There’s been a noticeable decrease in the anti-war rhetoric coming out of Washington lately, no doubt because there has been a noticeable lack of bad news coming out of Iraq. Each day, more critics of President Bush’s Iraq policy are being forced to recognize that things on the ground do in fact seem to be getting better.
Even Reuters, which can almost always be counted on to give us nothing but the bad and the ugly, has now reported the good: that Iraq seems to be experiencing some positive trends and that the violence is showing signs of being under control. In a story this past week, Reuters correspondent Aseel Kami wrote that levels of violence in Iraq have decreased significantly since the last of President Bush’s surge troops arrived in late June, citing statistics provided by the Iraqi Interior Ministry that show a drop of 70 percent for violent incidents.
So what’s going on? It would appear that the President’s strategy is working. With levels of violence decreasing, and with Sunnis in al-Anbar and elsewhere turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq elements, a level of security conducive to political compromise is being provided in Baghdad and other key areas. According to the report, the number of car bombings in Baghdad is down 67 percent, the number of roadside bombings is down 40 percent, and the number of bodies found on the streets of Baghdad is down 28 percent. In al-Anbar Province, which was once written off as a lost cause by a U.S. Marine Colonel serving there, Reuters reports that violent deaths are down by more than 80 percent.
Now, it’s important to note that violence increased elsewhere as insurgents and al-Qaeda elements abandoned the sites targeted by the surge, with Reuters noting that Nineveh Province has experienced a 129 percent increase in car bombings and a 114 percent increase in violent deaths. But the difference between now and last year is that the new tactics developed and implemented by General Petraeus call for maintaining troop levels in areas cleared of insurgents and terrorists. American forces are on the offensive and pressure is being maintained on the individuals and groups perpetrating the violence. Simply put, insurgents and terrorists are running out of places to hide because General Petraeus is taking away the game of “chase the bad guy” that American troops played for far too long.
It is true that American forces cannot sustain surge troop levels indefinitely, and that over the near term the number of brigades in Iraq will have to be reduced. But the surge strategy is succeeding in buying time, not only for Iraqi political leaders to work out a compromise, but for Iraqi security forces to continue to train, draw equipment, increase proficiency, gain experience, and weed out infiltrators within their ranks who are more interested in tribal and sectarian loyalties than in a prosperous and stable Iraq.
This is a slow, often painful process. Insurgencies are messy affairs and there are no quick solutions. What we are doing now is working militarily, with American casualties for October at the lowest level in nearly two years. That’s quite a drop from what we’ve experienced before, and a casualty rate of less than one per day in the middle of a violent war is historically low for American conflicts. Of course, each death is a tragedy. But the dead have not died in vain. Their efforts are reaping tangible benefits and the people of Iraq are more secure now than they have been in the past three years.
In order to sustain the gains we have made in the past four months, though, one of two things has to happen. Either Iraqi politicians need to put sectarian differences and personal power aspirations aside and work out a substantive compromise that will allow for national reconciliation, or Iraqi Army and police forces need to achieve a level of proficiency that will allow them to take over security operations from American troops.
So far there has been little to no progress on the political front, but the more stable security environment is still in its infancy. Opposing factions will be understandably cautious and it will likely take some time to get everyone to the bargaining table. We can provide that time for a little while longer, but we cannot do it indefinitely. At some point Iraqi security forces will have to take responsibility for their country, even in the absence of political accommodation.
There has been much criticism of the ability of Iraqi forces to take over security operations, and truthfully, their performance record has been mixed. But they are becoming more proficient each day, weeding out the bad actors and standing up for their country. But it takes time, and it is important to note that the training effort did not begin once the invasion of Iraq was complete. The training effort as it exists today is barely over two years old. The enormity of the task should not be underestimated, either. Training military forces to fight an insurgency is complex under the best of conditions, let alone in the middle of a vicious fight.
It is clear that progress is being made on the security front, and the training of Iraqi security forces continues in earnest while we push hard for the political reconciliation that will ultimately be necessary for a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. This war is not yet lost, and we owe it to the Iraqi people to provide them with as much time as we can, so that they are in the best position possible to save their nation.


Comments: 25
As for your numbers, allow me to put them in context. Of the 160,000 American soldiers in Iraq, less than half are combat troops. The rest are support elements, that while not immune to the dangers inherent in a war zone, suffer fewer casualties than the combat forces. Same goes for contractors. Not all 120,000 are security types like Blackwater. The majority provide food, laundry, shelter, etc. type services at both American and Iraqi bases. They exist in a support function and rarely even come into contact with the Iraqi citizenry. As for the UK, you're comparing apples and oranges. No other country has the capability or force structure we have, and therefore no other country can match our contributions in terms of forces. Some nations can only provide medical personnel or other support troops (Japan, for instance). But there are more than twenty nations with soldiers in Iraq, some in combat and some not, depending on capability.
