|
|||||
|
|||||
The Former-Insurgent Counterinsurgency – Michael Gordon, New York Times Magazine (subscription required)
The American strategy to stabilize Iraq is outlined in a several-inches-thick document called the Joint Campaign Plan. The stated goal is to achieve “localized security” (that is, in Baghdad and other critical parts of Iraq) by the summer of 2008 and to establish “sustainable security” nationwide by the summer of 2009. War critics at home have bemoaned the two-year time line, but meeting the objectives in such a short period would be an extraordinary accomplishment. The mission has been made all the more complex by the fact that the United States’ adversaries in Iraq are well aware that the “surge” of American reinforcements has placed a considerable strain on the Army and Marines and will probably run its course by early 2008. Yet the surge has also provided a chance to forge alliances between American forces and Sunnis who were fed up with Al Qaeda militants and uneasy about the Shiite-dominated government. The additional troops have enabled the United States to push into Sunni areas where American forces had not operated for many months and to stay there rather than sweeping through and leaving. Before leaving Baghdad to embed with the troops, I stopped by the fortified Green Zone to talk with Maj. Gen. Paul Newton. A British officer with eight tours of duty in Northern Ireland, Newton recently joined the staff of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, and headed the Force Strategic Engagement Cell with Donald Blome, a senior aide to the U.S. ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker. It was part of the determined effort to exploit the willingness of local Sunnis to work with the American-led coalition. To my ear, it sometimes sounded as if the command had an assistant secretary of war for peace. Yet this effort was being carried out with hardheaded practicality and was potentially of enormous significance. The basic strategy was to persuade sheiks and former insurgents to submit lists of potential recruits for local security forces.
The Washington Clock Runs Down - Kyle Teamey, Washington Post
Mismanagement by the Bush administration and an unquestioning Republican Congress may have set the stage for the sectarian violence of 2006, but Democratic efforts to pull out troops, cut off support or link support to unattainable benchmarks have been equally damaging to attempts to get militias and insurgents to lay down their arms. In the long run, neither Americans nor Iraqis will benefit from a hasty withdrawal of U.S. troops. Yet, because Iraq has become a political liability for Republicans, and because Democrats increasingly view and treat it as an opportunity, the timing associated with both parties' Iraq policies centers on the 2008 campaign calendar, not on the realities of the war. Gen. Petraeus put it this way in April: "The Washington clock is moving more rapidly than the Baghdad clock." Translation: Party politics matters more than the results of a distant war. Though the pacification of much of western Iraq provides evidence of substantial gains in the past six months, the battle of perceptions is all but lost, and with it, the political clock has run out. Today, Iraqi insurgents need only bide their time. They will continue to carry out acts of violence such as the Aug. 14 truck bombings in unprotected Yazidi villages, to reinforce the belief that they are unstoppable. Armed groups will jockey for position street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, wherever they are able to exploit the lack of a coalition presence. Unless the Iraqi government is able to assert itself, the civil conflict will worsen as U.S. troops withdraw.
Desperados – Mario Loyola, Weekly Standard
Operation Lightening Hammer in Diyala province--part of Operation Phantom Strike--has flushed scores and perhaps hundreds of insurgents out of the Diyala River Valley northeast of Baqubah. At the end of last week, some al Qaeda fighters "counter-attacked"; not against the Coalition of course, but against innocent civilians. Initial reports suggested an undaunted insurgency. But as the details of the story emerged, they suggested quite the opposite. Many of the al Qaeda fleeing Operation Lightning Hammer have headed south along the seam formed by Coalition forces moving in strength between Baqubah and Baghdad--the way west was blocked by a screen of air assault squadrons, and the way north was blocked by the troops heading down from the north end of the valley. A little over a week ago, some of those fleeing were stopped near Kanan, a town several miles west of Baqubah, by what the military describes as "concerned local nationals"--basically, one of the neighborhood watch groups that are springing up all over Diyala province. Unfortunately for the insurgents, the local tribal sheiks had recently sworn allegiance to the central government, alliance to the Coalition, and enmity to al Qaeda. A firefight ensued and the al Qaeda group was hit hard, reportedly losing some 15 fighters in the engagement. Several days later, around sunrise on the morning of August 23, the al Qaeda fighters returned, armed for revenge.
Bush’s Lost Iraqi Election – David Ignatius, Washington Post
Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, hinted in a television interview last weekend at one of the war's least understood turning points: America's decision not to challenge Iranian intervention in Iraq's January 2005 elections. "Our adversaries in Iraq are heavily supported financially by other quarters. We are not," Allawi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We fought the elections with virtually no support whatsoever, except for Iraqis and the Iraqis who support us." Behind Allawi's comment lies a tale of intrigue and indecision by the United States over whether to mount a covert-action program to confront Iran's political meddling. Such a plan was crafted by the Central Intelligence Agency and then withdrawn -- because of opposition from an unlikely coalition that is said to have included Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was then House minority leader, and Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser. As recounted by former U.S. officials, the story embodies the mix of hubris and naivete that has characterized so much of the Iraq effort. From President Bush on down, U.S. officials enthused about Iraqi democracy while pursuing a course of action that made it virtually certain that Iran and its proxies would emerge as the dominant political force.
The Iraq War is Redeemable – Peter Wehner, National Review
If 2006 was an awful year for Iraq, then 2007 has been significantly better. Although the central government is frustratingly ineffective and Iraq remains a fragile and riven nation, we are seeing indisputable evidence of progress in the security realm, as well as political reconciliation from the bottom up. Iraq, which was hurling toward civil war a year ago, is now a calmer country. Total attacks in Iraq are at their lowest levels since August of 2006. Sectarian violence has sharply decreased in Baghdad, with civilian murders in Baghdad down more than 50 percent since Operation Fard al-Qanun — Arabic for “Enforcement of the Law” — began earlier this year. Civilian murders in Baghdad have in fact reached their lowest levels since just before the Golden Mosque in Samarra was bombed in February 2006. And we’ve made huge headway in human intelligence. Cities and provinces like Baghdad, Anbar, and Diyala are being reclaimed. A series of targeted operations designed to intensify the pursuit of extremist elements across Iraq is forcing al Qaeda and Shia extremists into ever-shrinking areas. Over the coming weeks, according to military commanders, we will conduct quick strike raids against remaining extremist sanctuaries and staging areas. Al Qaeda in Iraq is on the run, having absorbed tremendous blows from the American military, which under the leadership of General Petraeus is executing its counterinsurgency strategy with staggering efficiency.
Support Troops: Unsung Heroes – Ralph Peters, New York Post
The Army’s Maj. Gen. James E. Simmons is a country boy from Arkansas who likes to go fishing in one of Saddam's artificial lakes with NCOs from the Kentucky National Guard. He's also the deputy commanding general for support of Multinational Corps, Iraq. In English, that means he's the Bagh-daddy with deep pockets who keeps our troops armed, equipped, fueled, fed, repaired, protected and able to fly. He also oversees intelligence and counter-IED operations - the struggle with roadside bombs. It's an enormous mission, and there's a big story in the human and materiel costs. For example, Simmons has a combat brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division under his command to provide route security. During their deployment, the brigade will put up to 5 million miles on their vehicles. And it's terribly unjust that the sacrifices of our support troops go ignored by the big-star media. For just one example, a single military-police battalion lost 37 soldiers killed in the course of their tour. But what do we all hear about their valor?
No Time for Threats – New York Times editorial
French President Nicolas Sarkozy made the wrong gesture at the wrong time by brandishing the possible use of force against Iran’s nuclear weapons program in his first major foreign policy address. The United States and its allies need to be stepping up their efforts to resolve the serious dangers posed by Iran through comprehensive negotiations and increased international economic pressure, not by talking about military action. Mr. Sarkozy, who has previously said that France would not join Washington in military action against Iran, did not exactly endorse an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Monday’s speech. He asserted that a nuclear-armed Iran would be “unacceptable” and reaffirmed support for the ongoing diplomatic initiative by the United States, France and other world powers. That initiative involves the imposition of U.N.-mandated sanctions against Iran while offering significant political and economic benefits if Iran stops enriching uranium. It is a deal Tehran so far has refused. What’s scary is that his comments may reflect his understanding of where American policy is headed. Far closer to Washington than his predecessor, Mr. Sarkozy just spent time with President Bush on vacation in Maine. His remarks, reflecting his blunt, no-nuance style, will be read as a warning to Tehran and to countries reluctant to increase the penalties for Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The message: If the diplomatic initiative fails, Iran will have nuclear weapons or there will be military action to prevent it. Mr. Bush added to the bullying yesterday by suggesting the nuclear threat from Iran was a justification for keeping American troops in Iraq.
