Britain and America

Quickly retreating from Iraq could destroy the presidencies of Clinton or Obama

A must-read column from David Brooks in today's New York Times:

"Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months. But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.

There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts. In his latest report, the much-cited Anthony Cordesman describes an improving Iraqi security situation that still requires “strategic patience” and another five years to become self-sustaining.

There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can’t evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest. They would point out that it’s insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.

All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama’s unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president’s head.

Therefore, when a new Democratic administration considered all these possibilities, its members would part ways. A certain number of centrists would conclude that rapid withdrawal is a mistake. They would say that the situation had changed and would call for a strategic review. They’d recommend a long, slow conditions-based withdrawal — constant, small troop reductions, and a lot of regional diplomacy, while maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the remainder of the term.

The left wing of the party would go into immediate uproar. They’d scream: This was a central issue of the campaign! All the troops must get out now!

The president would have to make a terrible decision."

Brooks goes on to discuss the nightmare tensions that might erupt between Democrats on federal spending.  Read it all here.

McCain says British withdrawal from Iraq was not a good idea

There's lots of excitement in parts of the UK blogosphere (eg here and here) about John McCain cancelling a meeting with Gordon Brown.  McCain was due to be in Europe this weekend for the Munich security conference.  He was to have a meeting with Gordon Brown en route but, with his Republican rivals still campaigning, McCain decided that he would need to stay on US soil.  Not a great snub to the British Prime Minister but a warning to all spin doctors that it's not wise to pre-brief meetings until you are really sure that they are going to happen.

A much more significant story gets much less attention from the blogs but is undoubtedly more important.  The FT reports Senator McCain's disappointment at the UK's withdrawal from Basra:

"The Arizona senator, who has been a strong supporter of the surge, echoed the misgivings of the US military about the British move, telling reporters he “did not think it was a good idea”... “I understand the British domestic situation and I very much appreciate the service and sacrifice the British military made in Iraq and are making in Afghanistan ... Obviously we’d have liked to see them stay longer but the enormous contribution they made in Iraq and Afghanistan I have to just be grateful for.”"

Up until now newspapers have reported private White House and military disappointment at the British withdrawal but this is the first time that a very senior American politician has spoken publicly.

Petraeus provides an update on the Iraq situation

Highlights of an interview that General Petraeus gave to CNN's Late Edition earlier today (not verbatim):

> Troop withdrawals have begun.  US troop numbers have fallen from 170,000 at the surge's peak to 160,000 now.  30,000 more will have been withdrawn by end-July.  Further reductions will depend on an assessment of the situation as it then stands. We must not jeopardise what we have fought so hard to achieve.

> We are keenly aware of the stresses that the commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan are causing America's soldiers.  We want to reduce troop numbers as quickly as possible to reduce that strain.

> Iraqi troops are increasingly shouldering the burden of the nation's defence.  They are now experiencing three times the level of casualties as US forces.

> Asked when Iraq would be able to shoulder its security responsibilities he said there would be no 'light switch' moment.  It was more appropriate to think in terms of a rheostat.

> Nine of 18 provinces are now under provincial Iraqi control.

> The State Department is in the lead in negotiating a 'status of forces' agreement with Iraq for the future operation of US troops in the nation "over a period of years".  This presence would be much smaller in scale than at present.

> There is some political progress including contentious issues like agreement on a new flag and pension provision for people previously un-provided for.

> 15,000 Iranians came into Iraq last week for Shia religious festivals and mounted tour buses.  Many told Petraeus as he met them how much they liked America.

The verbatim transcript of the interview will eventually appear here.

Will General David Petraeus, man of the year, be able to rescue Basra?

Tim Hames, in today's Times, calls the US surge of troops into Iraq as "the most important story in the world this year":

"By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today returning home."

National Review has annointed General Petraeus, author of the surge, as its man of the year.  BritainAndAmerica cannot argue with that.  Even Democrat John Murtha, a fierce opponent of the Iraq war, stated that “the surge is working.”

The US' increasing (although not yet certain) success stands alongside the UK's failure in southern Iraq.  Colonel Tim Collins, who famously stirred his troops for battle in 2003, told BBC Radio 4 this morning that the USA may have to intervene against the "chaos" in the south once British troops have completed their retreat:

“I think that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. I think the chaos in Basra is a temporary thing, because I am certain that the US - which is fast getting control of the rest of the country - will sort it out."

The "chaos" in the south has been well-documented in the last 24 hours.

This is what The Guardian reports this morning:

"As British forces finally handed over security in Basra province, marking the end of 4½ years of control in southern Iraq, Major General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander, said the occupation had left him with a situation close to mayhem. "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world," he said in an interview for Guardian Films and ITV."

In yesterday's Sunday Times Marie Colvin documented appalling stories of violence and death being perpetrated - particularly against women - by warring Islamic militias in Basra.  Here is an extract from her report:

"The level of lawlessness is striking even during a short visit to Basra. On my first day,a male relative of the family I was staying with was kidnapped driving into Basra. A series of desperate calls began to try to find him. It has become a well-established ritual.  The next day, waiting in the anteroom of Major-General Farid Mohan, commander of the army in Basra, I asked the man next to me if he was okay. He had two black eyes and lumps on his bald head.  It turned out he was the leader of the first ministry of finance delegation to visit Basra in five months. He had been kidnapped and tortured. Mohan had negotiated his release hours earlier.

Iyad Ahmed sat slumped forward in the grey dishdasha (robe) and leather sandals that he had on when he was kidnapped from his room at the Qusr Al-Sultan, the best hotel in Basra. He had arrived 20 days earlier to investigate the ports and borders.  “When I was kidnapped, I was investigating the theft of 653 new cars stolen from the international free zone in the middle of the afternoon. The thieves killed the guard at the gate as they drove the cars out.”  Following the trail, the ministry team found that 90 of the cars had been used in assassinations, and 35 in suicide bomb attacks.""

The rebuilding of Britain's armed forces will be a top priority for Britain's next Government.  As BritainAndAmerica argued at the time of the British sailors' captivity in Iran, the whole direction of British politics and culture has left Britain a much more vulnerable nation than at any time since the Falklands War.

"WWIII on hold?" (...and can we credit the Iraq war?)

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work." - Key section of National Intelligence Assessment: Iran - Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

"WWIII on hold?" was Matt Drudge's headline reaction to yesterday's US intelligence report on Iran's nuclear programme.

Here some other reactions from the www:

Max Boot: "While Iran’s nuclear-weapons program may have been suspended (the NIE expresses only “moderate confidence that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007”), the “civilian” nuclear program is going forward. What the NIE doesn’t spell out is that it’s fairly easy to convert a civilian nuclear program into a military nuclear weapons program. All you need is the appropriate “scientific, technical, and industrial capacity”—which the NIE says “with high confidence that Iran has”—and some highly-enriched fissile material, which Iran is trying to produce."

Little Green Footballs: "I’m probably not the only one at this point with less than total confidence in American intelligence services; but note that although the report says Iran has “shelved” their program, it still estimates that they would be technically capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon within two years. Don’t you feel reassured now?"

Con Coughlin, Telegraph: "The problem for the peaceniks is that, the more Washington vacillates over what to do with Iran, the more progress the Iranians make with their uranium enrichment programme."

Justin Webb, BBC: "I talked to a former senior advisor to the White House who feels sick at the way in which all of this stuff has to be discussed openly, and fears that the Bush team has been fatally undermined on Iran by its own intelligence agencies. Revenge, perhaps, for the flak they took over Iraq?"

...and George W Bush's reaction: "Bush said Tuesday that he only learned of the new intelligence assessment last week. But he portrayed it as valuable ammunition against Tehran, not as a reason to lessen diplomatic pressure. "To me, the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community—to continue to rally the community—to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," the president said. "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program.""

But, for me (echoing my thoughts of one year ago) Victor Davis Hanson may have got closest to the truth by noting the estimated time at which Tehran may have frozen its nuclear weapons ambitions:

"Iran, like Libya, likely came to a conjecture (around say early spring 2003?) that it was not wise for regimes to conceal WMD programs, given the unpredictable, but lethal American military reaction.  After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war — aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region — might have been the elimination, for some time, of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?"

Danny Finkelstein agrees: "If Iran has indeed halted the programme, it did so under huge US pressure and in the same year as the attack on Saddam. The lesson is that this pressure works.  Huge numbers of articles have been written since 2003 about how the US was powerless and how the Iraq war had strengthened the war. The new assessments suggests that these articles were wrong.  The debate should be transformed - with those urging a tough line feeling greatly strengthened."

