Saturday, 7th March 2009

Violence in Iraq down 70 percent since last March

James Forsyth 6:42pm

“Attacks are at the lowest level since September 2003, falling 70 percent since last March.”

So reports The New York Times in its latest piece on the situation in Iraq. The level of progress in Iraq since the US changed strategy in early 2007 and surged troops into the country has been quite remarkable. If anyone had predicted in January 2007 when President Bush announced the new strategy that the situation in Iraq would have improved so much by March 2009 they would have been dismissed for being absurdly over-optimistic.

But as The New York Times points out the national elections in December this year are key to the country’s future:

“The national election, in which Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is vying for a second term, is viewed as the crucial test of Iraq’s democratic transition, the moment that could prove the country’s ability to sustain itself. Or security could crumble, as factions struggle for power and ethnic and sectarian divisions flare.”

The importance of the December elections means that it would be strategic folly of the highest order to aggressively draw down troops before then. Thankfully Obama’s withdrawal plan, as opposed to his campaign rhetoric, seems to recognise that with only two of the 14 combat brigades scheduled to be withdrawn before then.

Previous Back to Coffee House Next

Actions: Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6) | Subscribe

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

ECM

March 7th, 2009 7:28pm Report this comment

For the NYT, Iraq will never, ever, be legitimate enough. (And, sadly I might add, for a lot of Britons that will probably hold this against Blair for his part in it, for all time, regardless of how succesful the nation ultimately becomes.)

The only good news is, based on how they're trading these days, the Times won't be around to move the goalposts again come December.

THX1138

March 7th, 2009 10:48pm Report this comment

This is very good news for the hard pressed Iraq people, I hope it lasts.

ECM before you put the boot into the Old Grey Lady and the Iraq War you should read this Vanity fair article on how The NYT and it's journalists have risked so much to cover this hugely important story for us.

From the Intro

"The New York Times is one of the few U.S. news organizations that haven’t significantly cut back their presence, spending more than $3 million a year to maintain a heavily fortified Baghdad bureau. Talking to John F. Burns, Dexter Filkins, Alissa J. Rubin, and other Times correspondents, the author explores the day-to-day toll—the infighting, isolation, and near-death experiences—of covering the most important story no one wants to read."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/12/nytimes200812?currentPage=1

We owe them a massive debt of gratitude, irrespective of your feelings about the rights and wrongs of the war

It's always a huge pleasure every time I got to the US to buy a hard copy of the paper rather than read it on-line. I for one hope this fantastic and important newspaper is around for many more years to come.

TrevorsDen

March 7th, 2009 11:15pm Report this comment

If Obama sustains the US presence long enough (I doubt he will - the pacifist Democrats will get at him) then Bush's decision will prove him to be a great President.

Indeed its the Democrat determination to make sure that does not happen that will undermine the whole Iraq situation.

err - I neither like nor trust the Democrat Party.

Meantime - the Telegraph report that Browns offhand treatment was due to Obama being tired. I think I would rather believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden.
The Telegraph also reports another White House comment - "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

This seems authentic to me. Brown may well get better treatment in future, but he is going to have to sit up and beg.

TrevorsDen

March 7th, 2009 11:17pm Report this comment

If Obama sustains the US presence long enough (I doubt he will - the pacifist Democrats will get at him) then Bush's decision will prove him to be a great President.

Indeed its the Democrat determination to make sure that does not happen that will undermine the whole Iraq situation.

err - I neither like nor trust the Democrat Party.

This seems authentic to me. Brown may well get better treatment in future, but he is going to have to sit up and beg.