Monday, September 01, 2008
Iraq takes over al Anbar; victory remains an orphan
In what is surely a further sign of both military success and political reconciliation, the government of Iraq is taking over in al Anbar province, the heart of the previously notorious "Sunni triangle."
In other news, there have been only 17 American KIA in Iraq since June 26, a run of 66 days. That is still not complete pacification, but the rate is now below 100 per year. Put differently, there is less than one chance in a thousand that an American soldier in Iraq will die from hostile fire during his tour.
Nevertheless, Iraq does seem to be the rare case when victory is an orphan. Perhaps that is because so many American politicians denied parentage that there is nobody left to give the actual parents any credit.
11 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Mon Sep 01, 10:46:00 AM:
It has one parent who has been nothing less than proud since his day 1 advocacy... John McCain.
Naturally, his opponents have been bitching about how sick they are of hearing that he was right about this, like it's in bad form to bring it up.
By 
, at
Mon Sep 01, 11:15:00 AM:
Exactly, Dawn.
A few years ago our casualties were paraded across the nightly news and Murtha, Reid and the others were denying any progress. When General Petraus went to Washington the left called him a liar before they knew what he was going to say. Now that we will be leaving Iraq victorious the left wants everyone to forget how wrong they were. Senator Obama even tried to take credit for the impending withdrawal of US Troops during his nomination acceptance speech.
By , at
Mon Sep 01, 11:33:00 AM:
I heard that Senator Obama wanted to take credit for the sun coming up today while he was taking a walk out on the Gulf of Mexico inspecting Hurricane Gustav. :)
There are some notable people who should get credit for what now is starting to appear as success in Iraq. Unfortunately, some of them are dead; both Iraqi and Americans, such as the Sunni Sheik who started the Anbar Awakening. Murdered by al Qaeda.
We should tread lightly and speak softly of such a war and its costs. I was watching the last few episodes of Ken Burns' "The Civil War" yesterday, and reminded of how cruel and futile most wars can be. Even though slavery was banished and the Union restored, the victory of the Union was shorn of finl success by the failure of reconstruction in the following decade.
The campaign called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" still has many chapters to yet to be written. There are many out there, both within and without the U.S. that would still like this to be seen as a defeat
-David
By , at
Mon Sep 01, 03:21:00 PM:
Orphan? Well, if you were opposed you don't care to be reminded.
And if you supported you won't be given any credit in the media. They will either say nothing or change your remarks to hurt you in another way.
So no one will bring it up. During the campaign Obama will try to avoid the word Iraq. On the days, and there will be some, when we lose some troops the media will call it a total disaster.
If we shift troops to Afghanistan that will be proof we are losing there. If we don't it will show we don't understand the deteriorating situation.
Four days before election Obama will say we have known where Osama is for years and have protected him to keep an unnecessary war going.
Several words come to mind....
By Mrs. Davis, at
Mon Sep 01, 04:53:00 PM:
I'd give Bush just a leeetle credit. But he'll wait for the history books to get it confirmed.
By , at
Mon Sep 01, 10:07:00 PM:
Victory in Iraq would have been leaving 5 years ago (you know, when the sign said "Mission Accomplished") without having flushed our international reputation down the toilet. It might also have been finding the WMDs (or for that matter any credible threat to our nation) that we went in for. As it stands, all we can do is cut our losses and leave.
The death rate of Americans there appears to (finally) have fallen beneath 100/year based on a 66-day trend? Yiiipeee! The death rate from terrorism is a whole lot lower than that, so what kind of "success" are you talking about?
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Sep 01, 10:19:00 PM:
WMD's were an excuse, not a reason, to invade Iraq. The real purpose is and always was to begin a reshaping of the Middle East. As a country with a standing cassus belli with the United States and a pseudo-modern and relatively secular population that hated its rulers, Iraq was the natural candidate.
Historians will understand this better, I'm sure.
For all the bitching people have done about "neo-cons," virtually no-one understands the ideas behind their actions.
By , at
Tue Sep 02, 12:25:00 AM:
If we left Iraq five years ago when the sign said "Mission Accomplished" then Saddam would have just regained power and we would have had to do the same thing over again.
The possible ramifications of us getting out of Iraq pre-maturely were wholly unacceptable.
By , at
Tue Sep 02, 07:17:00 PM:
WMD's were an excuse, not a reason, to invade Iraq... As a country with a standing cassus belli with the United States...
And what cassus belli would that be? If we had one, than we wouldn't have needed an excuse. WMDs were definitely an excuse, and that excuse WAS the cassus belli.
The real purpose is and always was to begin a reshaping of the Middle East.
Well no doubt the real purpose was something other than what we were told, because what we were told has turned out to be false, yet we are still there. But let me ask you this: What makes you think that it's acceptable for the government (mostly the executive branch, actually) to lie to us in order to take us to war? If the case is so clear, then explain it to us. We regular citizens are plenty concerned about national security, because it's our ass on the line. The point is: lead us to war if you feel you must, but don't mislead us.
