Going onto the offensive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6252567.stm

At last, the US is moving onto the front foot, and preparing to confront head-on it enemies in the Middle East.

"In a major policy speech, President George W Bush said the US would take a tough stance towards Iran and Syria, whom he accused of destabilising Iraq."

"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that the US will take action against countries destabilising Iraq. Her statement comes hours after US forces stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil - prompting condemnation from Tehran. "

Because the Iranians would never storm somebodies Embassy and take the occupants prisoner- Doh!

This is all fantastic news for the great swathes of Christendom who have been watching on in great dismay as the drama of Iraq has dribbled on with very few defining moments. The capture of Saddam, the storming of Fallujah, the surrounding of the worst Shia neighborhoods in Baghdad by cordons of US troops (albiet for a few hours because it worked so well the Maliki government intervened to stop it) and the capture of the Iranian Secret Servicemen in Abdul Aziz al-Hakims house are all defining moments in this conflict- but the events yesterday and today are by far the most significant.

Coming as they do immediately after the hackneyed and insubstantial 'findings' of the Iraq study group, the statements of President Bush and Secretary of State Rice combined with the shipping- out orders given to US forces by President Bush together form the clearest statement of intent about the conduct of this conflict since May 2003. This clarity is causing seismic shock waves throughout the world even as we speak, as they contradict the virtually universal 'chattering classes' analysis of the Iraq situation. After the narrow defeats for the Republicans in the very recent mid-term elections, which gave the Democrats control of both houses of Congress, it was expected by the Chatterati that President Bush would go and hide under his bed until the Democrats swept into the White House; That he would gradually draw down troop numbers in Iraq, start conversations with America's enemies Iran and Syria from a position of grave weakness, and go cap in hand to the EU and the UN for help in saving at least something out of the Iraq debacle.

But the man in charge in Iraq now, Lieutenant-General David Petraeus, is a student of history. He wants to remodel the US intervention in Iraq on the British counter-insurgencies in Malaya and Ulster, both in the end highly successful. He can deliver success to President Bush by the application of tried and tested methods. Whether he can do that in two years is highly uncertain, but the Democrats, despite all bleatings to the contrary, are highly unlikely to disengage in Iraq especially if the next eighteen months show a sharp turn-around in fortunes for the Iraqi government. The drama of the next eighteen months will be played out before an audience of billions- so the 22,000 Americans sent into theatre seem like a slender thread to hang the fate of US fortunes on.

I personally would be happier if the troop numbers were more like the 35,000 mooted by Frederick Kagan, who brought to President Bush's attention L-G Petraeus and the Malay/Ulster model. We saw after the assault on Fallujah what happens if you don't apply pressure on all parts of the insurgency/militia gangs at the same time- the cream of the insurgency just pack up and move to another town. There is absolutely no question that any insurgency can be beaten- but the key is the average Joe and his missus. They must be certain that they have more to fear from the insurgents than from the Government forces, and must be confident that should they need direct firepower protection they will get it. The writ of the government forces must hold everywhere and at all times. Its a tough task, but the prize of committing to it is almost guarunteed success.

For as long as US forces kept almost completely remote and separated from the ordinary folk of Ba'qubah and Najaf and Fallujah, they really had no prospect of protecting average Joe. They had very little chance of uncovering terror cells, and were really simply protecting themselves and nothing more. In Mosul, where a very different set of tactics was used, with many joint foot patrols of US and Iraqi forces, the insurgency was virtually eliminated. But those tactics have to be in force everywhere if you hope to keep places like Mosul permanently clear of insurgents. We now have the real prospect of that happening.

Whether direct warfare with Iran can be avoided is definitely not certain. Given how much investment Iran has in destabilising Iraq, if the Iranians lose all capability for causing grief in the latter by covert means, they may well try more overt methods. After all, the shaky Tehran government has very few fig leaves at its disposal- presenting the US as a toothless tiger in Iraq has been pretty much their only one in recent times, along with their grand Nuclear program.

As for Syria- a much easier nut to crack. It would be a couple of days work for the US to reduce all of Bashar Al-Assads residences and workplaces to smouldering rubble, and that would be that. Syria is not in itself a major problem to the security of the middle east; only its role as cheerleader for Iran and conduit to Hezbollah make it annoying and problematical. Given that Syria is a quite modern, well-organised state, if its government could be replaced with something like representative democracy, it could quite rapidly emerge as a useful ally and friend to Iraq. It has no history of tolerance of rabid Islamism, and is in many respects a secular state.