Iran’s Choice – London Times leader
Rarely has his message been as blunt. Denouncing support for terrorism, arming of Iraqi militias and attempts to place the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”, President Bush accused Iran of threatening the security of nations everywhere. America, he insisted, would “confront this danger before it is too late”. Within hours of his tough message, US forces in Iraq had arrested eight Iranians, searched their luggage and confiscated their Iraqi escort’s weapons before releasing them. American commanders are taking no chances. They know that Iran is smuggling men and weapons into Iraq in huge quantities, arming not only Shia militias but also rival Sunni groups with the express aim of harassing and killing coalition troops. Iran has made no secret of its malevolent intention to destabilise Iraq and fill the resulting vacuum. President Ahmadinejad boasted earlier this week that the Americans were on the run, and said that when they pulled out they would leave an opening for his forces. “Today you are prisoners in your own quagmire,” he said, demonstrating the hubris that, since the fall of Saddam Hussein, has increasingly marked Iranian behaviour. Some of his top advisers use language even more menacing: the US forces were now “hostages” in Iraq, and would be attacked if the US ordered any military action against Iran, one senior official recently told Western analysts. Clearly, Iran now believes it can profit from confrontation, which hardliners around President Ahmadinejad appear to be actively seeking. For the past six months, Washington has warned Iran to stop supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq. The response has been not only a contemptuous denial but also the dispatch of Iranian Revolutionary Guards to other areas of confrontation. Iranian officials have also admitted that they are supplying weapons to the Taleban in Afghanistan – not because they support these Sunni extremists who were their deadly enemies when in power, but in order to prevent a US and Nato victory that would increase Western influence. Iran would do well to listen not only to the words but also the tone of Mr Bush’s latest warning.
Cool the War of Words over Iran – London Daily Telegraph leader
The war of words over Iran is becoming hotter. On Monday, Nicolas Sarkozy told French ambassadors that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic was unacceptable and that he fully supported tougher sanctions if Teheran continued with uranium enrichment. This was a clearer message than that conveyed early this year by his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, who, having said that an Iranian bomb would not be "very dangerous", then backtracked. On Tuesday, George W. Bush called on Teheran to halt its support for Shia extremists in Iraq and said he had ordered American commanders to confront its "murderous activities". The same day, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was ready to fill the power vacuum in its neighbour being created by the ebbing political clout of the occupation forces. Do these three interventions mark a significant heightening of the confrontation between Iran and the outside world? On the face of it, the answer is yes, but it is worth looking behind the headlines. Mr Ahmadinejad's remarks show scant respect for Iraqi sovereignty, but foreign policy is ultimately decided not by this trigger-happy populist, but by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is generally more cautious.
Despite the Rhetoric, Iran is Amenable – Up to a Point - Bronwen Maddox, London Times
There is no foreign country that matters more to Iran than Iraq (except perhaps the US). The puzzle is why the US imagines that Iranian involvement in Iraq will melt away if it protests angrily. Yesterday’s skirmish, in which the US arrested eight Iranians in Baghdad and then let them go after consulting the Iraqi Government, was trivial and irrelevant to the broader clash between the two countries. However, it is another small sign that Iraq’s Shia-led Government is prepared to side with Tehran against the US, if only to avoid antagonism. There is no reason – although Tehran may not need one – to connect the incident with President Bush’s speech the previous night, in which he declared that Iran’s nuclear ambitions put the region “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He added that “Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region”, that “the US is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime” and that “I have authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities”. His speech, to military veterans in Nevada, came only hours after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iran President, said that the power of the US was collapsing rapidly in Iraq and that Tehran was ready to step in to help to fill the vacuum.
