Political Review - realoutlook.com

General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker presented concise summaries along with two days of testimony to House and Senate Committees on the current situation in Iraq and the consequences of the surge. Though their reports and testimony were anything but rosy, some Liberal Democrats maintained their posture that these were embellished to suit the posture of the Bush Administration. In fact, they were somber assessments of the challenges we face in helping Iraq realize a stable secular government and achieving security for the region.

Though it now seems long ago the hope of a democratic future evidenced by voters in 2005 proudly raising purple thumbs at the risk of death should not be forgotten . In the intervening period they have endured sectarian struggles by diverse groups of militias and foreign insurgents that would dash hopes of attaining the security necessary to rebuild infrastructure and the institutions of a civil society. The increase in violence led to the “Surge” strategy. As General Petraeus summarized

“In December 2006, during the height of the ethno-sectarian violence … the leaders in Iraq at the time… concluded that the coalition was failing to achieve its objectives. Their review underscored the need to protect the population and reduce sectarian violence… As a result, General Casey requested additional forces to enable the Coalition to accomplish these tasks…”

Coalition forces met a serge by insurgents, including al-Qaeda, with a serge of their own. The effort has achieved substantial reductions in violence form the peak levels of December and January. From the Petraeus summary,

“… the level of security incidents has decreased significantly since the start of the surge of offensive operations in mid-June, declining in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the level of incidents in the past two weeks the lowest since June 2006 and with the number of attacks this past week the lowest since April 2006.”

The increased force has allowed coalition forces to deny Al Qaeda and affiliates strongholds used to store weapons and launch attacks. The increased troop strength enabled coalition forces to maintain a presence in the cleared areas to prevent reprisals by the insurgents on cooperative locals. Most encouraging was the rejection of Al Qaeda by local Sunni tribes who were former adversaries of the Coalition. These Sunnis are re-engaging in the political process. Similarly, Shia in the south are rejecting the violence perpetrated by Shia insurgents.

The reaction from some Congressmen seemed a subtext of the inflammatory full page ad that MoveOn.org ran in the New York Times Monday calling General Petraeus “General Betray Us.” In her opening statement at Tuesday’s Senate hearing Senator Hilary Clinton stated “… reports you supply to us require the willing suspension of disbelief…” a phrase usually used to describe magic of special effects. The Senator, who is constantly on the airwaves as a Presidential candidate criticizing Bush policy, would continue in the same vain for over 7 minutes before formulating a question, leaving little time for a response from the General or Ambassador who were dragged here from Iraq for the event.

Senators Russ Feingold and Barack Obama similarly seemed to attribute greater value to their statements than any answers the branded illusionist General and Ambassador might reply with. Obama thought it important to brand the scheduling of the hearings as further deceit stating that we should “… not have had this discussion on 9/11 [ Tuesday was September 11]” as it added credibility to the notion that the invasion of Iraq was a response to the attacks on that date in 2001. Clinton, on the other hand, would use the scheduling for a dramatic campaign moment explaining “I spent my morning at ground zero… solemnly in the rain.” Feingold would call Iraq “the greatest mistake in the fight against Al Qaeda” in spite of the fact we are killing Al Qaeda in Iraq and that local Sunni have joined the fight.

These and other detractors of the struggle in Iraq want to disassociate the war in Iraq with the war on terror and attacks on 9/11. All who voted for it want it known that had it not been for the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction they would not have supported the war. In their lengthly statements they seem to be framing their candidacy for their next campaign even if they have to rewrite history or promote the “suspension of disbelief.”

In October of 2002, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Iraq War Resolution. Some 79% of the American population supported the war by May of 2003. This is set against the backdrop of Saddham’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Iraqi forces also launched missile attacks against Saudi Arabia and Israel. Repelled by a coalition led by U.S. forces in Operation Desert Storm retreating Iraqi forces set nearly 800 Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze consuming some 6 million barrels of oil daily. The scale of he inferno and the mining of the fields by the invaders would hinder efforts to extinguish the blazed which would continue for 8 months. In the previous decade Saddam would use chemical weapons against Iranian forces and use them against dissenting Kurds and Shias inside Iraq in subsequent years.

