is the Iraqis who want peace and the soldiers willing to put their lives on the line who should have say!
There are a lot of folks in our free West with very ill motivations concerning this endeavor and are totally disgenuine in what they claim to know and want, all along having no humane regard for the consequences of their wishes largely based on anti-American spite. Its been total hypocrisy. Twisted resentment... yet compelled, damned compelled to say what should or should not take place because of their greater enlightenment. They've wanted failure, AMERICAN failure all along and they're diluded, and not kidding anyone but themselves.
No cut and run unless those putting their lives on the line there say its time.
To define victory? Well, nobody has the moral right to even attempt unless they've been on board genuinely hoping all along.
Posted by: Steevo | July 31, 2007 at 09:36 AM
If this article proves correct then the one major politician who will have got things right throughout this whole business is John McCain
Posted by: Peter Franklin | July 31, 2007 at 09:38 AM
"To define victory? Well, nobody has the moral right to even attempt unless they've been on board genuinely hoping all along."
This makes no sense. What do you think the aim is anyway, Steevo?
Posted by: Simon Newman | July 31, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Liberals seem determined that either Iraq is failing or aught to fail, whatever happens they will say that the war was a failure - they would rather have Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party still in power, or Al Qaeda seizing control than see the new Iraqi government chosen by the people of Iraq succeed, and simply because it took a coalition of the willing to achieve it.
Iraq's prospects in terms of social stability, economic growth and good relations with it's neighbours are probably now better than at any time in the past 40 years.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | July 31, 2007 at 11:17 AM
It is my understanding that the troops always had high morale. It is the homefront where morale was sadly lacking.
Remember the caveat regarding sausage making. If you knew how they were made and what the ingredients are you would never eat sausages.
War is much the same. War is complex and complex problems have a habit of looking impossible to fix, when all of a sudden, the different elements start fuzing together.
I would say Iraq has been coming together for sometime. All the killings and fighting were needed to forge the Iraqi people (being comprised of many different factions -even within the Kurds, Shia, and Suuni), into a more effective country.
PS. The idea that Iraq can never be united because of the different factions is simplistic. The majority of countries have different groups of people inhabiting them.
Posted by: davod | July 31, 2007 at 06:27 PM
It is my understanding that the troops always had high morale. It is the homefront where morale was sadly lacking.
Remember the caveat regarding sausage making. If you knew how they were made and what the ingredients are you would never eat sausages.
War is much the same. War is complex and complex problems have a habit of looking impossible to fix, when all of a sudden, the different elements start fuzing together.
I would say Iraq has been coming together for sometime. All the killings and fighting were needed to forge the Iraqi people (being comprised of many different factions -even within the Kurds, Shia, and Suuni), into a more effective country.
PS. The idea that Iraq can never be united because of the different factions is simplistic. The majority of countries have different groups of people inhabiting them.
Posted by: davod | July 31, 2007 at 06:56 PM
Simon said:
"'To define victory? Well, nobody has the moral right to even attempt unless they've been on board genuinely hoping all along.'
"This makes no sense. What do you think the aim is anyway, Steevo?"
Are you insulted Simon? If it makes no sense (to you) how do you know it doesn't apply?
My implication is simple, Simon. We are winning, defeating a-Queda the major enemy, unlike in your own words what you have stated in a previous thread. We have a very real chance to accomplish a goal which can bring some of peace and stability. This is only if we stay the course, Simon and not just pull back or cut and run, which would amount to a go-ahead for the terrorists and violent Sunnis to destroy all that has been accomplished.
Staying the course is the very opposite of what many, if not most who have been opposed to our "arrogant" efforts have wanted. They've wanted us out, period. No recognition of an American victory. Genocide and a major terrorist stronghold would be preferable. American humiliation... THE desired outcome.
For such people to now discuss a workable victory (with the implication of caring about the fate of the Iraqis to be free from terror, and a respect for our troops' efforts and sacrifice not to be in vein) is a complete mockery of humanity and justice. And, total self-delusion.
Posted by: Steevo | July 31, 2007 at 08:59 PM
I never understood why the Democrats painted themselves into a corner on Iraq defeat.
What else was left out of the NYT article:
Blitzer's questioning, Pollack made an observation that didn't show up in the Times piece. He said that the US government was putting too much attention on the gridlocked political situation in Baghdad. He said that it was the outlying regions where political progress was happening. He recommended that the US take more advantage of the situation instead of waiting on Baghdad.
