Continuing need for a steady hand
With General Petraeus scheduled to testify before Congress shortly, Iraq has been experiencing a crescendo of attacks in part as a display for the American media. While radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr declared victory of course, Austin Bay points out that that was not the case (and Bruce Kesler has more on that). Following are some observations by an American colonel in Baghdad, via Instapundit:
From watching the news, you know Maliki moved to Basrah in a show of force. He made lots of blustery statements about what he was going to do to the Jayesh al Mahdi (JAM). The Baghdad arm of JAM, headquartered in Sadr City, responded with a little fireworks of their own in Maliki’s absence. In hindsight, Mr Maliki may have overplayed a bit, and some feel he lost credibility in the process. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, General Petraeus quietly and deftly encouraged the central government of Iraq to:
(a) concentrate not on JAM, but on the criminal element within JAM. “Anyone on the street with a weapon is a criminal.” This effectively divided the JAM members. Next,
(b) focus on the humanitarian element of the operation. Pushing much-needed food and water to trapped inhabitants encouraged even more JAM members to stay home and take care of family members. Finally,
(c) show that fighting is not going to solve the needs of Iraq.By addressing the essential services issues and bringing central government people to the provincial sessions to address concerns, people see their government taking an active role in solving the problem.
The effect was that Moqtada al Sadr got to make a point, Maliki demonstrated his resolve, the Iraqi Army and Police showed themselves to be capable and professional, and there’s a sense of a better day coming in Basrah. Without the strong response of the central Government, the militia-led uprising could have very easily led to further lawlessness, mayhem, and devastation. The Coalition trained and helped equip and arm the Iraqi Army. The surge allowed us to clear and hold areas long enough to bring violence levels down, so the government could start focusing on essential services. If anything, the surge came too late because people have been without services for far too long.
There is obviously progress in Iraq, and it is just as obvious that Iraq needs the continuing presence of a steady hand that General Petraeus and the US military provide. If Senator Obama is serious about the detailed plan he has proposed for withdrawing troops (and of course he may simply be pandering to the base), the people of Iraq have a problem, as does the US itself.
The other day Senator Obama criticized John McCain’s position on Iraq as follows: “Success comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely.” Bret Stephens raised some questions for the Illinois senator in the WSJ: “here are questions for Mr. Obama: Could there be something worse than the indefinite maintenance of a flawed policy? What if, following a U.S. withdrawal, Iraq collapsed into chaos? What if U.S. embassy personnel have to be helicoptered to safety from the roof of the Baghdad embassy? It’s not as if this hasn’t happened before.” Just so. And of course the Viet Cong did not have the global ambitions of our current adversaries.