A War We Just Might Win – Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, New York Times
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.
It's How We Pull Back – David Ignatius, Washington Post
Future military planners will have to recognize that American democracy, in which political mandates must be renewed in two-year increments, makes us uniquely unsuited to fight protracted counterinsurgency wars. Petraeus likes to observe that it takes, on average, at least nine years to prevail in such a war. If that measure is correct, Petraeus must know there is little chance that a frustrated and angry American public will grant him enough time for success. So the question is: How to extricate ourselves in a way that minimizes the damage to the United States, its allies and Iraq?
Iraq Math: From One, Make Three – Helene Cooper, New York Times
Mr. Biden’s so-called soft-partition plan — a variation of the blueprint dividing up Bosnia in 1995 — calls for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions, held together by a central government. There would be a loose Kurdistan, a loose Shiastan and a loose Sunnistan, all under a big, if weak, Iraq umbrella.
Iraq is a Test We Cannot Fail - Robert Tracinski, Real Clear Politics
America has long since demonstrated that it has the military power to quickly topple any hostile regime in the Middle East--but we have not demonstrated the persistence and moral certainty necessary to do the work that is not quick: the work of establishing a new regime to replace that dictatorship. This is the task that requires American to find the moral and intellectual fortitude to endure through a long conflict.
Iraq: The Way to Go – Peter Galbraith, New York Review of Books
Iraq after an American defeat will look very much like Iraq today—a land divided along ethnic lines into Arab and Kurdish states with a civil war being fought within its Arab part. Defeat is defined by America's failure to accomplish its objective of a self-sustaining, democratic, and unified Iraq. And that failure has already taken place, along with the increase of Iranian power in the region.
Winning in Iraq and Losing in Washington – Ralph Peters, New York Post
Gen. Dave Petraeus and his subordinate commanders are by far the best team we've ever had in place in that wretched country. They're doing damned near everything right - with austere resources, despite the surge. And they're being abandoned by your elected leaders.
Let's Get Out – Joseph Galloway, Miami Herald
The politicians in Washington and Baghdad will take their summer breaks, happy to postpone any further thought of Iraq at least until September, when U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus makes his progress report on the American troop surge to Congress, as though that may make some difference in how much longer this agony is going to continue.
Murtha / Pelosi Blueprint for Defeat – Washington Times editorial
With Congress's August recess less than one week away, it should hardly come as a surprise that Rep. John Murtha, the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, is readying more legislative mischief. Mr. Murtha, a close political ally of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has made it clear that plans to use the $459.6 billion defense appropriations bill, which comes to the floor this week, to short-circuit the current military campaign against jihadists in Iraq and shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo).
Bush’s Turkish Gamble – Robert Novak, Washington Post
The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq.
U.S. vs. Iran: Cold War, Too – Robin Wright, Washington Post
When the first Cold War began, in 1946, Winston Churchill famously spoke of an Iron Curtain that had divided Europe. As Cold War II begins half a century later, the Bush administration is trying to drape a kind of Green Curtain dividing the Middle East between Iran's friends and foes. The new showdown may well prove to be the most enduring legacy of the Iraq conflict. The outcome will certainly shape the future of the Middle East -- not least because the administration's strategy seems so unlikely to work.
Mideast Back to the Future? – David Victor Hanson, Washington Times
After four years of effort in Iraq, Americans may well tire of that cost and bring Gen. Petraeus and the troops home. We can then go back to the shorter-term remedies of the past. Well and good. But at least remember what that past policy was: Democratic appeasement of terrorists, interrupted by cynical Republican business with terrorist-sponsoring regimes.
Saudis Going South on Iraq – New York Times editorial
While Washington hasn’t protested publicly, Riyadh is pouring money into Sunni opposition groups and letting Saudis cross the border to join Sunni insurgents fighting the American-backed, Shiite-led government. Washington estimates that nearly half of the 60 to 80 foreign fighters entering Iraq each month come from Saudi Arabia.