Blitzer finished the interview by asking Pollack what advice he would give the Democrats about their stance on the Iraq situation; Pollack replied, in essence, that he would urge them to be more cautious about seeing the war in Iraq as a failure.
http://pundita.blogspot.com/2007/07/democrats-rethinking-on-iraq.html
Now you have this:
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html
And, you have this:
According to the transcript of the July 27th House Armed Services Committee hearing, Rep. Bodya just up and walked out of the committee room because retired Army General Jack Keane was allowed to profile some of the positive stories coming out of that long-suffering part of the world.
And I just will make some statements more for the record based on what I heard from — mainly from General Keane. As many of us — there was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while. So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things — after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.
But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it’s a place that I might take the family for a vacation — things are going so well — those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here’s the reality of the problem. And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue.
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=2445
Posted by: Frogg, USA | July 31, 2007 at 09:02 PM
Davod... well put.
Posted by: Steevo | July 31, 2007 at 09:02 PM
Steevo:
"We are winning, defeating a-Queda the major enemy."
The (current) war aim is to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq? That's an achievable aim, as I've said. Al Qaeda is alien to Iraq and its traditions and has little local support.
Posted by: Simon Newman | July 31, 2007 at 09:49 PM
What a baloney response Simon - and your own words stated al-Queda wasn't in Iraq. It revealed how totally ignorant and uninformed you were untill, you couldn't deny it and had to agree to al-Queda leadership and recruitment IN Iraq.
I'll repeat what I stated because of your main point and 'question':
To define victory? Well, nobody has the moral right to even attempt unless they've been on board genuinely hoping all along.
Something you just don't understand?
The hard fact is a lot of people have just wanted this effort to fail. Period. And its been the same 'ole: focus on or make up this problem, that problem, this problem, that problem... ad nauseum. Its been a continuous smoke screen with absolutely no desire to point out the positive (and over the years there has been plenty) only, ONLY the negative. Because there has never been any genuine, heart-felt hope to see our efforts succeed. Nada.
The fact that George Bush's America had the gall to remove a tyrant in the hope of establishing some form of democracy and stability has been something to hate... far more than forsaking our efforts in the middle of an ongoing history to battle very evil people and to turn a blind callous eye and allow the majority of innocents to go to genocide hell. Plus, the establishment of major terrorist bases to bring it to the West.
These are a majority of Europeans Simon from what I've seen, and even our own hard liberal/Left Americans.
If any form of cut and run is seen now for the obvious - forsaking a victory and of course innocent Iraqi humanity - those who've wanted our efforts to fail will find themselves in a much more difficult position. They should shut up, Simon... and go away. Go to another emotional hate-driven 'cause' about "arrogant" America.
Posted by: Steevo | July 31, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Simon... yes, the war in Iraq is "winnable".
There are a few details that you apparently do not know.
The feud between Babylon and Persia is one of the world's OLDEST feuds. The fact is that Iraqi Shi'ites hate "Persians" MORE than they hate Sunnis... they have a prior argument with Iran. The present "alliance" between Mookie Al Sadr and the Iranians is a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
The Iraqi Shi'ites are starting to get miffed about Mookie's tendency to run to Iran every time the going gets a bit hot in Iraq.
Given that it has come out in aces and spades that Al Qaeda in Iraq and several of their allied organizations has turned out NOT to be the Iraqi insurgents we've been led to believe but rather foreign Al Qaeda operatives pretending to be Iraqis, it is only a matter of time before the Al Sadr groups start to fall apart. The reason is because the Al Qaeda hits on Iraqis in the Shi'ite areas was what got the Shi'ite militias up and operating in the first place... self-defense. And if Mookie keeps running to Iran every time things get hot, its going to be sooner rather than later. Iraqis will NOT put up with Iranian interference in their own territory. The Shi'ites are only accepting "help" for the interim, and will not tolerate a continued presence of Iranian interference.
THAT feud is older than the Shi'ite-Sunni feud and has priority to them.
Posted by: mamapajamas | July 31, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Jim Clyburn (D-SC) admitted if Petreus has a 'positive' report it will be a 'big problem' for the Democrats. (Note, not good news for America and Iraq, but a 'big problem' for the Democrats).
See about 3:20 in:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/07/30/VI2007073001325.html
Posted by: Mary Fernandez | August 01, 2007 at 01:27 AM
Frogg! You beat me to it.
Posted by: Mary Fernandez | August 01, 2007 at 01:29 AM
Here's a nuanced view from a US Lt Colonel currently serving:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/08/tribalism.html
Posted by: Simon Newman | August 01, 2007 at 05:20 PM
Simon Newman, an interesting viewpoint. It shows why the surge is working: win the hearts and minds of the sheiks, and they will bring across their entire tribes to fight against the insurgents and al Qaeda. His perspective on Kurdistan also provides a glimpse into the future of a politically stable Iraq, where loyalty to the tribe gives way to party affiliation.