Recapturing the U.S. position on Iraq is well served by these excerpts from President Clinton’s December 1998 address President Clinton Explains Iraq Strike:

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors….”

“Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq’s capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.”

“The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.”

The fact is the U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq predates 9/11 and is not the mistaken reaction many liberals in Congress would like to portray it as. However, the reasons for continuing have become tied to terrorism as radical Islamic groups set on creating a world wide caliphate based on sharia law, be they Sunni based Al Qaeda or Iranian backed Shia Hammas are the impetus behind the foreign insurgency in Iraq. As Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) in a statement following the hearings,

“… The war in Iraq has now become the defining issue for this Congress and for this presidency, although the decisions we will make in the weeks and months ahead about Iraq will have consequences that reach far beyond the terms of anyone now in office…”

“Let there be no doubt, an American defeat in Iraq would be a victory for Al Qaeda and Iran … the two most threatening enemies we face in the world today…”

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) used his time to construct concise questions General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker would have ample time to respond to in detail. Answers from General Petraeus would acknowledge a claim from Democrats the resistance from Sunni tribal leaders began before the serge but he would be allowed to continue by McCain that maintaining the “… political success … has been enabled by having additional forces…” He continued that indications from CIA and military sources indicated that Iraq had become the “central front for Al Qaeda.” While it may not have began as such, it is now.

Senator McCain would afford the same respect to Ambassador Crocker. He would explain that while some of the benchmarks as stated were not met progress in these areas, namely de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing, and the like we not legislated they were being implemented. Former Baathists were admitted to security forces and oil revenues distributed throughout the provinces. But he cautioned against deadlines noting the lack of institutional organization to accommodate these goals. As he stated in his summary,

“Iraq is experiencing a revolution - not just regime change. It is only by understanding that we can appreciate what is happening in Iraq and what Iraqis have achieved, as will as maintain a sense of realism about the challenges that remain.”

Crocker’s summary references the era of Baath party rule during which Saddam Hussein would take preemptive action against any competing group in Iraq “…not hesitating to use lethal force and torture against even those in his inner circle… ” and that “No institution survived that was not linked in some way to regime protection.” He explains how the Iraqi Government is progressing on some issues where some in the U.S. Congress have lambasted them for their failure to meet benchmarks:

“… we are seeing Iraqis come to terms with complex issues not by first providing a national framework, but instead by tackling immediate problems. One such example is how the central government has accepted over 1700 young men from the Abu Ghurayb area… to be part of the Iraqi security forces. Another is how the government… has contacted thousands of members of the former Iraqi army, offering them retirement, return to the military, or public sector employment. So without the proclamation of a general amnesty, we see amnesty being granted, and de-baathification reform in advance of national legislation. In both instances, the seeds of reconciliation are being planted.”

Crocker points out how some items set as benchmarks have a much wider influence and require consideration beyond what they were intended to solve:

“The oil and revenues sharing laws … deal with deeper issues than simply whether Iraqis in oil producing areas are willing to share their wealth with other Iraqis. Wht is difficult about the oil laws is that they take Iraq another step down the road toward a federal system that all Iraqis have not yet embraced.”

“…we should not be surprised or dismayed that Iraqis have not fully resolved such issues. Rather, we should ask whether the way in which they are approaching such issues gives us a sense of their seriousness and ultimate capability to resolve Iraq’s fundamental problems.”

The administration hopes the reduce troops to pre-surge levels of 130,000 next spring when Petraus is expected to report once again. Detractors often quote the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group to judge whether the current policy is working. The ISG report suggested

“The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue.”

“… subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground.” - perhaps the detractors should listen and reserve judgment until “the first Quarter of 2008″ if they respect the report as they claim and reserve the calls for a pull out or “re-deployment” until that time, moveon.org permitting. Hopefully they will listen if they ask the General and the Ambassador what would be the repercussions of withdrawal and playing into the hands of Al-Qaeda and Iran. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already stated he is ready to fill the void. [ro_13]

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm and is filed under Iraq, Middle East, Politics, Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.