The Iran Dossier – Kimberly Kagan, Weekly Standard
Iran, and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah, have been actively involved in supporting Shia militias and encouraging sectarian violence in Iraq since the invasion of 2003-and Iranian planning and preparation for that effort began as early as 2002. The precise purposes of this support are unclear and may have changed over time. But one thing is very clear: Iran has consistently supplied weapons, its own advisors, and Lebanese Hezbollah advisors to multiple resistance groups in Iraq, both Sunni and Shia, and has supported these groups as they have targeted Sunni Arabs, Coalition forces, Iraqi Security Forces, and the Iraqi Government itself. Their infl uence runs from Kurdistan to Basrah, and Coalition sources report that by August 2007, Iranian-backed insurgents accounted for roughly half the attacks on Coalition forces, a dramatic change from previous periods that had seen the overwhelming majority of attacks coming from the Sunni Arab insurgency and al Qaeda. The Coalition has stepped-up its efforts to combat Iranian intervention in Iraq in recent months both because the Iranians have increased their support for violence in Iraq since the start of the surge and because Coalition successes against al Qaeda in Iraq and the larger Sunni Arab insurgency have permitted the re-allocation of resources and effort against a problem that has plagued attempts to establish a stable government in Iraq from the outset. With those problems increasingly under control, Iranian intervention is the next major problem the Coalition must tackle.
Bush’s Vietnam Analogy – Helle Dale, Washington Times
The world of bloggers and opinion writers is agog over President Bush's use of the Vietnam analogy in his speech last week to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. After years of resisting the comparison with Vietnam, Mr. Bush has now reached for the dreaded V-word. His critics are horrified, of course, even though they have been flinging the comparison around for years. All this commotion comes despite the fact that, in some ways, comparisons with Vietnam have been blindingly obvious for some time, particularly since the 2006 elections that brought Democrats to power on Capitol Hill and turned up the pressure for the United States to de-camp from Iraq. The fact is that there are two Vietnam analogies. The first is the Iraq-as-Vietnam-like quagmire, which has been repeated ad infinitum by the war's critics, from hapless Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who harped incessantly on the lessons of Vietnam, to today's Democratic leadership in Congress and most, if not all, of that party's current field of 2008 presidential candidates. According to this analogy, the United States runs the danger of sinking into a morass, costing tens of thousands of American lives, over decades of hopeless and pointless foreign entanglement.
‘Pandora’s Box of Hate’ - Douglas MacKinnon, Washington Times
The speech last week by President Bush in which he drew some analogies between Iraq and the Vietnam War, clearly touched a very raw nerve with the majority of the left-leaning media. Published reports indicated that all three major networks, the cable networks, most of the major papers in the country and hundreds of local TV stations, attacked, questioned, or referenced the Vietnam analogy. Why? What about that comparison could so enrage the liberal mainstream media? Among the number of possible reasons for the liberal media to bizarrely blow a gasket over this recounting of history, three seem the most plausible: guilt, remorse and fear. For the most part, the left-leaning mainstream media is now run by the "Antiwar Vietnam generation." And out of this generation who have a stranglehold on the media, the vast majority are men. While that in itself may be a contradiction in liberal dogma, that is the reality. Back in the 1960s and early 1970s, many of these men spent their waking hours denouncing the war while either dodging the draft or avoiding it by college deferments or other means. To be honest and fair, Vice President Dick Cheney and a number of pro-Iraq-war conservatives also avoided that war at all costs. Only in their hearts, do they know why they chose not to serve.
Defense Mission MIA? - William Hartung, Washington Times
Recent Democratic debates on national security have focused on charges and countercharges over who is better prepared to be commander in chief. Not enough attention has been paid to whether any of the major Democratic candidates offers a vision of U.S. foreign policy substantially different from that set out by the Bush administration. While Barack Obama has criticized Hillary Clinton for promoting a "Bush lite" foreign policy, his own advocacy of preventive strikes against al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan is uncomfortably close to the Bush doctrine of striking first and asking questions later. And Mrs. Clinton's insistence on keeping "all options on the table" in dealing with potential adversaries — presumably including the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons — represents old thinking that should have no place in a post-September 11, 2001, foreign policy. But perhaps the most troubling sign that an Obama or Clinton administration would be more likely to pursue business as usual than a new national security vision is their call for building up U.S. armed forces. Both have urged adding 80,000 troops beyond current levels.
