The Iraq conundrum
Robert Burns is a military writer for the AP. He has made 18 visits to Iraq since 2003. Based on what he saw on his most recent visit, which lasted two weeks, Burns reports that "the new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working" and that "the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year."
According to Burns,
The U.S. military, partnering in many instances with Iraqi forces, is now creating [a] security cushion—not everywhere, but in much of the north, the west and most importantly in key areas of Baghdad.Sectarian killings continue and extremist groups remain a threat, yet they are being squeezed harder. The U.S. military has caught some momentum, thanks to the extra 30,000 troops—for a total of 159,000 on the ground—that Bush agreed to send as part of the new counterinsurgency strategy announced in January. The troops are interacting more with the local people and are protecting them more effectively.
Burns' assessment is consistent with most of the serious reporting from Iraq these days. Unfortunately, the same is true of his assessment of the political picture. According to Burns, Defense Secretary Robert Gates now concedes that, in hoping for movement toward political reconciliation this year, the administration underestimated the depth of mistrust between rival sects.
The nature of this military action is such that, for all the progress we seem to be making on the security front, there probably will not be any big battle or single operation that can be viewed as having turned the tide. By contrast, the potential for a dramatic breakthrough exists at the political level, but the politics is proving to be the tougher nut to cractk. And Democratic promises to move heaven and earth to end our military involvement in the near future decrease the likelihood that hostile Iraqi factions will come together around a peace plan that presupposes the level of security and stability only the U.S. can provide at this time.
To comment on this post, go here.
