Iraq Strategy

USAtoday, as usual is completely clueless.

There is little doubting the sincerity of President Bush's commitment to the mission in Iraq. On Wednesday, amid sinking public approval less than two weeks before congressional elections, Bush set out yet another course for a victory he optimistically predicted was achievable.

The president's conviction is obvious. But whether it's supported by facts — and whether there's a real path to victory as he defines it — is dubious.

I'm baffled by the complaint on a change of course when the normal voice of this crowd has been that "stay-the-course" is the wrong action. In fact, anyone with a clue about wars would realize that tactical changes have been the norm for the whole time that the US military has been in Iraq. Bush's conviction is appropriate and is far more attached with the reality that must be met for a stability in the middle-east.

There continues to be a yawning gap between his rhetoric and reality (Read the Opposing view):

• "Absolutely we're winning," Bush said. But only 19% of Americans in last weekend's USA TODAY/Gallup Poll agree. And just 14% of Iraqis surveyed recently say the U.S. impact on their country is mostly positive.
• The United States has "no intention of ... standing in the crossfire between rival factions," the president said. But that's exactly where American troops in Baghdad now find themselves.
• Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is "the right man," he said, though shortly before Bush's news conference the Iraqi leader denounced a U.S. raid on one of the many militias drawing Iraq deeper into civil war.

For all of Bush's claims to consistency in his policy, the definition of "victory" has also shifted. At first, he thought invasion alone would light the fires of democracy. Then it became a longer-term fight to suppress terrorists and spread freedom in the Arab Middle East. Now, political rhetoric aside, it is simply to get out while leaving a functioning, U.S.-allied government behind.

I love when the MSM postures a poll as proof that a military action is failing. What relevance exists in an opinion of a small group of the population who haven't a clue as to what is actually happening on the ground is what really needs to be answered.

Bush was incorrect to state that US forces wouldn't be emplaced to stop the sectarian violence in Baghdad. Stabilization of Baghdad is required for Iraq stabilize.

Maliki, being the consensus candidate for the Iraq government, is the one that must make the decisions regarding the actions with regards to the militias. He is in a very difficult position with the various militias and the groups that they support. Al-Sadr's militia is a huge problem, and Maliki isn't helping himself by allowing them to run free, primarily due to the fact that Maliki receives a great deal of support from al-Sadr. Stabilization will require that they be disbanded or brought under control of the government. Independent military units will continue to destabilize Baghdad.

As usual, these talking ass' find fault but can't provide any useful alternatives.

Whatever happens next, the Iraq mess won't be resolved by new slogans, speeches, news conferences or Power Point presentations. After 3 years, nearly the same length as U.S. involvement in World War II, the only meaningful progress in Iraq is clear and convincing success on the ground.

How the time in WWII is relevant is beyond me, since there clearly was no large scale insurgency or sectarian conflicts in Germany or Japan. But hey, if you're going to pick an inappropriate comparison, pick the worst. How about comparing this with the Malayan insurgency? Of course, making the statement that this is merely new slogans and speeches ignores that there have been changes in tactics in the field and is in itself a completely vapid conclusion.

Tony Snow replies here with some relevant information.

We have pursued that aim according to the challenges on the ground and have adjusted to shifting realities — from the early resistance by Saddam Hussein's armies, to early battles in such places as Fallujah totoday's Iraq, where 14 of 18 provinces live in relative peace. Gen. George Casey noted earlier this week that 90% of the violence in Iraq now occurs within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad. Coalition forces have been assisting Iraqi army and police in taking on the perpetrators of that violence, and they have adopted the tactic of trying to clear, hold and rebuild neighborhoods wracked by terror.

The combined Iraqi-U.S. forces will win that fight, as they have every other engagement of the war. But peace in Iraq will require more than superiority of arms. Iraqis need some other basics for good and free lives — a political system that will guarantee rights and representation for all, and an economy that can provide jobs.

President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki have been working on those objectives since the prime minister's accession to power. In the past month, al-Maliki has pursued national reconciliation. The Iraqi parliament is streamlining the legislative process, refining the constitution, considering key issues of federalism, and passing a "hydrocarbons law" that would provide for the general distribution of oil and natural gas revenues.

But you can be assured that this is just a new slogan or speech and not a reality. I suppose it would be more appropriate if he had some poll to quote.

Mort Kondrache points out that there is a lot to lose in failure. One thing that the anti-war crowd seems to never recall with respect to the failure in Vietnam.

But a precipitous U.S. withdrawal and defeat in Iraq will produce results far worse than in Vietnam, and that was bad enough. More than 2 million people were killed in Vietnam and Cambodia after 1975. Believing the U.S. to be weak, the Soviet Union was emboldened to invade Afghanistan, and Islamic radicals took over Iran.

Henry Kissinger, too, has seen this movie before, as secretary of State under former Presidents Richard Nixon and Ford. Last year, he wrote in The Washington Post that "because of the long reach of the Islamist challenge, the outcome in Iraq will have an even deeper significance than that in Vietnam.

"If a Taliban-type government or a fundamentalist radical state were to emerge in Iraq, shockwaves would ripple through the Islamic world. Radical forces in Islamic countries ... would be emboldened in their attacks on existing governments. The safety and internal stability of all societies within reach of militant Islam would be imperiled."

If the U.S. fails in Iraq, Bush and Rumsfeld will be to blame, just as President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara were, for grossly misjudging the difficulty of the task and the strength of U.S. will, as well as for mishandling the war, the diplomacy and the domestic politics.

But all of us -- including Democrats in Congress -- will pay the consequences. It behooves them, if they win in November, not to repeat history.

The blame has already been laid. The reality of the loss is being ignored. If sectarian violence plunges into full fledged civil war the effects on the people of Iraq will be extreme. Think the prices of fuel are bad now, wait until the terrorist start moving into the rest of the middle-east and attempting to drive out the western interests. And seeing how effective the move to alternate energy sources have been in the past few decades, I'm convinced that the world economy will be greatly damaged.