We need a political surge in Iraq

More good news from Iraq - the flow of Iranian weapons into the south appears to have fallen sharply.

The Weekly Standard has just published a fascinating account of how the violence in Iraq has been brought sharply down.

You'd expect Bill Kristol's Standard to be positive.  More surprising - and, I hope, more credible for BritainAndAmerica's more sceptical readers - is the continuing positivity of The Washington Post:

"The evidence is now overwhelming that the "surge" of U.S. military forces in Iraq this year has been, in purely military terms, a remarkable success. By every metric used to measure the war -- total attacks, U.S. casualties, Iraqi casualties, suicide bombings, roadside bombs -- there has been an enormous improvement since January. U.S. commanders report that al-Qaeda has been cleared from large areas it once controlled and that its remaining forces in Iraq are reeling. Markets in Baghdad are reopening, and the curfew is being eased; the huge refugee flow out of the country has begun to reverse itself. Credit for these achievements belongs in large part to U.S. soldiers in Iraq, who took on a tremendously challenging new counterterrorism strategy and made it work; to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of that strategy; and to President Bush, for making the decision to launch the surge against the advice of most of Congress and the country's foreign policy elite."

That's the opening paragraph of the main editorial in this morning's Post but the leader doesn't stop there.

The Post is not blind to the scale of the unfinished task in Iraq.  It worries that the space created by the Bush-Petraeus surge has not been used by Iraq's politicians to move towards a lasting settlement between the country's Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni populations.  There's been next to no progress on the crucial issues of, for example, the distribution of oil revenues and the nature of federation.  The Post's leader-writers criticise Secretary of State Rice for "passivity":

"There has been no visible effort by the administration to help Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker prod the recalcitrant politicians of Baghdad to act. The only high-profile diplomacy by the administration recently was aimed at heading off a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq. The White House and State Department seem to be turning their attention from Iraq at the very moment when they should be mounting a diplomatic offensive to secure concrete steps toward a political settlement. Such negligence would be another fateful mistake in the conduct of this war."

Too right.  The Bush Presidency will be defined by Iraq.  Bush and Rice needs to do much more to force the political pace in Baghdad.

Comments

[Tony Makara]

"the nature of federation"

This is the key issue here. I would agree that Rice is not, and never has been, the right person for the job. The realistic solution for Iraq is to break the country up and re-distribute the population. Iran must be made to stand back and cease all interference. The surge has clearly produced results but everyone must focus on the situation post-occupation, and that requires a political settlement.

[Maduka]

Tony Makara,

Remember, the British hastily broke up India to create Pakistan. As a result, a million died in 1948, numerous wars and skirmishes resulted and in the future a nuclear exchange could jolly well happen.

It is not for us to decide what is best for Iraq. Let the Sunni, Shia and Kurds decide what is best for themselves. They understand their country better than we do. We can call a constitutional conference where all the constituent parts state their case.

[Tony Makara]

Maduka, I agree that the future settlement should not be imposed. The situation re India and Pakistan has its own dynamic and I wouldn't use it as a yardstick to go by. There would certainly have to be a humane re-distribution of peoples on ethic/tribal lines. Some might argue that such a move would amount to ethnic-cleansing but I hold to the view that often at times in history this is the best course of policy to take.

[Maduka]

Tony,

Have you factored in the Kurdish problem? An independent Kurdish state (in any shape or form) will trigger instability in Turkey and Iran.

Would the resulting violence be an acceptable price to pay?

[Frogg, USA]

There was an intersting debate years ago on whether "political reconcilation" would lead to "security" or vise versa.

I guess we will find out soon enough now that security has improved so greatly.

What the article fails to mention is that political progress has been moving forward inspite of the fact that the National Government hasn't passed the laws yet. Oil revenues are being shared, Sunni/Shite reconciliation/partnerships are taking place, etc.

Trust me, there is plenty of diplomatic pressure from the US government from both high level politicians as well as military leaders who interact directly and at a personal level with local Shieks.

The Iraq situation is very fragile. No one argues that. I will be the first to admit.....it's very fluid and I would not even attempt to project what tomorrow could bring. However, I do think that the turning point for Iraq has been made.....and, things will continue to show progress on both the security and political levels.

-----------------------------------

It's true: Iraq is a quagmire

But the real story is not something you have heard

Sunday, November 18, 2007
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

We're floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it's too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we're hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw.

No, I'm not channeling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I'm channeling Osama bin Laden, for whom the war in Iraq has been a catastrophe.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm#

[Malcolm Dunn]

I think you're right Frogg.The Anbar people turning on Al-Queda has been a disaster for Bin Laden.
The main beneficiaries are the Kurdish people and the Iranians.