All in all, not a bad way to go.
Posted by: JF | August 01, 2007 at 05:54 PM
From more of a military perspective...
Tribal leaders (the Iraqis themselves) and Coalition forces on the ground believe al-Qaeda in Iraq are the prime threat. The majority now have witnessed al-Qaeda in Iraq successfully radicalize large numbers of Iraqi Sunnis, a fact which is also evident by the actions and propaganda of various insurgent groups. Iraqi insurgents even admit in intercepted letters al-Qaeda's dominant force.
Most former regime loyalists have been eliminated. While there's still a Ba'ath Party they're no longer a serious insurgent force as Iraqi Sunni identity is less by Saddam Hussein and more by sectarian allegiances, since early 06.
For Iraqi Sunnis who want to create a religious state there's Jaysh al-Mujahideen, its very clear from their literature and propaganda. Then there's The Islamic Army in Iraq who seem to be a more cynical and opportunist group, sometimes they've cooperated with al-Qaeda sometimes not. These are the second and third largest groups in the entire insurgency behind al-Qaeda in Iraq and its Islamic State. But, they are considered "bit" players because of al-Qaeda’s power. Now, most of their leadership has been murdered by al-Qaeda and many of the followers have recently established the formation of their own separate political coalition with opposition to al-Queda: The Reform and Jihad Front. They're no friend of America or democracy but increasingly a threat to al-Queda.
What has to be understood in all this is you can't separate the indigenous insurgent groups, the domestic Islamist groups, and al-Qaeda in Iraq. There is al-Qaeda's manufactured Islamic State of Iraq and its absorption, still, of large elements of the Sunni insurgency. And remember, insurgent groups and the tribes don't band together and cooperate with the U.S. and Iraqi forces in the region to fight al-Qaeda because they are strong, they do it because al Qaeda is strong.
This needs to be emphasized. Opponents of the war's effort seek to minimize al-Qaeda's role. This would be suicide (like they care).
As far as the Shia threat, Multinational Forces have conducted operations on insurgent groups such as Sadr's Mahdi Army and a couple of Iranian-backed. Significant efforts are underway toward their elimination as a threat to Iraq's security.
From Tim's post here and of course many others it is obvious when faced with gruesome destruction, the enemy of your enemy doesn't look so bad. Yet well beyond this the conditioned hatred toward America has been on the decline. Iraqis are genuinely trusting and respecting, even befriending our soldiers and this has been developing long before the surge. They are becoming much better informed with home-grown sources and every day experience instead of major western anti-American (and I will say anti-Iraqi survival) media. And of course, seemingly pro-terrorist foreign Arab media. The bad guys from old times are being eliminated and an understanding and desire to be, simply, an Iraqi with the hope of peace is growing. If it can come about it may take time indeed, but focusing on every 'possible' road block is a destruction of such hope. The colors of those who continue emphasizing the negative and doubt are clear to me. And they can go to hell.
Posted by: Steevo | August 01, 2007 at 11:12 PM
The article linked by Simon on tribalism giving way to party affiliation in the Kurdish area which eventually brought about better developement on all fronts (politically, socially, and economically) is interesting in more ways than you think.
It seems to be replicating in the other areas of Iraq (Anbar and Diyala specifically) already. As local Sunni and Shia Shieks meet and sign joint security accords (support National Government, fight al Qaeda, insurgents, and militias) they have also been talking about forming political parties.
What the surge has been doing is bring political success from the "bottom up" (local government/tribes/etc) rather than the "top down" (National Government).
Posted by: Frogg, USA | August 02, 2007 at 04:59 AM
Right, and its almost a fascinating phenomena to watch. What the surge is accomplishing is not just security, but freedom... to reality. The old tribal ways are increasingly being seen as... old.
Posted by: Steevo | August 02, 2007 at 05:34 AM
Frogg:
"What the surge has been doing is bring political success from the "bottom up" (local government/tribes/etc) rather than the "top down" (National Government)."
I don't know if the additional troops per se are actually doing this, but I definitely agree that the creation of stable structures definitely needs to work from the bottom up, with reality on the ground. The US initially failed to do this for several years; fortunately so did Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Taleban succeedeed in Afghanistan because they promised stability and peace to Pushtun tribes tired of endless war, whereas AQI only promises endless slaughter.
My worry is that whereas the US is now working with reality in the Sunni areas, fear of Iran may prevent this in Shi'ite Iraq. Where militias enjoy the support of the majority of the population, attacking them is seen as attacking the population.
Posted by: Simon Newman | August 02, 2007 at 09:28 AM