 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
What impact does a successful surge in Iraq have on the Democratic presidential campaign?
I pose that question in this week’s Inside Washington because today is the first anniversary of the start of the surge.
Last night ABC News broadcast a report on the surge featuring its author, General David Petraeus. Petraeus is shown walking through the Jihad neighborhood in Baghdad, which used to be one of the most dangerous. He is wearing neither body armor nor a helmet. He says, “A big part of the effort over the last year has been to determine, who is reconcilable, who literally is willing to put down his rifle and talk, who is willing to shout instead of shoot.” His generals say violence in Baghdad is down 60 percent.
Equally important, the Iraqi parliament this week appeared to be getting its act together by passing legislation that has the potential to put Sunnis and Shiites on the road to reconciliation. So my question to the Inside Washington panel was, “Doesn’t this apparent progress kick the legs out from under Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when they talk about bringing the troops home?”
Columnist Charles Krauthammer replies that this is a question that should be addressed to Obama and Clinton during the next Democratic debate.
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas says it doesn’t matter what the Democrats say during the campaign, the reality is that events on the ground in Iraq will determine what course the next President will take with regards to Iraq.
Al Qaeda proved to be so indiscriminate and atrocious in its violence against Iraqis, so backward in its petty caricature of Islam, that the Iraqi Sunni insurgents severed their extraordinarily destructive alliance with AQ in Iraq. (One must know that Iraqis used to be among the most secular Moslems.) So, after the Sunni reversal, you have: 1. Americans who face a broken-up-from-within insurgency; i.e., less casualties. 2. Sunnis who are much better at figuring the situation on their native soil than Americans, guiding the American military to identify both who is an Iraqi Sunni and who is a foreign Sunni mercenary, and where to strike AQI. Not only are Americans enjoying a respite, it now has much better acuity at striking AQI, its most dangerous ennemy on the ground. 3. Dramatically less indiscriminate raids on Sunni and especially on Shia neighborhoods. Again, this translated into a quieter Iraq.
Then you coud add the temporary cease-fire of that Shia cleric's informal army, and you have two reasons that eclipse the impact of the surge to a tiny speck on the board. Yet, right-wing commentators stole the whole credit for themselves, from Bush, to McCain, down to pundits, and right-wing hate radio. Even more startling, the rest of the country is listening to that fraud and lets it go by unchallenged! Where is the well-informed and astute Mark Shields who lets CK gloat unimpeded with that lie? We are known internationally to be be ignorant of foreign matters, but at least some of us have been following Iraq for a few years. Would you please call for a clarification of that unchallenged spin at Inside Washington?
Let me just add this. Americans began to badly manage their new insurgents-turned-allies Sunnis in 2007. The U.S. military made broken promises to them and has killed many of them by "accident" (I'm sure part of it is our own guys who are confused on who is who). They are also aware that Americans are misappropriating the credit for the improved security. Some began to grumble that they will turn against the Americans again. A very informative and insightful article from the Washington Post provides plenty of such details: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703842.html?wpisrc=newsletter
(note the names of the reporters: they probably have better access to Iraqis than we do)
The very recent deterioration of the carnage is no surprise. McCain will be seen either as dishonest for pushing this surge spin, or as ignorant of the situation on the ground.
June
There are currently no websites.
