No Iraq progress this year
(AP) "Iraqi legislators suspended parliamentary sessions yesterday until the end of the month to mark the Muslim religious season - the end of much-delayed efforts to pass U.S.-backed legislation aimed at achieving national reconciliation this year."
Also, (Reuters) "About 1,400 U.S. soldiers will launch a fresh assault next week against al Qaeda fighters who are regrouping in areas south of Baghdad...
(MichaelGordon) "A "migration of al-Qaeda" is creating a major new base for insurgent operations in the north of Iraq....
Also, (Reuters) "About 1,400 U.S. soldiers will launch a fresh assault next week against al Qaeda fighters who are regrouping in areas south of Baghdad...
(MichaelGordon) "A "migration of al-Qaeda" is creating a major new base for insurgent operations in the north of Iraq....
posted by mikevotes at
7:43 AM
9 Comments:
Is it safe to say that, politically speaking, the 'surge' has had zero effect in bringing the Iraqi government -- and therefore Iraq as a whole -- any closer toward official reconciliation and unity? In fact, hasn't the surge morphed into a permanency force and hasn't this done more to destabilize the government than unify it.
A reduction in violence notwithstanding, the 'surge' seems to have been only coincidentally part of any "progress" in Iraq. In fact I believe the improvements have been due to military leaders (Petraeus) acting as DIPLOMATS rather than generals, and that if we did engage in a honest diplomatic surge we'd be much better off today. But honesty has never been this administrations strong point...
By
-epm, at 9:00 AM
I think it's all about reducing casualty numbers, especially US casualties. That's always been the one thing that gets people's attention.
By
Anonymous, at 9:56 AM
It is inarguable that the surge has accomplished security measures only. If anything, it served to take some pressure off the Iraqi government, and now with an agreement on long term presence, they have no security imperative at all.
EPM, Definitely, the security improvements seem to be more coincidental and reinforced by the surge than led by it. Primarily it's the stepping back of the Sunnis and Sadr which had the greater impact.
....
Anon, That should not be underestimated. The"surge" was as much about turning US opinion as anything else. Think back to all the "we only lose if we leave" talk.
By
mikevotes, at 11:02 AM
It's still not clear to me what 'winning' looks like. And I think the Sunni cooperation will evaporate pretty fast if they don't like the Kirkuk deal.
By
Anonymous, at 12:44 PM
Yeah, and the Sunni support may not last that long. The Kirkuk thing was supposed to be decided by referendum by the end of this year, but it doesn't look likely for at least another year.
In the interim, the "concerned citizens" and deBaathification may well be the flareup point.
By
mikevotes, at 1:22 PM
The goals and purpose of the surge have dramatically changed since it was proposed back in January. As it was proposed, it's failed. Initially, it was supposed to be the Iraqi Army, supported by the U.S. troops, disarming, jailing, and generally quashing the militias. The Iraqi gov't was then to fill the vacuum and control all of the provinces by November.
That didn't work, so it became all about moving AQ from one province to another ("off balance").
That also proved to be more of a 'long-term' proposition, so it shifted to dividing the militias into "good" and "bad", which makes it easier to wipe out the "bad" guys.
All that the surge has accomplished is the certification and strengthening of the 'approved' militias. The Iraqi Army and National Police are in about the same position as they were before the surge; they still have large organised militias that oppose the government (and each other), they are still infiltrated, and they are still corrupt.
Now the surge is about lowering troop casualties. It seems that Petraeus is just pointing to whatever things improve and then claiming that's what the surge is about. The previous, (unattainable) goal is then forgotten.
Provinicial elections were supposed to have taken place by now, as well. Previously, things were bad but fluid. Now they are polarised and settling in as more permanent. It's a lateral move at best.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 2:45 PM
Definitely, although I would describe the status as static rather than permanent.
It's my feeling that the main parties involved in the political conflict are all waiting out the US troop increase, and come next spring/summer, we'll begin to see movement again.
Because there's no benefit in fighting the US forces either literally or politically when you know they will be weaker in 3-6 months.
(I think that's your point as well, but if not, I wanted to make that point.)
By
mikevotes, at 3:30 PM
Yes, static is a better term.
The big factor I see in the "pause" is the question of what will happen with Iran, not the troop levels. If Iran is attacked, we'll lose the Shia (and most of the government) and the Sunnis will see that it's now or never. The Iraqi Army itself might come apart. In that scenario it will be painfully obvious to the American public that we are in a civil war, and not some war against Al-Qaeda.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 10:17 PM
If Iran is attacked, anything could happen.
By
mikevotes, at 7:07 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home