Finally, your numbers for Iraqi dead are at the extreme high end of virtually every analysis out there. The vast majority are much lower, and even the UN estimates are nowhere close to more than half a million.
The positive news should be broadcast as well. I am glad that the surge is working.
I also agree that both the Congress and the President have been immune to public opinion. What's important to remember is that the public is fickle. All they see is a steady stream of casualties, not understanding that the casualty rate in Iraq is the lowest by far of any war we have ever fought. Daily rates for Iraq are less than 2 casualties. Other wars: WWI-199, WWII-301, Korea-32, Vietnam-20. As I said, each is a tragedy, but advancements in medicine and body armor have cut the rate significantly. What the Congress understands, but won't say publicly, is that we cannot pull out of Iraq until the situation is somewhat stable because the whole region could explode, and Iraq most certainly will witness a genocide of epic proportions. Senators Clinton and Obama know this and accordingly will not commit to withdrawing even by 2013!! These guys are smart and, primary election rhetoric aside, understand the realities of our situation.
Curious, if the study you go by says 420k, why did your comment inflate those numbers to 600k-1 million? Just curious.
"There are hundreds of thousands of people who travel US roads to work and back home. Guess who made the news? guess what would happen to News if one car blows up?"
The US is not in the middle of a war on its roads. Huge difference. Comparing Iraq to the US is ridiculous. To further take the argument to criminal acts also misses the point that Iraq is a war zone. Terrorism makes the news because it is sensational.
The good news in successfully driving a truck in Iraq lies in the absence of significantly higher incidents and casualties given the number of convoy movements in the middle of an active war zone.
I have read the counterinsurgency FM. One must also understand, though, that Army field manuals are guides, not regulations, meaning that the ratios prescribed are desirable, but may or may not be required and / or feasible in a given situation. No two insurgencies are alike, and when figuring total force ratio, one must account for trained and capable Iraqi troops and coalition troops in addition to U.S. troop levels. Given total forces available, the ratio of forces to population gets better, but whether or not it meets the counterinsurgency guidelines is not as important as whether the levels meet the requirements on the ground. It is General Petraeus' job to determine appropriate force levels for Iraq and then relay that information up his chain of command, which I am sure he is doing.
And yes, insurgencies take a long time, with the historical average being around the ten year mark. Most of the U.S. military has been saying for quite some time that we would be in Iraq for at least ten years, and I distinctly remember the President saying it. No surprises there.
If you want to say we invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein and that we found ourselves involved in a counterinsurgency, which we did not expect nor were fully prepared to meet, and, therefore, find ourselves mired in a protracted struggle to get to a point whereupon we might find it reasonable to extricate ourselves, then you would be closer to reality.
It's time for you to grow up, quit pretending like you're in a good vs. evil struggle to save the planet and stop carrying water for this corrupt, morally bankrupt admisnistration that misled the country into this "war" and completely mismanaged it once we got there.
The "elected" government in Iraq is doing nothing more than protecting Shia interests in the country (in concert with Iran), while the Saudis turn a blind eye to their "foreign insurgents" streaming into Iraq to fight for the Sunni cause. And, of course, never mind Pakistan and Turkey.
How do you say it in military terms? This is a classic FUBAR.
Grow up, indeed.
As for the Iraqi government, the Shia factions are protecting Shia interests, the Sunni factions are protecting Sunni interests, and the Kurd factions are protecting Kurdish interests. Hence the gridlock and dysfunctionality. What about the Iranian fighters and the Syrian fighters, since you mentioned the saudis?
Maybe you and Tony should get together for a good old-fashioned flag-burning.
The fact that I believe George Bush and his cronies are a bunch of lying, despicable, sons-of-bitches with gallons upon gallons of blood on their hands (for which they will thankfully one day pay) has absolutely nothing to do with my feelings toward the USA.
As a matter of fact, it's precisely because of my respect for the principles upon which this country was founded that I am so angry at these scumbags that have done everything possible to destroy them.
I mean, all they have to do is cut off the money. But they're too afraid of losing political power to actually stand on the principles they claim to hold dear. And these are the same folks who claim they were lied to, yet had access to the same intelligence as the President. Some chose not to read it, some did and have now changed their tunes. Some have said all along that the intelligence was flimsy. What did they know that no one else did.
Look, the point of all that is that there is plenty of blame to go around. Yet you insist on pointing the finger only at Bush and Republicans. No one man or party has that much power, despite what you may believe.
For whatever reason, after 9/11, the Bush administration looked at the chessboard that is the Middle East, and decided it would all be played out with Iraq as the central piece. After that, they were hell bent on getting us to a point where they could execute on their strategy, and they did.
Despite what you may believe, history will hang this one on George W. Bush.
But I'll leave you with this....if we were going to try to clean up the middle east or go after the next target in the war on terror, Iraq would not have been my destination of choice.