| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| The insurgents are hitting their targets--in Washington. |
| 2006-10-25 |
| Wall Street Journal I didn't do much EFL-ing on this, because it's all important. Read, and vote accordingly. As the critics describe it, all of Iraq is in chaos, its new government isn't functioning, the U.S. is helpless to act against these inexorable forces, and it is only a matter of time before we must pack up and leave in abject defeat. "We're on the verge of chaos, and the current plan is not working," declares Senator Lindsey Graham, in one of the purer expressions of this elite inconstancy. Just what Mr. Graham would do about this, he doesn't say; but in the land of blind panic, the sound-bite Senator is king. . . . The current American panic, by contrast, is precisely what the insurgents intend with their surge of October violence. The Baathists and Sadrists can read the U.S. political calendar, and they'd like nothing better than to feed the perception that the violence is intractable. They want our election to be perceived as a referendum on Iraq that will speed the pace of American withdrawal. The Bush Administration hasn't helped matters of late with its own appearance of indecision, asserting on one day that we must avoid "cut-and-run" while leaking on another that the forthcoming Baker-Hamilton report might be an opportunity for a strategic retreat. President Bush has sounded resolute himself, but many of his own advisers seem to be well along in their own electoral run for cover. A measure of rationality at least came yesterday out of Baghdad, where General George Casey and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad tried to put the violence in some larger context. The Iraq government is in fact "functioning," as Iraqis continue to get their food rations, and as more than a million civil servants, Iraqi security force members and teachers continue to show up for work every day and get paid. Just this weekend, Iraq's oil minister announced that production had surpassed pre-war levels. "Economically, I see an Iraq every day that I do not think the American people know about--where cell phones and satellite dishes, once forbidden, are now common, where economic reform takes place on a regular basis, where agricultural production is rising dramatically, and where the overall economy and the consumer sector is growing," said Mr. Khalilzad, who for this attempt at hopeful realism will be derided in some quarters as a Pollyanna. As for security, two provinces have already been turned over entirely to the control of Iraqi forces, with a total of six or seven scheduled to be under Iraqi control by January. While the police forces remain unreliable, the Iraqi army is making notable progress. The joint Iraqi-U.S. operation to make Baghdad safe hasn't succeeded so far, but Iraqis we talk to say the situation in many specific neighborhoods of the capital has been vastly improved. And while every terrorist success is broadcast far and wide, acts of bravery by Iraqi forces go unheralded. . . . The truth is that the Sunni insurgents are still capable only of hit-and-run attacks, are slaughtered whenever they gather en masse, and have held down no permanent territory since Fallujah was cleaned out in late 2004. Nor have they been successful in their other goal of keeping their fellow Sunnis out of the political process. Sunnis continue to sit in the current government and parliament, despite being labelled "collaborators" and marked for death. As General Casey observed yesterday, "we've seen the nature of the conflict evolving from what was an insurgency against us to a struggle for the division of political and economic power among the Iraqis." One of the main challenges now is to reassure the Sunnis that it is safe to compromise with Shiite and Kurdish leaders on issues such as the distribution of oil revenue and the shape of Iraqi federalism. Mr. Maliki must also demobilize--or at least neutralize--the militias that grew in his own Shiite community in response to Sunni violence. But the political truth is that none of this will happen any sooner if Americans look like they are heading for the exits. Timetables and deadlines may sound like realpolitik, but they only feed suspicions that the U.S. will abandon Iraq's leaders once they have walked out onto a political limb. Iraq is not yet in a state of "civil war," and it has a functioning, if imperfect, government. If changes of tactics or force levels are needed, by all means make them. But what Iraqis most need from Washington is reassurance of support for the tough decisions and battles that lie ahead. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #1 /begin rant/ The points made and conclusions drawn by the author(s) are so mind numbingly obvious it almost hurts to read them. I find myself scratching my head in wonder as to how any rational, free-thinking American can allow these certainties to escape them at this crucial time. Any retreat is a defeat at this stage. We should continue to put pressure on the Iraqi government to get their act together or suffer the consequences. Lot's of pressure at that. But I think it is a mistake to threaten them with withdrawal if they don't make it happen yesterday. We all want it to happen yesterday. Yet settling differences that have existed for decades, centuries even, doesn't happen overnight, in a few months, or even a few years. Doing so in a country that has been murdered, raped and pillaged by a brutal dictator for 30+ years makes it doubly difficult. What the US and American people should be doing right now is emphatically declaring our collective desire for a free and democratic Iraq and pledging our unwavering support in helping that young country achieve it. We should approach this on a phase basis, with various stages within each phase. IMO that's exactly what the Bush administration is doing, based on what I've seen. That's a real strategy, folks. But the media and half the country is blind to it because they are more interested in winning political power than doing what is right for this country and the rest of the free world. Shame on them. May the American people have the clarity of vision to see through this when they pull the levers in a few short weeks. These phases probably look something like this: Phase I: Includes military, economic, and political support*. Goal is to establish the institutions necessary to properly govern and secure the country while giving it a chance to prosper economically. We are in the last stages of this phase. Phase II: Includes mainly military and economic support. Begins after political institutions have been established to properly govern the country. We are in the early stages of this phase. Phase III: Includes mainly economic support. Begins after political and military institutions have been established to properly govern and secure the country. This phase has yet to begin. Phase IV: The country is a self-sufficient democracy, economically prosperous, and a strategic ally in the war on terror. Thus dealing a serious blow to the jihadis and denying them a safe haven wherein they can operate with impunity. Patience, people, patience. Tis a virtue that pays handsomely. *Support here is defined as active, "boots-on-the-ground" aid and assistance. /end rant/ |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2006-10-25 15:55 |