Uh oh! The New York Times...

[Yonivore]

...has shifted its narrative on the war! Egads!!! Can the rest of the leftist media be far behind?

Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, both fellows at the Brookings Ins ution, argue in a New York Times en led "A War We Just Might Win" that the war in Iraq is being won.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. ...

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

What factors made the difference? According to the authoris, the first is a successful campaign of political warfare: connecting the Coalition's objectives with improvements in the daily lives of the people.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

Second is the availability of Iraqi military units of reasonable quality.

All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark. But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

Of course these Iraqi units did not spring into existence over night. They are the ulative result of years of sustained effort. Even the removal of Iraqi deadwood grew from a process of weeding out the failures. Without diminishing the achievements of the current group of commanders the situation in Iraq must reflect both the mistakes and the solid accomplishments of those who came before.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Interestingly, al Qaeda chose to make Iraq its decisive arena of confrontation with the United States. The US came to Iraq primarily to topple Saddam Hussein and remove one "state sponsor of terrorism" but it was Al Qaeda that rushed in to stake its reputation there. A networked insurgency with followers in many Muslim countries could have chosen to attack America elsewhere. But instead it decided to focus its efforts on driving the US from Iraq. For that purpose its leadership established al Qaeda in Iraq and funneled recruits into it from all over the world. This force was tasked with the explicit political goal of creating a Islamic Caliphate that would provide a prototype for a future Islamic state after the hated Americans had been driven out. Therefore, much of the post-Saddam violence was probably the consequence of al Qaeda's decision to flood all the resources of world terrorism into Iraq. Clearly, Zarqawi's clear intention from the Samarra mosque bombing onward was to incite as much violence as he could. Given that al Qaeda made Iraq the center of its global efforts, O’Hanlon and Pollack's admiration of the Multi-national Force in Iraq's decision to focus against it seems perplexing. Surely Petraeus had no alternative? Surely he was simply picking up the gauntlet? But that would not quite be true.

Through much of 2005 and 2006 a variety of lines were suggested. Some argued that the US should lash out against Syria or Iran for allowing "militants" to transit their borders. Some believed Shi'a militias should be the primary target of operations. Until recently many argued -- and still argue -- that al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq at all; so how could MNF-I focus against what was not there? So while taking on al Qaeda now seems the obvious choice, in retrospect there were many other candidates vying for the le of Center of Gravity. Those bad guys still remain, but MNF-I saw al Qaeda in Iraq as the key to the position and, that choice, according to O’Hanlon and Pollack, appears to be the right one.

Time will tell. But if focusing on al Qaeda in Iraq is the right choice the most interesting question is; why?

An intelligence blogger I read guesses that by attacking al Qaeda, the US engaged not only the most fanatical force in Iraq but the one with the most powerful narrative. And by shrewdly matching kinetic warfare with political warfare, organizing the victims of al Qaeda's depredations, it brought the myth down to earth. As long as al Qaeda remained an "idea" it might be regarded as invincible, a mystical will o' the wisp. But once this mystical force was forced to materialize in Iraq, it became embodied in the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his henchmen, who, viewed up close, turned out to be nothing more than brutal gangsters of the lowest and most sadistic type instead of latter day Companions of the Prophet. Even Zawahiri, despite his pretensions to refinement, could not avoid discrediting himself as he proved unable to resist threatening to gouge people's eyes out if they did not follow his bidding. It is said that no man is a hero to his own valet. Familiarity with the genuine article brought disillusionment, contempt and finally hatred for al Qaeda.

And without the romantic mantle of apocalyptic Islamism to puff them up, both Syria and Iran would shrink to the third-rate powers that they truly are. In choosing al Qaeda as its focus, MNF-I indirectly weakened both Tehran and Damascus in ways that both were powerless to counter. None of this has been completely achieved yet. But as O’Hanlon and Pollack state, Iraq while not yet won is getting better. And if the process continues much will be accomplished if al Qaeda can be defeated in Iraq; their image tarnished beyond repair and their narrative shown to be a pack of lies. The New York Times article concludes "there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."

Yes, but to some degree it misses the point. What is happening on the battlefield is changing perceptions in Iraq and perhaps throughout the region.

Ironically, the US Armed Forces may now know much better than the press that operations go beyond body counts. But whenever US forces are withdrawn the information war must go on. Because the one great probability in the Middle East is that each failed creed gives rise to a new one. The same Six Day War which discredited Nasserism simultaneously launched its successor movement. Radical Islamism harnessed the tide of disillusionment and redirected it to its purposes. And as Al Qaeda falls in esteem in the Muslim world from its post-September 11 halcyon days, other ideologues will probably attempt to fashion a new movement based on its carcass. That's why the information war should go on until politics in the Middle East is transformed from a sequence of messianic movements to practical endeavor. Until then the victories on Iraq's battlefields will be temporary.

At Real Clear Politics, Michael Barone dissects the latest Pew Global At udes survey. There is some specific good news about at udes in Muslim countries:

[T]he Pew Global survey showed sharply reduced numbers of Muslims saying that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified as compared with 2002. That's still the view of 70 percent in the Palestinian territories. But that percentage has declined from 74 percent to 34 percent in Lebanon, from 43 percent to 23 percent in Jordan, and from 33 percent to 9 percent in Pakistan.

More broadly, what is striking is how much optimism is reflected in the survey, world-wide. Global economic growth has sparked a high level of confidence in the future, even in Africa. The United States, however, is an exception:

Most strikingly, only 25 percent of Americans are positive about the direction of the nation, down from 41 percent in 2002. In only a handful of the 47 nations are there declines of similar magnitude -- Uganda, the Czech Republic, France, Canada and Italy.

***

[B]y a two-to-one margin Americans say their children will be worse off than we are. There's a similar response in Canada, Britain and Brazil. The even more negative verdicts in Western Europe and Japan can be explained as a cool assessment of the combination of low birthrates and overgenerous welfare states.

But what basis do Americans have to suppose that, for the first time in history, a younger generation will be worse off than their parents? Perhaps it's just a feeling that things cannot possibly get any better. In any case, we seem to be in a pronounced national funk.

Barone concludes by suggesting that Americans should snap out of it. Good advice; but I think what we are seeing is partly faux pessimism. As Barone notes:

It's partly a partisan response: Almost all Democrats are negative about the nation's future.

I think that many Americans are attuned to the idea of using the opportunity presented by a phone call from a pollster to make a political point. I seriously doubt that nearly all Democrats really believe the nation is more or less doomed to decline; if a Democratic President is elected next November, the country's prospects will brighten considerably in their eyes. There is a reason why the theme song of winning campaigns has traditionally been, "Happy Days Are Here Again."

But, I think Democrats are afraid Happy Days will arrive before the next election and, therefore, are going to stick to the "Iraq-is-lost" narrative for as long as humanly possible.

[Peter]

So that was an op-ed in the Times? How does that show that the Times itself has changed its stance?

Also, do you have a link for your blog?

[Yonivore]

So that was an op-ed in the Times? How does that show that the Times itself has changed its stance?

Because the opinion pages is where the editors display their stance? Good news on the Iraqi war front rarely -- if ever -- makes the editorial pages of the New York Times.

Also, do you have a link for your blog?

I don't have a blog.

[PixelPusher]

The eternal question (the answer often evaded or changed) for Iraq is "What is victory?"

If it has now been ultra-condensed and oversimplified into "defeating AQI", then your optimism is justified. If it's "a stable, unified Iraq", then you're in for a nasty shock once your "Mission Accomplished: AQI edition" parade ends.

Iraqi leader tells Bush: Get Gen Petraeus out
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:43am BST 29/07/2007

Relations between the top United States general in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, the country's prime minister, are so bad that the Iraqi leader made a direct appeal for his removal to President George W Bush.

Although the call was rejected, aides to both men admit that Mr Maliki and Gen David Petraeus engage in frequent stand-up shouting matches, differing particularly over the US general's moves to arm Sunni tribesmen to fight al-Qa'eda.

One Iraqi source said Mr Maliki used a video conference with Mr Bush to call for the general's signature strategy to be scrapped. "He told Bush that if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias," said the official. "Bush told Maliki to calm down."

At another meeting with Gen Petraeus, Mr Maliki said: "I can't deal with you any more. I will ask for someone else to replace you."

Gen Petraeus admitted that the relationship was stormy, saying: "We have not pulled punches with each other."

President Bush's support for Mr Maliki is deeply controversial within the US government because of the Iraqi's ties to Shia militias responsible for some of the worst sectarian violence.

The New York Times claimed yesterday that Saudi Arabia was refusing to work with Mr Maliki and has presented "evidence" that he was an Iranian intelligence agent to US officials. "Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia's counterproductive role in the war," it reported.

Alongside the firm support of Mr Bush, Mr Maliki also enjoys the backing of Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador and his predecessor, Zalmay Khalilzad, now America's representative at the United Nations.

Mr Khalilzad took a swipe at Saudi Arabia in an editorial published earlier this month that was widely seen as an appeal for a larger UN role in stabilising Iraq.

Mr Crocker, who attends Mr Maliki's stormy weekly meetings with Gen Petraeus, said the Iraqi leader was a strong partner of America.

"There is no leader in the world that is under more pressure than Nouri al-Maliki, without question," he said. "Sometimes he reflects that frustration. I don't blame him. I probably would too."

The above story is about a LOT more than a spat between Maliki and Petraeus, It's about Sunni vs. Shia. I may be convenient for you to pretend all this sectarian violence is nothing more than a AQI plot to destablize Iraq, but that naive notion will be disabused once AQI is "defeated" and the civil war resumes in earnest.

[PixelPusher]

Also, do you have a link for your blog?

[boutons_]

NYT "has shifted its narrative on the war"

dubya has shifted away from:

OBL (oops!)
WMD in Iraq (oops!),
Saddam/AQ (oops!),
Saddam/WTC (oops!)
democracy/freedom for Iraqis (oops!)

... down to just current-talisman Petraeus beating up on dubya's graciously invited guests in Iraq, AQI.

[boutons_]

"It's about Sunni vs. Shia"

of course it is. Maliki/Shia is a hard-core anti-Baathist/Sunni warrior, completely untrusted by the Sunnis.

Maliki is of course extremely upset by Petraeus creating and equipping Sunnis neighborhood militias.

btw, the US Army has LONG reported that the majority, at one time 90%, of US casulties come from Sunnis.

dubya's invitees, AQI (native and imported), are also Sunni.

Is Yoni finally catching on? The primary problem is Shiite/Sunni inter-sectarion violence and political polarization, NOT AQI attacking US military.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yoni and the other dead enders seem to think that the GOP benefits if the surge works. They won't because people just want out of Iraq as soon as possible. The public won't view it as a GOP victory rather they will look at it as , what in the took so long?.. For te GOP it is a lose-lose proposition..good for them. they d and played politics with this war and it came back to bite them in the ass..

[PixelPusher]

Yoni and the other dead enders seem to think that the GOP benefits if the surge works. They won't because people just want out of Iraq as soon as possible. The public won't view it as a GOP victory rather they will look at it as , what in the took so long?.. For te GOP it is a lose-lose proposition..good for them. they d and played politics with this war and it came back to bite them in the ass..

You're assuming we'll pull out our troops after "defeating" AQI...Goddamn, it's amazing after 4 years of this , they refuse to consider the possibility of negative consequences.

[Peter]

The US will pull out when it is safe for ExxonMobilChevronTexacoConocoPhillips.

[Yonivore]

Yoni and the other dead enders seem to think that the GOP benefits if the surge works. They won't because people just want out of Iraq as soon as possible. The public won't view it as a GOP victory rather they will look at it as , what in the took so long?.. For te GOP it is a lose-lose proposition..good for them. they d and played politics with this war and it came back to bite them in the ass..

And you seem to think the Democrats will benefit. But, you forget, these internet tubes have a long memory and the '08 election cycle will be full of quotes from your favorite candidates saying the war in Iraq was lost when, in fact, it wasn't.

It's not the GOP playing politics with the war.

[Yonivore]

The US will pull out when it is safe for ExxonMobilChevronTexacoConocoPhillips.

Did Boutons change his name?

[George Gervin's Afro]

And you seem to think the Democrats will benefit. But, you forget, these internet tubes have a long memory and the '08 election cycle will be full of quotes from your favorite candidates saying the war in Iraq was lost when, in fact, it wasn't.

It's not the GOP playing politics with the war.

yet you still can't define victory... oh wait what if the Iraqi govt aligns with Iran? Can dems then remind the voters that it was the GOP that caused this worst case scenerio by whoring an unecessary war?

[Peter]

Of course the fact that Iraq has undeveloped reserves which could rival the Saudi's doesn't matter. At this point, given what the US has expended in terms of lives, broken lives, and $ it would be stupid to withdraw without ensuring those resources are developed. But you're kidding yourself if you believe that Iraq's petroleum development potential was not a consideration in the decision to invade.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Of course the fact that Iraq has undeveloped reserves which could rival the Saudi's doesn't matter. At this point, given what the US has expended in terms of lives, broken lives, and $ it would be stupid to withdraw without ensuring those resources are developed. But you're kidding yourself if you don't believe that Iraq's petroleum development potential was not a consideration in the decision to invade.

hey Peter... we invaded Iraq because they had stockpiles of wmds, I mean mobile bio weapons labs, er to promote democarcy in the region, I mean to liberate the Iraqi people, oh wait Saddam was a bad guy so we invaded.. this had nothing to do with oil..

[fyatuk]

Of course the fact that Iraq has undeveloped reserves which could rival the Saudi's doesn't matter. At this point, given what the US has expended in terms of lives, broken lives, and $ it would be stupid to withdraw without ensuring those resources are developed. But you're kidding yourself if you believe that Iraq's petroleum development potential was not a consideration in the decision to invade.

No doubt it was, just not for the reasons the overly-insane-anti-Bush think. US government just wants that oil on the market to avoid an economic meltdown caused by high oil prices (we've experienced a part of it), not that they want it under US control.

That oil couldn't really be developed or put on the market while sanctions were in place. Sanction could not be removed while Saddam was in power. So to get it developed and into the market to relieve some of the demand pressure, Saddam had to go.

Certainly a consideration, though.

[Extra Stout]

No doubt it was, just not for the reasons the overly-insane-anti-Bush think. US government just wants that oil on the market to avoid an economic meltdown caused by high oil prices (we've experienced a part of it), not that they want it under US control.

That oil couldn't really be developed or put on the market while sanctions were in place. Sanction could not be removed while Saddam was in power. So to get it developed and into the market to relieve some of the demand pressure, Saddam had to go.

Certainly a consideration, though.

You say that so nonchalantly.

[boutons_]

"US government just wants that oil on the market"

the Iraqis are quite capable of that with Iranian and Russian assistance.

dubya wants exclusive/primary access to Iraqi oil for US/UK (aka the "coalition") oilcos AND under revenue-sharing contracts (rather than the less lucrative oil-lease contracts).

The US has put pressure on the Iraqis from right after the invasion, AS A PRIORITY, to get that that Iraqi oil law/revenue-sharing done.

Wake the up, dubya suckers, Iraq is all about the oil and about NOTHING ELSE.

[Yonivore]

hey Peter... we invaded Iraq because they had stockpiles of wmds, I mean mobile bio weapons labs, er to promote democarcy in the region, I mean to liberate the Iraqi people, oh wait Saddam was a bad guy so we invaded.. this had nothing to do with oil..

See AUMF in Iraq.

[Peter]

Meanwhile Range Rovers can be spotted parked in front of most retail developments with a Starbucks, Talbot's, and California Pizza Kitchen sporting 'No War for Oil' and 'Impeach Bush' bumper stickers. You need something more than a butter knife to cut through the irony.

[fyatuk]

Wake the up, dubya suckers, Iraq is all about the oil and about NOTHING ELSE.

If that was the case, don't you think the Coalition would have put forth a much greater effort into protecting the oil pumps and pipelines instead of letting production lag significantly behind the end of the Saddam era for a couple years?

You still haven't shown me anything that shows pressure being applied to the Iraqi government to privatize the oil fields or have exclusive rights or revenue sharing with them.

[gtownspur]

The US will pull out when it is safe for ExxonMobilChevronTexacoConocoPhillips.

I guess we will have to avoid invading countries wether just or not, if they have any sort of natural resource to exploit, because keyboard pseudo-analyst part time comedians will poo any war effort to make them appear smarter than anyone else.

[gtownspur]

Meanwhile Range Rovers can be spotted parked in front of most retail developments with a Starbucks, Talbot's, and California Pizza Kitchen sporting 'No War for Oil' and 'Impeach Bush' bumper stickers. You need something more than a butter knife to cut through the irony.

Meanwhile spineless aggies with a penchant for getting glazed sit here pontificating on their immovable ghost position they've had on the war all this time, that was never there to defend.

[Nbadan]

If that was the case, don't you think the Coalition would have put forth a much greater effort into protecting the oil pumps and pipelines instead of letting production lag significantly behind the end of the Saddam era for a couple years?

...see 'Iraqi oil being sold on black-market'.....their's a very interesting theory that the oilco's are deflating the amount of oil they are pumping out of the Iraqi oil fields to mask the declining Saudi oil fields and avoid a world-wide global oil panic...

[boutons_]

"don't you think the Coalition would have put forth a much greater effort into protecting the oil pumps and pipelines instead of letting production lag significantly behind the end of the Saddam era for a couple years?"

Not enough US military to go after the insurgents, not even enough just for Bagdad (therefore the 30K surge), let alone defend dozens of refinery sites and 100s of miles of pipeline. I'm sure they would if they could, but the oil infrastructure is part of the total Iraqi infrastructure that has been degraded/poorly maintained/un-re-built after the US broke Iraq and couldn't assure public security.

"pressure being applied to the Iraqi government to privatize the oil fields or have exclusive rights or revenue sharing with them."

Look for yourself. A few weeks ago, the Iraqi oil unions and oil industry professionals were threatening to strike/protest over the way the Iraqi oil law was being drafted, which is being done with input and close monitoring from the Repugs. The oil law just isn't about how to split the oil revenues among Kurd/Shia/Sunni regions, but also over the types of contracts with foreign oilcos and how much $$ the foreigners make off Iraqi oil. The Repugs want the much more lucrative revenue-sharing, not leases. Of course, if leases is all they can get (if the ever get anything), they will take leases. Expect cut-throat compe ion from Iran, China, and Russia for those oil leases.