More hopeful signs in Iraq
James Forsyth 2:51pm
There was an important story in yesterday’s New York Times about the apparent success of the Iraqi army’s operation in Sadr City. Here’s how it opens:
It is hard to overstate the importance of these developments. For ages many in Washington and London despaired of the Maliki government ever acting to curb the power of the Shi’ite militias. But now the Iraqi government has taken action against their two most significant strongholds. Hopefully, this is a sign that Maliki is moving from being a sectarian leader to a national one.“Iraqi forces rolled unopposed through the huge Shiite enclave of Sadr City on Tuesday, a dramatic turnaround from the bitter fighting that has plagued the Baghdad neighborhood for two months, and a qualified success for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.As it did in the southern city of Basra last month, the Iraqi government advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militias.”
Combine this development with the Sunni rejection of al Qaeda in Iraq and a level of optimism about the future of Iraq seems justified. However, these gains are all fragile. Premature withdrawal, as supported by Barack Obama and strongly opposed by John McCain, could throw Iraq back into chaos.
Later on Coffee House, Fraser Nelson will report from on the ground in Basra. I’ve just been talking to him and what he described was fascinating so do check back later.
Previous
Comments
Gareth
May 22nd, 2008 4:57pmYou can tell things are going well because Iraq gets far, far less news coverage then it used to.
Just as with the 'surge' - once it starting having the expected effect the BBC stopped monitoring it!
TrevorH
May 22nd, 2008 6:26pmIts harsh to spell it out but all wars are attritional. The harshness lies in the necessity to campaign to compete which means losing lives. Let us hope that the terrorists/insurgents (ask the BBC to define the niceties of the difference) have been worn down. Assuming that the campaign is being won (though not at all won yet) then Bush may go down in history as one of the all time great presidents, since he ignored the advice of the doom saying Senate (?) commission appointed to review the war and authorised the so called surge. American generals have shown every sign of learning lessons from their experiences and in this way this new style asymmetric war follows a similar pattern or learning curve to WW1.
I have to say that the British experience is not so sanguine. We failed in Basra and are now only back patrolling there thanks to US intervention and the same situation has occurred in Afghanistan.
I have to say this too has parallels with WW1 where British politicians gave our generals a job but constantly blanched at the cost in lives necessary to achieve the goals (ie eviction of Germans from France and Belgium) set.
Blair and Brow talked the big talk but left our troops under equipped, public opinion under prepared and were unwilling to accept the exposure to danger our troops would have to endure to complete their task. Overwhelmingly therefore our soldiers are dying in vain
Tom
May 23rd, 2008 6:21amJust a few things to keep in mind about the war (forgive the repetition).
It's an illegal, immoral war for oil. Where's the honor in that?
The U.S. will never leave (despite all the nice election talk at the moment).
The American Congress could do the right thing and cut off the funding. It could lead to even more pointless posturing by both parties. Also, shutting down parts of the U.S. govt. and more.
Today, Congress approved even more money for this. All that matters is winning the White House. So for U.S. (and U.K. troops as well), whats the message? If you get killed or lose family or a loved one, nobody cares.
The U.S. govt. tortures and spies on its population. In other countries, people fight back and put their lives on the line when necessary. So how come the we-are-superior Americans aren't willing to do that?
Ted Tedford
May 23rd, 2008 11:01amTom: The guerrilla war in America that you appear to desire is unlikely to arise because the American public knows it can vote the b*****s out. That is a right they have in common with the Iraqi people, whose democratically-elected government will decide whether US forces remain, as you seem to think, forever.
I would imagine that, like the Iraqis, American citizens recognise also that the main threat to their security comes not, as Hollywood and the more deranged liberals assert, from the sinister plotting of their own government, but from totalitarian movements which fear their own populations, and from those inside their country who, for parochial political reasons, would happily see America forced out of Iraq by Iran.
A victory in Iraq for the totalitarians - which would be more likely if those deranged liberals gained power in the US - would be a major defeat for freedom, including for Iranian reformers, as well as providing comfort to despots around the world.
You might reflect on that before you tumble into print with points about 'honor'!
flipped
May 23rd, 2008 2:28pmI'll believe in progress in Iraq when I see the US and UK leave and the Iraqis left alone to rebuild their shattered country.
There will be no victors in Iraq, if we'd "won" then it would have been apparent within the first three to six months. The fact that ordinary men and women are fighting us tells us that were aren't and that we won't!
All the Americans have done in the surge is to buy temporary loyalty of the Sunni against the Shia who would dominate a "democratic" Iraq. Al Sadr isn't going to fight the Americans if he can help it, why waste his powerbase fighting an enemy he doesn't have too. He wants Iraq and intends to have it, with or without America and/or Iran.
One day the American leaders will wake up and wish they'd left Saddam Hussein alone to get on with it, at least he could be bought.