As for reshaping the Middle East, we're 5.5 years into Iraq and it is, if not deteriorating, chronically chaotic. Our military resources are overextended and our level of involvement is simply not tenable. I hope this is not really the beginning of a reshaping of the Middle East, because we are clearly not up to the task. We have bitten off far more than we can chew in Iraq alone.
By the way, Syria and Iran also have "pseudo-modern and relatively secular population[s] that [hate their] rulers," so I hope you're not suggesting we go there too.
If we left Iraq five years ago when the sign said "Mission Accomplished" then Saddam would have just regained power and we would have had to do the same thing over again.
Then the sign shouldn't have said that. Better yet, how about no sign. But as for the consequences of leaving prematurely, why don't you define "mature"?
First of all, Saddam would not have regained power with his armies crushed. He was repressing a large majority of very unhappy Shia (not to mention Kurds) who were quick to assert themselves militarily once the situation was destabilized. In any case, Saddam has been dead for years and we're still there, so if the goal was to ensure that Saddam didn't regain power, well..."Mission Accomplished." Now what? What do we have to accomplish to declare victory? No WMDs, no Saddam. Everyone keeps saying that we can leave when we accomplish the mission, and our mission is victory in Iraq. A bit circular, no?
If we're holding out for a stable democracy in Iraq: 1) you could never have signed on the American people if you had said "We're going to the Middle East to create a democracy that is friendly towards the West." That's why this lying thing is an issue. 2) Our continued presence is simply not helping. Much like Vietnam, one side of the conflict is glad to sit back and let us fight their enemy, while the enemy is perfectly glad to kill us. But in the end, the deaths of Americans will not resolve this internal conflict, so the real fighting for the fate of the country will not be done until after we leave. And like Vietnam, the locals have a hell of a lot more will to determine the fate of their country than we do. And that's why we will end up leaving without a "victory," no matter how face-savingly defined, to claim.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Sep 02, 08:32:00 PM:
"And what cassus belli would that be? If we had one, than we wouldn't have needed an excuse."
The Iraqis violated the ceasefire that ended the Gulf War in 1991. Repeatedly. Which is why the Air Force routinely blew up Iraqi SAM sites. So in that sense, we were already at war with Iraq. Then there was the attempt to assassinate President Bush. That's, you know, sort of a big deal.
The excuse was necessary because we were intending to violate the status quo.
"Well no doubt the real purpose was something other than what we were told, because what we were told has turned out to be false... The point is: lead us to war if you feel you must, but don't mislead us."
Every interested intelligence agency in the world believed that Iraq was developing WMDs. The French, the British, the Germans, the Israelis, the Iranians, everyone.
The idea that 'Bush lied' is absurd, revisionist rubbish. For that to be true as diverse a group of entities as MI6, the Mossad, and VEVAK would all have had to lie about the same thing during the same time period *in concert* with President Bush and the American intelligence establishment.
The question before the international community was never 'are the Iraqis developing WMD' because everyone knew that they were. The question was whether they would cooperate with UN inspectors or not and how urgent was that cooperation.
"Our military resources are overextended and our level of involvement is simply not tenable."
I've been hearing this since 2004. It's no more true now than it was then.
"We have bitten off far more than we can chew in Iraq alone."
Which is surely why the Mahdi Army (you know, the vast and powerful legion of resisters which the media was all excited about a few months ago) was just suspended indefinitely by its founder. And Anbar was handed over to the Iraqis. Oh, and the level of violence is at a 4 year low.
Because we obviously couldn't handle it.
"First of all, Saddam would not have regained power with his armies crushed."
Saddam fought off two separate, simultaneous revolts in 1991 with a handful of helicopters. It's pretty easy to put down popular revolts these days, since the invention of such weapon systems.
"Much like Vietnam..."
Vietnam comparisons were discredited several years ago.
By , at
Tue Sep 02, 08:40:00 PM:
"...we are clearly not up to the task. We have bitten off far more than we can chew in Iraq alone."
This comment shows a complete lack of perspective. If anyone expected Iraq to be Norway in 5 years than they are idiots.
I thought we would have more progress than we have now. But Al Qaeda got more support from the Sunni's than I thought they would and it was impossible to predict the bombing of the Golden Mosque, which is the primary reason Iraq is not much further advanced than it is now.
"If we're holding out for a stable democracy in Iraq: 1) you could never have signed on the American people if you had said "We're going to the Middle East to create a democracy that is friendly towards the West." That's why this lying thing is an issue."
Bull! In the run up to the war the prospect of creating a stable democracy in Iraq was a key reason given for the invasion and it was THE MAJOR REASON I WAS IN FAVOR OF THE WAR.
I realize that nation building is a difficult project and in the end the final results are more up to the Iraqi people and leadership than any actions that we take. I think there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of Iraq at this point
