'Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html
You might want to run that through your mind a little, perhaps toy a smidge with logic. The Clyburn mentioned is US House Majority Whip James Clyburn. He is not wrong by the way. I predicted some months back, in fact maybe even years, that if the US defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Mehdi army and the remaining Sunni 'nationalists', the world would look very different. Its most stark change would be US electorates perception of the posturing, cowardice and unseriousness of the US democrats, especially the ones at the top. I have a feeling that Gen Petraeus's arrival, plan and decent execution of plans has put paid to the Dems winning the Presidency in 2008. Its not a dead cert, and there's a lot more that could happen, especially if the Republicans can't find a decent candidate who appeals to the base, but I'd say the bookies would see them as firm faves at this time. Hillary Clinton has been very wise in keeping well away from the 'Lets Lose This One' side of the Dem party, so it should not be nearly as much of a problem for her as the other contenders, but I believe the whole Democrat party will be seen as having lined up with America's critics, detractors and even enemies. For many people the name on the ballot will not be as important as the party symbol.
Its all their own fault. Because of the Bill Clintons trouser problems, and what many Dems perceived as the completely demented attacks on him, the last seven years have only been about paybacks. The big picture go hang- they wanted to destroy and humiliate President Bush as a matter of desperate urgency. No matter what he did or didn't do, they wanted an impeachment so Bill's.... improprieties would pale into insignificance in comparison. You can't escape these petty emotions in politics, any more than you can in day to day life. But you hope that when genuinely grand-scale issues come to hand, teeth will be gritted and the petty emotions put aside and business transacted. The Democrats have spectacularly failed to do this, have failed on vast numbers of occasions to rise above the trivia and do the serious work of governing. Some, like Nancy Pelosi, have even tried to usurp the Presidents prerogatives even BEFORE he is impeached.
And there's nothing like being right. If they had been right all along, and Iraq was another Vietnam, and the US was really losing, and the people fighting the coalition were principled patriots like the US revolutionaries, and Iran and Syria were sweet and kind neighbors who just want to be friends if we'd just stop being so nasty to them- the American people would quickly have aligned themselves with the Dems after the inevitable pullout from Iraq. When the country loses people want to associate themselves with the party who said 'We're gonna lose!' just to prove they personally aren't an idiot. But they weren't right. Most Americans didn't know enough about what was going on so far away to make a judgement- mainly because the big press orgs wouldn't tell them. So they kept their powder dry.
But soon the great pressure pad which is the surge will force the bad guys into the open, and then they will be mincemeat. All the good ideas Gen Petraeus brought with him, some novel and many learned from successful counter-insurgencies elsewhere, have actually been put into action. The soldiers are much perkier these days- read Michael Totten and other imbeds if you doubt my word. That often happens when the grunts feel that someone up there actually understands the real dynamics of the situation and puts in place tactics that are appropriate and effective. When will the 'war' as it is innacurately called end? Who knows? How safe does safe have to be before you can say there's no more insurgency? The Kurdish areas have been mostly safe except for the odd Al-Qaeda spectacular for years. The south is largely peaceful (although disarming both the Mehdi army and the Sadr brigades is still largely un-accomplished). Much of Baghdad is now patrolled on foot by US soldiers- unthinkable six months ago when careening through in an up-armored hummer was considered brave. I think a time-scale of three to six months will see an end to everything except a few lucky Al-Qaeda who have kept off the radar my some miracle. Most will have been scooped up as locals discover what a bunch of pitiless screwballs they are and turn them in, as is currently happening at an ever-increasing rate.
I am not being triumphalist- this has been no triumph. It has been an ugly, inept, jarring and in human terms extremely tragic episode in Iraqs history. No-one except perhaps the British Army come out of it with reputation intact or even enhanced. They profferd the 'Petraeus solution' five minutes after the insurgency started. The US chiefs of staff paid no attention whatsoever. As soon as the insurgency started, the rebuilding efforts should have been shelved until order was restored- quickly and brutally. Counter-insurgency is not 'nice' war. It is often more bitter than 'real' war. So it should be completed as soon as is humanly possible. This insurgency was allowed to fester away for four whole years and cost perhaps 150,000 lives. I do hope the US will not allow the skills learned over those four years to wither and disappear- they need to be institutionalised and built into the fabric of the US military from the ground up.
In todays world, the likelihood is that most encounters the US military will have will be more like Iraq and less like Korea or World War II. Obviously then, having the requisite skills, and the right kind of personnel, is essential. Sending the 3rd Infantry division into Baghdad was probably one of the stupidest things done by the US military during the whole Iraq intervention- it turned most of the populace against the US, even people who had formerly been positive or neutral. Making sure you have units capable in every way of taking on a hidden, urban enemy is essential in 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment