The "surge" is working
In many parts of the world, including Europe, Pres. Bush is considered a stupid, incompetent and extremist President. Yet his current policy of the so-called "surge" of an extra 30,000 US troops sent to Iraq to quell the insurgency is actually working!
There are, of course, those who maintain that both the US and UK Governments lied about the need to invade Iraq, because of the WMD fiasco. But, intense investigations in both countries found no specific tampering by the Administrations themselves of the raw intelligence data. In all cases it was an error, a belief that Iraq had WMD when they did not. Many deny that even with this honest mistake the Allies should have invaded Iraq, but that war is long since past, and we were then faced with a multi-pronged insurrection, of former pro-Saddam Baathists, of al Qaeda terrorists seeking to undermine the Iraqi Government, and of sectarian violence, particularly between Shia and Sunnis.
In order to defeat, or at least reduce, the insurrection, the military command asked for more troops, not so much to fight the insurgents, but more to hold and stabilise areas that had been pacified already. This is the strategy introduced by Gen. Petraeus, based on the experience of fighting in Baghdad and Anbar province, mostly where the Sunni Arabs, the dominant force in Saddam's Iraq, are located.
Several factors may have lead to a reduction in the number of violent incidents that were in the hundreds a day a year ago, to today, when they have been reduced to ca. 40-50 a day, i.e. by about 60% overall. This does not mean that there is no longer an insurgency, only that the maximum of its intensity has been passed and it is now on a steady decline.
One factor for this is that Iran has been identified as a contributing factor, both in terms of arms (bombs) and terrorists smuggled over the Iran-Iraq border and training given to Iraqi Shia insurgents. Several actions, in arresting Iranian (Revolutionary Guard) representatives in Iraq and publicizing their role in introducing IEDs (explosive devices that are killing Americans) have resulted in a reduced Iranian involvement. Also, the Iraqi Government met with and appealed directly to the Iranian Government to stop their intervention.
Another factor is that the pro-Baathist elements seem to have largely given up, since the trials of Saddam and his cronies were concluded and they were executed. There is now no hope for any return to a Sunni-controlled Baathist regime, and so this element of the insurrection seems to be dwindling.
The rebel Shia leader, Muktada al Sadr, as a result of strong Allied actions in Basra and Sadr City in Baghdad, declared a ceasefire of his forces, the so-called Mahdi Army. This reduced Shia attacks on Sunni areas and their consequent counter-attacks.
Finally, the main part of the insurrection itself, the Sunni-dominated al Qaeda forces, many of whom are foreign Arabs that have crossed the borders from Syria and Saudi Arabia, has been reduced. As a result of the intensive fighting and the fact that the Allies have made it clear that they will not give up in these Sunni-dominated areas, the local Sunni leaders have been forced to choose between supporting or allowing the insurrection to continue, with consquent losses for their local people, or cooperating with the Allied forces. Since there are now more forces to "occupy" and hold areas of Baghdad and Anbar province than there were previously, once the al Qaeda insurgency is defeated in each area, and the cruel treament of local opponents is ended (there were torture and killing houses in each locality), a quasi-peaceful situation has ensued.
This analysis is based on the briefing of US Secty. of Defense Robert Gates currently in Baghdad (where embarrassingly there was a suicide bombing on the same day) but also on US Congressional investigators. So it appears that the Bush strategy of the "surge" in forces seems to be working, and another year may see a reduction in the total number of US troops in Iraq. The Brown Govt. in the UK is also reducing its forces there.
This success may affect the upcoming US election, since the Democratic candidates are having a hard time dealing with the fact that the Bush strategy is working and that the Republicans can support troop reductions based on a winning strategy rather than a losing one.
There are, of course, those who maintain that both the US and UK Governments lied about the need to invade Iraq, because of the WMD fiasco. But, intense investigations in both countries found no specific tampering by the Administrations themselves of the raw intelligence data. In all cases it was an error, a belief that Iraq had WMD when they did not. Many deny that even with this honest mistake the Allies should have invaded Iraq, but that war is long since past, and we were then faced with a multi-pronged insurrection, of former pro-Saddam Baathists, of al Qaeda terrorists seeking to undermine the Iraqi Government, and of sectarian violence, particularly between Shia and Sunnis.
In order to defeat, or at least reduce, the insurrection, the military command asked for more troops, not so much to fight the insurgents, but more to hold and stabilise areas that had been pacified already. This is the strategy introduced by Gen. Petraeus, based on the experience of fighting in Baghdad and Anbar province, mostly where the Sunni Arabs, the dominant force in Saddam's Iraq, are located.
Several factors may have lead to a reduction in the number of violent incidents that were in the hundreds a day a year ago, to today, when they have been reduced to ca. 40-50 a day, i.e. by about 60% overall. This does not mean that there is no longer an insurgency, only that the maximum of its intensity has been passed and it is now on a steady decline.
One factor for this is that Iran has been identified as a contributing factor, both in terms of arms (bombs) and terrorists smuggled over the Iran-Iraq border and training given to Iraqi Shia insurgents. Several actions, in arresting Iranian (Revolutionary Guard) representatives in Iraq and publicizing their role in introducing IEDs (explosive devices that are killing Americans) have resulted in a reduced Iranian involvement. Also, the Iraqi Government met with and appealed directly to the Iranian Government to stop their intervention.
Another factor is that the pro-Baathist elements seem to have largely given up, since the trials of Saddam and his cronies were concluded and they were executed. There is now no hope for any return to a Sunni-controlled Baathist regime, and so this element of the insurrection seems to be dwindling.
The rebel Shia leader, Muktada al Sadr, as a result of strong Allied actions in Basra and Sadr City in Baghdad, declared a ceasefire of his forces, the so-called Mahdi Army. This reduced Shia attacks on Sunni areas and their consequent counter-attacks.
Finally, the main part of the insurrection itself, the Sunni-dominated al Qaeda forces, many of whom are foreign Arabs that have crossed the borders from Syria and Saudi Arabia, has been reduced. As a result of the intensive fighting and the fact that the Allies have made it clear that they will not give up in these Sunni-dominated areas, the local Sunni leaders have been forced to choose between supporting or allowing the insurrection to continue, with consquent losses for their local people, or cooperating with the Allied forces. Since there are now more forces to "occupy" and hold areas of Baghdad and Anbar province than there were previously, once the al Qaeda insurgency is defeated in each area, and the cruel treament of local opponents is ended (there were torture and killing houses in each locality), a quasi-peaceful situation has ensued.
This analysis is based on the briefing of US Secty. of Defense Robert Gates currently in Baghdad (where embarrassingly there was a suicide bombing on the same day) but also on US Congressional investigators. So it appears that the Bush strategy of the "surge" in forces seems to be working, and another year may see a reduction in the total number of US troops in Iraq. The Brown Govt. in the UK is also reducing its forces there.
This success may affect the upcoming US election, since the Democratic candidates are having a hard time dealing with the fact that the Bush strategy is working and that the Republicans can support troop reductions based on a winning strategy rather than a losing one.
posted by Jack Cohen at 7:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home