• 
  GoodNews/Bad News. The good news is that we have entered the “End Game” of our military involvement in Iraq. The bad news is that the man making the closing moves on the chessboard is Moqtada al-Sadr, likely future leader of Iraq, and the face of “Victory in Iraq” as defined by United States policy. To be clear, this is a prediction and not a preference. I dearly hope to be wrong about this. Few in the U.S. would be happy about a Moqtada al-Sadr led Iraq. Nevertheless, it may be the best least bad outcome that we can expect and, believe it or not, is completely consistent with the administration’s continually evolving definition of “Victory.” Make no mistake, al-Sadr is a consummate politician. Like Republicans railing against “defeatocrat” Democrats, like Democrats railing against “war-mongering” Republicans, al-Sadr will rail against the “The Great Satan” America to play to his base of support. And like Republicans and Democrats, he will work with his opponents to achieve his personal ambitions for power. I’ll return to why I think an al-Sadr “End State” is a likely outcome later, but first we need to talk about some words. Specifically the words “victory” and “defeat”, “win” and “lose”, “success” and “failure” in the context of our military involvement in Iraq. […]

  Long post continues and continues and continues at “Divided We Stand, United We Fall”

  Comments Off

• As expected, Bush today vetoed a timetable-laden war-funding measure — four years to the day after his infamous “Mission Accomplished” photo-op on board an aircraft carrier, where he declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

  Here’s his statement, and here’s the response from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

  Bush laid it on thick. While correctly criticizing the hard October 1 deadline, he then moved briskly on to scaremongering.

  It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength — and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure — and that would be irresponsible.

  First, we could only wish that the insurgents would stop the attacks and sit back for six months “gathering strength.” That would give us the time we need to establish actual security and rebuild infrastructure.

  Second, he conflates Sunni insurgents with “terrorists”, as if Al-Qaeda — which represents a tiny and resented fragment of that insurgency — actually stands a chance of taking over Iraq. Not even the Sunnis stand much chance of doing that. So I guess by “terrorists taking over Iraq” he means “Shiite militias backed by the Iraqi government.”

  He then gripes about the restrictions on U.S. troop deployment following the withdrawal:

  After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.

  Again, this is patent nonsense. All the bill does is something that is well within Congress’ purview: define the scope of the mission it is choosing to fund. You can disagree with that definition, but painting it as micromanaging makes little sense. Congress is simply defining the mission, not dictating how to accomplish that mission.

  Lastly, he (rightly) criticizes the pork larding the bill, for which Democrats should be ashamed.

  He then goes on to explain why the surge deserves time to show it can work, something I again agree with him on. But in so doing he uses carefully parsed language to imply that Al-Qaeda is a major part of the threat in Iraq instead of a minor part. For instance, he said: “It’s true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do.” This implies that most — but not all — of the insurgents are terrorists, which simply isn’t true.

  Other than that, he gave no indication of where he might be willing to compromise with Congress on a bill. Not that I really expected him to — that will wait for the closed-door negotiations. But I would like some indication that he has abandoned the “my way or the highway” approach to negotiations that has been his hallmark for most of his presidency.

  On the other side of the argument, Reid said nothing of import. I’m growing less and less impressed by him. He alternates between saying and doing very little and saying and doing stupid things, not to mention the ethical and legal questions surrounding some of his business dealings back home.

  Pelosi, however, was forceful and clear.

  The president vetoed the bill outright, and, frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does. This bill supports the troops. In fact, it gives the president more than he asked for for our troops — and well they deserve it.

  They have done their duties excellently. They have done everything that has been asked of them. All of this without, in some cases, the training, the equipment, and a plan for success for them.

  The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him.

  Score one for the Speaker.

  Democrats, too, gave no indication of where they might compromise. Look for intense private discussions accompanied by vituperative public statements, and then a funding deal in the next week or so. Most observers agree that getting a bill passed by mid-May is the only way to prevent a major cramp in military operations. Neither side wants that to happen, and they especially don’t want to be seen as the party responsible for that happening. For now I stand by my prediction that Congress will pass a “clean” but very short-term bill — perhaps with minor and largely symbolic strings, like the waivable readiness requirement — then revisit the matter in the fall as the results of the surge become clear.

  Comments Off

• And killed by Sunni tribesmen to boot.

  My question is, if we get out of Iraq, will the Iraqis take care of the al Qaeda threat themselves? This seems to point in that direction. They know the language and they can fight with the kinds of tactics we can’t. After all, it is there country.

  Here’s more from the AP…

  Comments Off

• The NY Times is reporting that tribal and militia leaders have joined forces with the US military in rooting out Al Qaeda in Iraq. Why? Because as much as they may dislike us Al Qaeda has proven itself far worse. I am wondering if they aren’t looking ahead to a time when the US isn’t there and Al Qaeda finds itself with too much free time and ammo on its hands. How long till they start punishing/terrorizing the citizens and leaders wantonly for violations of Shariah law? An insurgency can only be effective if it has the support of people in the area in which it operates. Al Qaeda has apparently lost that in Anbar.

  Uneasy Alliance Is Taming One Insurgent Bastion

  RAMADI, Iraq — Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

  “Many people are challenging the insurgents,” said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, “We know we haven’t eliminated the threat 100 percent.”

  Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders’ encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.

  At the same time, American and Iraqi forces have been conducting sweeps of insurgent strongholds, particularly in and around Ramadi, leaving behind a network of police stations and military garrisons, a strategy that is also being used in Baghdad, Iraq’s capital, as part of its new security plan.”

  more at Dyre Portents

  Comments Off

RSS Feed