Let's get this thing done now

Me in Baghdad May 2003. It's hard to believe that early in the war it was safe enough we were able to ride the streets with so little protection

Someone asked me recently if we were really winning the war in Iraq. Let's start with General Petraeus' assessment in front of Congress this week (Copy of testimony here, slideshow here):

there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq. Since September, levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, Al Qaeda-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security. Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain. Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible. Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional US forces to Iraq.

I agree completely. The bottom line here is that progress is success. Ergo, if Iraq is progressing, then we are winning the war.

You also need to ask yourselves, that if the coalition isn't winning, then who is? Al-Qaeda? The Mahdi Militia? Iran? All of them would like the US out of Iraq now, yet we are still there. In fact, they simply don't have the power to expel us, period. The proof is that the locations of our bases in Iraq are known to all, and while there is the occasional mortar strike or suicide bombing, it's impossible for the insurgents to mount an attack with strength enough even to force Americans out of even one of the very smallest patrol bases. By contrast, insurgents need to continuously hide, and the moment the location one of their safehouses is confirmed, it is immediately targeted and raided. That is the reality here.

Of course, some might disagree, claiming that progress that is too slow is hardly a success, or that any American lives lost in the process is automatically a failure. By these standards, WWII certainly would have been a failure, for most of the duration at any rate.

I don't want to get too philosophical, but I think it's worth asking if victory in Iraq is even relevant to whether or not we should stay. If we knew we would lose WWII should we still have tried? If we knew that we would lose the Civil War, should the Union have left millions in slavery? The reason why I don't like to get bogged down in various definitions of "winning" is because I believe some things are worth fighting for, regardless of the result. I have had Iraqis approach me with tears in their eyes thanking me for liberating their country. I have had one tell me that we were "sent by the angels". I have had another who told me that the happiest day of his life was when he saw the US Marines on the highway 8, entering Baghdad for the first time in 2003. All of them had one thing in common: they had loved ones who were murdered under the old regime. Their only complaint was why we didn't roll to Baghdad back during the Gulf War in 1991.

But even if you don't agree, know that victory here is important, not just for Iraq, but for the entire Middle East. Frederick Kagan at National Review has a very eloquent article up on why victory here matters:

Yes, in the world as it is, whatever line we sell ourselves, there really is victory and there really is defeat, the two are different, and their effects on the future diverge profoundly. And yes, the reason we must continue to spend money and the lives of the very best Americans in that far-off land is that the interests of every American are actually at stake.

The whole article is highly recommended.

However, I can understand the frustration of Americans who believe we are sacrificing our blood and treasure in Iraq with no end in sight. Vague statements that the war will be won someday are not very reassuring. This is a legitimate issue, and the strongest argument against continuing the war. After all, the war must end someday one way or another, so how much is enough?

No war is set in stone. If you are losing, or not winning to the degree you feel is satisfactory, then it's time to change tactics, not simply give up the entire campaign. Personally, I'm in favor of far more bold and aggressive tactics than are being used now - but that's another article entirely.

Having said all this, I have to concede one point. There is one battlefront of the war in which America is losing, and that is the war of public opinion. It's a front in which most of the major media outlets have been fighting since the very beginning. It's time for a major change in tactics in Iraq. We are in a race against time. If we don't stabilize the country, some politician will pull our troops out eventually. Let's get this thing done now.


Bonus: This quote from Petraeus' testimony is also interesting:

Together with the Iraqi Security Forces, we have also focused on the Special Groups. These elements are funded, trained, armed, and directed by Iran’s Qods Force, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital, and requiring Iraqi and Coalition actions in response. Iraqi and Coalition leaders have repeatedly noted their desire that Iran live up to promises made by President Ahmedinajad and other senior Iranian leaders to stop their support for the Special Groups.

This has been going on since very early in the war, and incredibly some people are still in denial. Mideast "experts" like Juan Cole sing the praises of peaceful Iran while clutching at every straw to accuse Bush of trying to escalate the conflict instead. Others are clutching at straws to accuse the General of deliberately lying to us, simply because he updated one slide in his presentation. Meanwhile, noted military non-expert Arianna Huffington impunes Petraeus and his testimony before he even gave it. All of this is pretty pathetic. Gen Petraeus, the troops in Iraq, and particularly the Iraqi people deserve a honest treatment of the issues, not plain political spin.



Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed