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.
| It's not that odd. The U.S. media doesn't pay attention. I've become increasingly impressed over the past seven years with how bad they really are. And I wasn't real impressed in 2001. |
While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere,
| The Hillary-B.O. battle is the most important thing going at the moment, Britney and Lindsey being inactive, in rehab, or otherwise indisposed, Miley not having dropped her sheet, and Anna Nicole being still dead... |
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.
| There was a brief spate of stories when it looked like the Iraqis might get their butts handed to them when they first went into Basra. The Mahdi Army fifth columnists in the police went over to the other side, which was supposed to cause things to collapse. The actual result was to show where the snakes were in the grass. The bad boyz in uniform were fired en masse and then the Mahdi Army in Basra got its own nether regions handed to it, despite the brief wailing and gnashing to teeth of the Noo Yawk Times.. |
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.
| Thereby causing a serious exodus toward the Syrian border of those Too Important to the Movement™ to be killed or captured... |
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."
| The press is now waiting breathlessly, when not attending B.O. rallies, for his words to turn around and bite him... |
Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007
| We normally refer to that as the "surge." It's been successful enough for B.O. to call for a "diplomatic surge" to enhance our chances of failure... |
produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites.
| There really is no solution to an insurgency but to kill enough of the cannon fodder to clear a path to the head cheeses, who can then be fondued. |
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.
| The Iraqi army has historically been much better at this sort of thing than at winning wars. This has probably been enhanced in the current version of the Iraqi army by allowing a certain number of vetted Baathist-era officers to resume their duties. I'm guessing that after being trained by the U.S. they'll be better at winning any wars they may fight in the future, too. |
. . . 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.). . . .
| It won't, though. The success of the effort will be discounted, ignored even. The emphasis will remain on the contention that we shouldn't have gotten into it in the first place. With the military end of things under control -- on the path toward success, in fact -- the "peace lobby" switched its attention to the supposedly unsolvable problem of the Iraqi government. With the military problem under control, Maliki was able to get the political problem under control. That left nothing for the Dems but generic opposition to the war, and ultimately to war in general. |
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.
| If they achieve power they can actually do sensible things with Iraq, under the umbrella of pulling the incompetent Bush's chestnuts out of the fire. As a side benefit, taking the money out of the war effort and probably drawing down the armed forces will have the same sort of efficatious effect it always does, releasing large numbers of trained and competent men and women back into the work force to actually build things and innovate. Same thing happened at the end of WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. |
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.
| To the U.S., maybe. The Iraqis are over the hump -- they'll be getting stronger, unless B.O., the UN, or the Arab League actually sells them out to the Medes and the Persians. |
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.
| He won't do it. He'll continue to see failure, and if he succeeds with his campaign he'll reap the fruits of Bush's achievements. I think I need another shower. |
|