Which Bush era foreign policy will work best in the long-run?

I have written for today's (London) Times about three different Bush foreign policies...

• 'Neoconservatism' in Iraq;
• Multilateralism in Iran; and
• Realpolitik in Pakistan

I suggest that it's no longer impossible to believe that policy towards Iraq may produce the least troublesome nation of the three in a decade or two's time.  Space was limited but I could also have included Saudi Arabia in my list of Bush foreign policies - where outright appeasement has been pursued.

The New York Times notes the improving security situation in Iraq

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Even the most bitter skeptics about the U.S.-led war in Iraq must have paused, ever so briefly, over their morning coffee. The lead story in today’s New York Times, placed above the fold, carries this headline: “Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves.” The article, by Damien Cave and Alissa J. Rubin, reported undeniable progress in the security situation in Baghdad, with significant numbers of families returning to their homes:

“The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March…As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city.”

The forces of religious extremism, including those of al Qaeda, appear to be in retreat. This assessment from America’s most influential liberal newspaper, based in part on at least 50 interviews of residents throughout Baghdad, echoes Sunday's editorial in the liberal 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.”

This breath of good news demands sober qualifications, of course: We don’t really know how firm or fragile the security situation remains, and we still don’t know what political progress toward reconciliation and a stable, representative government is being made—or is possible in the short term. The roughly 20,000 Iraqis who have returned to their Baghdad homes represent a fraction of the more than 4 million who reportedly fled nationwide. Some supporters of the Iraq war, though noting these uncertainties, are nevertheless sanguine: “What we are seeing unfold in Iraq, under the leadership of General David Petraeus and his team,” writes Pete Wehner, for Commentary magazine, “may well rank as among the most extraordinary military turnabouts in our history.” See here for more.

Given the fumblings, miscalculations, delusions, and heartbreaking violence over the last three years, any speculation about “the most extraordinary military turnabouts” in American history seems premature. A fuller admission by the Bush administration of the extraordinary failures of its strategy in Iraq would be in order—and may be a more prudent way to help shore up American support to sustain and exploit these real and meaningful gains in security.

Joe Loconte

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.

Blair fears West lacks determination to win war on terror

Tomorrow evening BBC1 starts to broadcast The Blair Years.  The programmes' presenter, David Aaronovitch writes for today's Times about Blair and Iraq.  He finds the former Prime Minister still steadfast in his belief that the war was the right thing to do.  Mr Blair only regrets that he wasn't able to persuade the people of what was at stake in the war and he now fears that Britain and other western nations lack the determination to out-fight "the enemy":

“The enemy that we are fighting I am afraid has learnt... that our stomach for this fight is limited and I believe they think they can wait us out. Our determination has got to match theirs and our will has got to be stronger than theirs and at the moment I think it is probably not."

It's getting harder and harder for critics to deny Petraeus' success

This seven minute US news report portrays a much improved situation in Iraq.  The important thing is that it's not a Fox News report - it's from CNN; a network not known for its enthusiasm for Bush's Presidency:

There can be little doubt now that the 'Petraeus surge' is delivering real progress.  While the situation in Iraq remains very difficult there have been substantial reductions in deaths amongst the Iraqi population and amongst the US forces.  A feature in Saturday's Times looked forward to the day when there would be no deaths in Iraq.  God willing it will come soon.

A leader in The Times notes that October "was the best month for 18 months and the second-best in almost four years" in terms of deaths and injuries.  It concludes:

"There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory. But not to recognise that matters have improved vastly in the year since Mr Rumsfeld's resignation from the Pentagon was announced and General Petraeus was liberated would be ridiculous. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have to appreciate that Iraq is no longer, as they thought, an exercise in damage limitation but one of making the most of an opportunity. The instinct of too many people is that if Iraq is going badly we should get out because it is going badly and if it is getting better we should get out because it is getting better. This is a catastrophic miscalculation. Iraq is getting better. That is good, not bad, news."

My big hope is that America won't now pull its troops out too quickly.  As President Bush said last week: America needs to show that it is more determined than freedom's enemies.  The surge proved that it has been more determined.  Rapid troop withdrawals could now easily undo the progress of recent months.  The situation is better but still desperately precarious.

Times graphic: