Corner turned in Iraq?

[Harlan Huckleby]

This is a surprising opinion piece because it was written by the editors of the Washington Post. The Post has been anti-Bush and anti-war.

The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war
Sunday, June 1, 2008

THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year. Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...053101927.html

[bobblehead]

read that in the paper today, but I also thought of the possibility that the enemy is lying low, saving up resources for a big push in sept/oct to try and get a candidate elected who is promising to withdraw troops now. Influencing elections isn't an america only trick.

[Freak Out]

The Post is anti-war and anti-Bush?

[bobblehead]

n/m, you meant the POST as in the paper, not this post :P

my bad

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Post is anti-war and anti-Bush?

I tend to think of the Post as the same as the NY Times, because they have a very similar mix of liberal and conservative columnists.

But perhaps you are correct that the Post editorial board is more conservative than I thought.

[Freak Out]

The Post is anti-war and anti-Bush?

I tend to think of the Post as the same as the NY Times, because they have a very similar mix of liberal and conservative columnists.

But perhaps you are correct that the Post editorial board is more conservative than I thought.

I never thought of the Post or it's editors as being "anti-war or Bush" but pretty even handed overall....

When you drop as many bombs and use as many missiles as we have the last year you are bound to kill a bunch of militants and force a few to talk rather than fight...but the outcome we wanted is never going to happen. An open and democratic Iraq that is a friend to Israel and an enemy of Iran is a fantasy.

[bobblehead]

we never wanted that, see my long post on the other thread about our huge base 12 minutes fly time from tehran. We accomplished our goal, now we are pretending we had other motives for being there.

[mraynrand]

If you guys are interested in the subject, you should read Michael Yon's book "Turning Point". If for no other reason than to read about Petraeus. Considering the list of people who have tried and failed at various counterinsurgency strategies and mideast peace efforts (even though his work is but a small part of this overall problem), the efforts of Petraeus are worth reading about. The guy's pretty amazing. Read the book to discover how he was shot through the chest by 'friendly fire' and how he 'punished' the offending soldier. With Petraeus moving up to handle the whole theater, it will be interesting to see how he'll handle problems like Waziristan - and how much latitude he'll be given...

[Freak Out]

we never wanted that, see my long post on the other thread about our huge base 12 minutes fly time from tehran. We accomplished our goal, now we are pretending we had other motives for being there.

The bases are no secret but the general public are mostly ignorant of them and the embassy that is being built.....but we cant just sit there in a hostile country in our bases forever...the Iraqi public has to accept the presence of them and I don't think that will ever happen to the extent that some believe.

[Freak Out]

If you guys are interested in the subject, you should read Michael Yon's book "Turning Point". If for no other reason than to read about Petraeus. Considering the list of people who have tried and failed at various counterinsurgency strategies and mideast peace efforts (even though his work is but a small part of this overall problem), the efforts of Petraeus are worth reading about. The guy's pretty amazing. Read the book to discover how he was shot through the chest by 'friendly fire' and how he 'punished' the offending soldier. With Petraeus moving up to handle the whole theater, it will be interesting to see how he'll handle problems like Waziristan - and how much latitude he'll be given...

Petraeus is a pretty amazing soldier.

[Harlan Huckleby]

When you drop as many bombs and use as many missiles as we have the last year you are bound to kill a bunch of militants and force a few to talk rather than fight.

This is the opposite of what happenned. They broke our military into much smaller units and had them live and work, in conjunction with small Iraqi units, closely with the civilian population. This is the anti-insurgency stragegy that has succeeeded.

..but the outcome we wanted is never going to happen. An open and democratic Iraq that is a friend to Israel and an enemy of Iran is a fantasy.

Regarding Isreal, you might look to the negotiations ongoing between Syria and Israel and hope that there will be a cold peace with the Arab world before too long. But I don't think a pro-Israeli gov in Iraq was ever a goal.

Iran is more of a problem. Zero arab governments have diplomatic relations with Iraq, even our good "friends" Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Syria. They see Iraq as an emerging agent of Iran, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophescy.

Iran & Iraq are two peas in a pod. Iraq currently buys many of their consumer goods from IRan. We look at a map and see a border, but the people in Southern Iraq & Iran see people on the other side that they deal with regularly. The populations are moving back and forth to visit Shia religious sites.

I see a close relationship between Iraq & Iran as an unavoidable reality. And not necessarily a problem.

Ummm, I think we may have over-exaggerated the risk of U.S. troops endlessly fighting in Iraq. Democracy is emerging in Iraq, and the people will have a say. We don't keep troops in countries where we aren't wanted.

[bobblehead]

Iran & Iraq are two peas in a pod. Iraq currently buys many of their consumer goods from IRan. We look at a map and see a border, but the people in Southern Iraq & Iran see people on the other side that they deal with regularly. The populations are moving back and forth to visit Shia religious sites.

I see a close relationship between Iraq & Iran as an unavoidable reality. And not necessarily a problem.

Incidentally I think you are basically seeing what bush realized later and it played a big part in his decision to nation build. He realizes these populations are getting "to know each other" when what he thought before was saddam was working with iran to build a nuke (not thought, he was probably right...we'll never know). Now if he builds a democracy in iraq, it can't help but to bleed into iran because of the synergy that has been built between the populations, and thus hopefully will damage/destroy the hard line iran gov't.

[texaspackerbacker]

It was nice of the Washington Post to FINALLY notice.

Hell yeah, Freakout, the Washington Post is generally virulently left wing. This and an occasional other burst of good sense and normalcy by them is only out of desperation to avoid losing credibility even with the core of the Dem/libs. It's called getting ahead )or at least not too far behind) the curve.

Harlan, you haven't forgotten that wonderful war all through the 80s where Iraq and Iran did an absolutely splendid job of killing each other off? And it wasn't just a Sunni vs. Shi'ite thing. Are you also aware that Iranians are not even Arabs, and that such a distinction really means something to many on both sides?

[Freak Out]

When you drop as many bombs and use as many missiles as we have the last year you are bound to kill a bunch of militants and force a few to talk rather than fight.

This is the opposite of what happenned. They broke our military into much smaller units and had them live and work, in conjunction with small Iraqi units, closely with the civilian population. This is the anti-insurgency stragegy that has succeeeded.

We have used air power more and more the last six months to attack militants in Sadr City and elsewhere in Iraq rather than send troops in...it's been very effective. I read somewhere that we had fired more than 400 Hellfire missiles in one month alone in Sadr city. As far as the troops being stationed in smaller bases throughout the city/region it has been effective....but what about after we leave? Oh...thats right we'll be there for a hundred years. A huge portion of the people we were fighting have laid down their arms for now....for many reasons..but they can easily pick them right back up. This thing is far form over.

[Freak Out]

Hell yeah, Freakout, the Washington Post is generally virulently left wing. This and an occasional other burst of good sense and normalcy by them is only out of desperation to avoid losing credibility even with the core of the Dem/libs. It's called getting ahead )or at least not too far behind) the curve.

Texas...you are one funny guy....or you've been hit in the head a few to many times.

[texaspackerbacker]

I see you are still well behind the curve, Freakout.

True, some of the bad guys could pick their arms back up. Many, though, would have a hard time because they are DEAD. Many others have been turned, and are now part of the solution.

The REAL turning of the corner has been by the new Iraqi government and military. And with our training and support, they are moving steadily toward being able to control the terrorist element. Thus, any living bad guys who tried to get back in the fight would stand a strong chance of getting slapped down hard by an Iraqi military that presumably wouldn't be near as soft on their enemies as we are.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We have used air power more and more the last six months to attack militants in Sadr City and elsewhere in Iraq rather than send troops in...it's been very effective. I read somewhere that we had fired more than 400 Hellfire missiles in one month alone in Sadr city. As far as the troops being stationed in smaller bases throughout the city/region it has been effective....but what about after we leave?

OK. I really hadn't noticed increased airpower use. The part about us leaving is the $64K question, I agree.

I am not troubled by the protests by Sadr supporters demanding that the U.S. get out. politics are good. An Iraq popular consensus on whether we should stay or leave is going to emerge, starting with elections next fall. Whatever the Iraqi people want is fine with me. (Up to the point that I don't want us to stay indefinitely in a violent country.)

[Freak Out]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...98w8wD911E6CG0

Iraq cites problems with US security pact

By ROBERT H. REID – 1 day ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's chief spokesman acknowledged differences with the United States over a proposed long-term security agreement and pledged on Sunday that the government will protect Iraqi sovereignty in ongoing talks with the Americans.

Australia became the latest member of the U.S.-led coalition to pull combat soldiers from Iraq, fulfilling an election promise that helped sweep Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to power in November.

Opposition has been growing in Iraq to the proposed security pact with the U.S., which will replace the current U.N. mandate and could provide for a long-term American military role in this country.

Much of the opposition comes from anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, but statements critical of the deal have also been issued by mainstream Sunni and Shiite figures who fear it will undermine Iraqi sovereignty.

Chief government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Iraqi negotiators have a "vision and a draft that is different" from the Americans but that the talks, which began in March, were still in an early stage.

"There is great emphasis by the Iraqi government on fully preserving the sovereignty of Iraq in its lands, skies, waters and its internal and external relations," al-Dabbagh said. "The Iraqi government will not accept any article that infringes on sovereignty and does not guarantee Iraqi interests."

U.S. officials have refused to comment on the talks until they are complete but have insisted they are not seeking permanent bases. The agreement is to replace a U.N. mandate for U.S.-led forces that expires at the end of the year.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said they were hoping to finish the negotiations by July to allow time for the Iraqi parliament to sign off on the deal.

But Iraqi officials said last month that talks were unlikely to wrap up by July because of wide differences over several issues, including immunity enjoyed by U.S. troops from prosecution in Iraqi courts and rules governing U.S. military operations.

In recent weeks, Iraqi forces have taken the lead in operations against Al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni militants in the northern city of Mosul and against Shiite militias in southern Basra and in the Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad.

But the government appears to be following a policy of negotiating with militants — a strategy that calmed the situation in the three cities but probably enabled some hardliners to slip away to fight another day.

During a press conference Sunday, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, spoke out in favor of the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, saying Iraq's forces still needed the support of the U.S.-led coalition.

"Our forces and capabilities haven't reached the level of self-sufficiency," Zebari said at a joint news conference with visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. "We need this strategic security agreement ... for the time being. But this is not open-ended."

At the same time, the U.S. command is facing a dwindling coalition of allied countries that provide combat power in Iraq.

Australia, one of the first countries to commit troops to the Iraq war five years ago, ended its combat mission here Sunday and began sending its 550 combat troops home. A few hundred others will remain to train the Iraqis and protect Australian diplomats, officials said.

Rudd, the new prime minister, has said the Iraq mission had made Australia more of a target for terrorism and had promised to bring home his country's combat soldiers by the middle of this year.

"We have to praise the role of the Australian troops in stabilizing the security situation in the province through their checkpoints on the outskirts of the city," said Aziz Kadim Alway, the governor of Dhi Qar province where most of the troops were based.

The Iraqi government already has assumed security responsibilities for the Shiite-dominated province, which includes the volatile city of Nasiriyah. But the Australians had remained there in case the Iraqis needed help in maintaining order.

American troops will temporarily take over those responsibilities, the U.S. command said.

The Australians had "successfully accomplished their mission" and their contributions "assisted in the stabilization and development of Iraq," U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said in a statement.

Britain transferred security responsibilities for the main southern province of Basra last year and pulled its 4,000 soldiers back to the Basra airport last year. Britain suspended plans to remove another 1,500 troops after fighting broke out in Basra in March.

The Poles have also announced they will withdraw some of their 900 soldiers from Iraq by the end of October.

Meannwhile, an American soldier was killed Sunday by an armor-piercing roadside bomb in northeastern Baghdad, the military said. No further details were released.

A car bomb exploded Sunday in a parking lot across the street from the Iranian Embassy, killing at least two civilians and wounding five people, including three embassy guards.

Elsewhere in the capital, a senior police official was wounded and a traffic cop was killed when a bomb stuck to the official's car exploded in a busy intersection.

Two civilians also were killed in separate roadside bombs Sunday near Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad. A policeman and a civilian were injured when a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Mosul, an official of the provincial operations center said.

The violence was reported by officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

Two U.S. soldiers were injured when their helicopter crashed Sunday south of Baghdad, the military said. The military said the crash was being investigated but appeared to be due to mechanical failure.

Associated Press writers Sameer N. Yacoub and Bushra Juhi contributed to this report.

[texaspackerbacker]

Not a helluva lot of substance in this article.

The whole remaining Australian contingent was just 550 troops--less than battalion strength. Big Deal! Australia was a good and valuable ally in Iraq for a while--until their version of the leftist media poisoned the electorate and got their form of a scumbag cut and run type in. No matter. The job is almost done anyway.

As for the Iraqis, they are now subject to the whims of the voters in their country. That's a good thing--actually a great thing called representative democracy/ If it serves their political purpose to seem to be standing up the the Americans, fine. We aren't interested in any long term diminishing of their sovreignty anyway.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The job is almost done anyway.

Are you a cut and runner !?

The Iraq War has been a disaster. We now see, maybe, a Phoenix rising out of the ashes.

Its sad but inevitable that the war is such a political football. There should be no cause for gloating by any party, this is a tragedy.

I do agree with Tex's take that years from now people may look back and see this adventure as a success. It could actually transform the Middle East in a postive way.

Or not.