The Pakistan Dilemma – Wall Street Journal editorial
Today, Pakistan remains in a parlous state, and it's an open question how long Mr. Musharraf will remain in power. Yet it's also not clear whether or how Pakistan would be better off if its President-General were somehow deposed. For the Bush Administration, Pakistani succession is, after Iraq, its toughest foreign policy dilemma.
Getting bin Laden up a Tree – Christian Science Monitor editorial
The Bush doctrine of expanding democracy to flush out Islamic terrorism has reached a critical test in Pakistan, where Al Qaeda leaders are in hiding. The nation's military ruler was forced last week to meet with the leading opposition figure. The move offers hope of a democracy restored.
Musharraf's Big Chance - Ed Royce, Washington Times
During my recent meeting with President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad, it was apparent Pakistan has been sinking deeper into inner turmoil. The intensity of radicalism in the tribal areas and throughout the country is an ever-growing threat to the Musharraf government.
Bush’s Folly - Los Angeles Times editorial
President bush's speech last week arguing that the United States must stay in Iraq to defeat the Al Qaeda leadership reassembling there ranks as one of his most vacuous. It drew on intelligence that was conveniently (and perhaps selectively?) declassified in order to make the dubious case that the Al Qaeda in Iraq today is the same enemy that attacked us on 9/11.
Turks & Tolerance - Joshua Treviño, National Review
The reality is that Turkish state and society are precariously balanced between three distinct visions: the aggressive chauvinism of its Kemalist founding; the Islamist ambitions of its resurgent religious consciousness; and the secularist ambitions of its burgeoning entrepreneurial and urban classes. Each of these strands has its pull, and barring unlikely catastrophe, none will wholly dominate the others. For all the ink spilled over the pros and cons of Islamist rule in Turkey, it is the Kemalist element that represents the most meaningful threat to a Turkey that may join Europe. Understanding that threat is key to understanding AK’s victory this past weekend.
Intelligent Intelligence - Arnaud de Borchgrave, Washington Times
For obvious reasons, open source information is no longer the traditional collection from open sources. This aspect of the intelligence business has become infinitely more complex. There are now 26,000 individual newspapers in the world that have to be monitored because one or two might contain a piece or two of a global terrorist puzzle. To complete the global Tower of Babel babble, there are 26,000 radio stations; 21,000 TV stations; 108 million Web sites; 75 million blogs; 56 million MySpace squatters; 100 million hits a day on YouTube; 8,000 news and information portals; 200 million photos on flickr.com, increasing by 5,000 per minute; 45,000 daily podcasts, and 2.5 million Web-enabled devices.
The Real Wiretapping Scandal – David Rivkin and Lee Casey, Wall Street Journal
Last Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing--at which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was insulted by senators and ridiculed by spectators--was Washington political theater at its lowest. But some significant information did manage to get through the senatorial venom directed at Mr. Gonzales. It now appears certain that the terrorist surveillance program (TSP) authorized by President Bush after 9/11 was even broader than the TSP that the New York Times first revealed in December 2005.
The Interagency Illness – Austin Bay, Washington Times
Memo to the next president: You need to fix the biggest problem in Washington. Everyone knows what that problem is. Honky-tonk denizens would call it lack of team play. Policy wonks call it "the broken interagency process." Military careers are made in the field. Bureaucrat careers are made inside the Washington Beltway — a serious structural mistake. They should be made in Baghdad, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. That requires changing promotion and career training policies throughout our civilian agencies.
Beauchamp the Whistleblower? – Michael Goldfarb, Weekly Standard
But now the DailyKos has put forward what is surely the most disturbing defense of the Baghdad Diarist--that those who are questioning Beauchamp's credibility do so as part of a larger effort of "intimidating whistleblowers." But Beauchamp is no whistleblower...he claims to have been a participant in every grotesque tale he recounts. If Lynndie England had penned an anonymous account of her crimes at Abu Ghraib, would the left have defended her as a whistleblower? Of course, not. They'd have demanded that she reveal herself and face the consequences of her actions.
