Good news, at least for non post-modernists
The main military objectives of our surge in Iraq were to crush al Qaeda and substantially to reduce the sectarian violence in Baghdad. The first objective focused on Anbar province but also required military action elsewhere. The latter objective required military action not just in Baghdad but also in surrounding areas. However, neither objective entailed fighting in the south, where the Shia are in control and al Qaeda is not a force.
To date, the surge has accomplished its two main military objectives. Al Qaeda has been routed in Anbar province and elsewhere, and violence is way down in Baghdad. For the Iraqi government, however, these successes were not enough. In Basra, Iraq’s second or third most populous city and the nation’s only major port, Shiite militias had seized control. Prime Minister Maliki reasonably viewed this development as a threat to his government’s authority, and with elections approaching decided to take on these militias. Since our surge is intended in part to shore up the government, the U.S. backed Maliki though it knew the fighting he was bringing on would not be limited to Basra. Whether this action was our preferred course is unclear (at least to me) and largely irrelevant.
The MSM seized on the fact that a new military front had opened up to suggest that the surge had not resulted in significant progress after all. Thus, Friday’s edition of the Washington Post contained a story by Peter Baker under the headline “Despite the Fighting in Basra, Bush Emphasizes Progress." In his first paragraph Baker declared:
The images from Baghdad and Basra bristled with explosions, burning buildings, angry street protests, rocket smoke wafting from the Green Zone. The words from Dayton were “remarkable” and “victory” and “rebirth.”
Baker is not a military reporter. But this fact alone cannot explain why he would see a contradiction between the opening of a new front in a military struggle and claims of major progress. Until recently, progress in a war was always gauged by how well military campaigns were faring; for Baker (whose approach was echoed throughout the MSM), the mere existence of a new campaign was evidence of lack of progress.
For those with less post-modern views of warfare, there’s good news from Basra and everywhere else Shiite militias have encountered U.S. and Iraqi government forces. Bill Roggio reports:
Six days after the Iraqi government launched Operation Knights’ Charge in Basrah against the Mahdi Army and other Iranian-backed Shia terror groups, Muqtada al Sadr, the Leader of the Mahdi Army, has called for his fighters to lay down their weapons and cooperate with Iraqi security forces. Sadr’s call for an end to the fighting comes as his Mahdi Army has taken serious losses since the operation began. . . .Since the fighting began on Tuesday 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basra.
I guess I’m old-fashioned, but that sounds like progress to me.
To comment on this post, go here.
