September has arrived and the long awaited report to congress by General Petraeus has been given. There were not many surprises. The General's testimony was honest and straightforward, and according to him, entirely his own work. There was no pre-approval by the White House or his superiors.
Sadly, many of the anti-war Democrats had negative things to say about the General's testimony before they had even heard it, in essence, calling him a liar (see What's in the News, the Petraeus vs. Bin Laden article for more insight into that). Otherwise, a soft consensus has agreed that the surge has worked to quell violence.
The one surprise was General Petraeus's forecast that by the spring of '08, the U.S. could draw down all of the troop surge, basically going back to pre-surge levels; but he cautioned against any premature pullout that would jeopardize the gains on the ground. From there however, the discussion goes back to the same talking points, with a little extra needling by war opponents. It is argued that the Sunni support that developed in Anbar province would have happened anyway, because they were getting tired of Al Qeada. There was also the continued criticism of the Iraqi government's failure to achieve the so-called benchmarks that were earlier touted by the President as signs of the Iraqi government's growing stability. For some in congress, this lack is more reason to set a date and get out, others continue to push for a re-deployment strategy.
The re-deployment strategy has three main points. First, it is said that the U.S. should concentrate on training the Iraqi Army, but we have been doing that from the start. It sounds very much like what the President offered way back in the beginning, as the Iraqi's stand up, we stand down, so is this more of stay the course? Secondly, the re-deployment strategy contends that the U.S. combat troops should be utilized to hunt down AQI terrorists, but it is not clear how this would be done. Are the troops supposed to ask anyone running about shooting people if they are AQI members, or shoot first and ask questions later? This is the most dubious aspect of this startegy. Lastly, the re-deployment strategy looks for U.S. troops to guard the border. This however, is the most controversial part of the plan. If American forces on the border get into a fight with Iran, will that start a new war? If it does happen that way, will the war's opponents then blame the U.S. for provoking another war? These are important questions to ask, but no one has actually explained how any of this would work. Still, it remains a popular position for some on the anti-war side. So basically, things are different and have improved, or everything is still the same, it just depends upon your point of view.
My position has been that the surge be given every chance to succeed in lowering the level of violence inorder for the political side to make progress. I still believe that this is a must, and it is now time to watch closely to see how the Iraqi people respond. There have been improvements to the Iraqi forces, but they remain logistically weak. We should not judge this aspect too harshly just yet, as our prime focus has been to build the forces up to a reasonable battle ready condition while we provided the logistical support. As time goes on, this logistics portion will be transferred to the Iraq armed forces, and the estimates of another 18 months or so for it to all come together seems to be the target of choice by our military, but I think it could be less than a year with the right effort.
There does remain one glaring sore spot in all of this however. As I mentioned in my Iraq War posting in March, the diplomatic effort needs to be pushed hard. It does not appear that the Bush administration has made much progress on that front. What has been done to get the other Arab states to do more than pay lip service to the new Iraq government? The U.S. should be taking the lead by calling for constant diplomatic rounds to hammer out agreements and policy outlines for the acceptance of the new Iraq into the Middle East family. Why isn't this happening, and if it is, why aren't we at least given some indication of it? This glaring lack on the diplomatic side is not encouraging.
So, to briefly re-cap, we have lower levels of violence, a growing alliance of Iraqis against Al Qeada, an improving Iraq army, not much political progress, and a lacking effort on the international diplomacy side. I think that the U.S. needs to now proceed carefully, working to solidify the military gains on the ground, and pushing the international diplomacy effort. Perhaps, if those two aspects can get to a level that reaches critical mass, the internal politics of Iraq will take off. We should carefully monitor the activities on the ground and in the region to see how well any of this is working and what our next steps would be.
January 9, 2008
By every measure available, the surge has been a qualified success. The violence has decreased significantly, the people are back on the streets, the local Iraqis are getting involved politically, the national government is making some progress, and Al Qeada is on the run. The biggest piece of this Iraq puzzle is still not resolved, but there is hope. The White House announced today that President Bush would be travelling to the Middle East to personally meet with various leaders. This is welcome news, and long overdue. While the President is seeking to push the Israeli/Palestinian peace process along, he will also have the opportunity to further the cause of Iraq's move to democracy. As I stated previously, the international diplomacy necessary for overall success in Iraq had been neglected. Now that part may be coming together.
There is a lesson to be learned here. American foreign policy needs to be based on prudence and respect. The repeated calls for pre-mature withdrawal have proven to be foolish. Congress, on both sides of the aisle, failed in its duty. The Democrats played the Iraq War for political points, constantly attacking the President, and even going so far as to demean General Petraeus. The Republicans behaved no better. Looking ahead to the elections, they flip-flopped on a regular basis, unable to stand by any principles either for or against the war and the surge.
Will Iraq emerge from all of this as a free, democratic nation? That call cannot be made now, but it looks good if the Iraqi people are willing to make it happen. Given the history of Iraq, a nation that has in the past been less religiously fanatical, the odds are in their favor.
It is too bad that our partisan politicians could not unite in this effort. The world of the 21st Century is now and will continue to present challenges that are going to need a steady hand at the helm. These unprecedented challenges will test our will, our strength, and our national unity. How we respond is going to drastically affect the future that we pass on to our children, and in order for us to be ready, we must cast aside partisanship and begin to work together intelligently and wisely.
Are the elites who currently hold power in Washington capable of making the changes needed? If we elect another President from either party, the partisanship will continue because the siren call of power is strong, egos have restricted openness, and no President can ignore the call of party loyalty. As the November election approaches, we need to ask ourselves what it is that will build up the country in order to fulfill the promise of freedom that is our foundation. The past track record of the elites should be carefully considered, and we should choose a President who can break that cycle of partisanship and begin a healing that we desperately need.
|
|