Abu Ghraib Swept Under the Carpet – New York Times editorial
We would have been hard pressed to think of a more sadly suitable coda to the Bush administration’s mishandling of the Abu Ghraib nightmare than Tuesday’s verdict in the court-martial of the only officer to be tried for the abuse, sexual assault and torture of prisoners that occurred there in 2003. The verdict was a remix of the denial of reality and avoidance of accountability that the government has used all along to avoid the bitter truth behind Abu Ghraib: The abuses grew out of President Bush’s decision to ignore the Geneva Conventions and American law in handling prisoners after Sept. 11, 2001. The man on trial, Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, was not a career officer. He was one of a multitude of reservists pressed into Iraq duty, many of them for jobs beyond their experience or abilities. A military jury of nine colonels and a brigadier general decided that he was not to blame for the failure to train or supervise the Abu Ghraib jailers and acquitted him on all charges related to the abuse. He was convicted only of disobeying an order to keep silent about Abu Ghraib. Even that drew only a reprimand, from an organization that Colonel Jordan presumably has no further interest in serving. Our purpose is not to second-guess the verdict. Rather, we fear that this and the other Abu Ghraib trials have served no larger purpose than punishing 11 low-ranking soldiers who committed despicable acts. Not one officer has been punished beyond a reprimand, and there has been even less accountability at higher levels.
A Moment of Truth in Pakistan - Benazir Bhutto, Los Angeles Times
There are moments in history that prove decisive and mark a turning point for the future. The Civil War was such a moment in the United States. The fall of the Berlin Wall was such a moment for Germany and the European Union. Today is Pakistan's moment of truth. Decisions made now will determine whether extremism and terrorism can be contained to save Pakistan from internal collapse. The stability of not just Pakistan but the civilized world is at stake. In a democratic Pakistan, extremist movements have been minimal. In all democratic elections, extremist religious parties never have garnered more than 11% of the vote. But under dictators -- most notably Gen. Zia ul-Haq in the 1980s, but unfortunately also Gen. Pervez Musharraf during this decade -- religious extremism has gained a foothold in my homeland. Whether leaders like Zia exploited religion for their own political ends, or dictatorships inherently induce deprivation and desperation, the fact remains that extremism has emerged as a threat to my nation, to the region and to the world. These extremists are the petri dish of international terrorism. It need not be so. It must be reversed. And it can be done.
Australia Praised over Zimbabwe Stance – Greg Sheridan, The Australian
Zimbabwean Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has high praise for the Howard Government and its role in leading international condemnation of Robert Mugabe's regime. Australia has acted to keep Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth and has successfully opposed international cricket tours to the troubled country. "We've always said we support any international action that will put pressure on this regime, including travel bans," Mr Tsvangirai said during a visit to Melbourne yesterday. "I think the (Howard Government) has been very helpful. They've been at the forefront of actions to make clear that Mugabe's policies are unacceptable." Mr Tsvangirai's battered face was screened around the world in March following a beating in detention as a political prisoner. The scars on his face are now healed and the politician looks solid enough, and distinguished.
Crack Down on Gaza Now – Efraim Inbar, Jerusalem Post
When the radical Islamist Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in June, several commentators concluded that since the organization's primary concern was consolidating its rule, it would try to reach a long-term truce with Israel. In accordance with this rationale, Hamas would be more flexible on a deal to free the abducted soldier, Gilad Schalit, and would refrain from attacking Israel. Neither scenario materialized. In reality, Hamas is not signaling moderation, but continuous violent struggle against the Jewish State. The organization is waging a limited war against Israel and preparing for an escalation in the conflict. Kassam rocket attacks have intensified, and work continues on extending the range of the rocket. Infiltration attempts by terrorists into Israel have also grown. Palestinian mortars have even targeted the crossing points into Gaza used for transferring much-needed food and fuel into the Strip. Additional tunnels have been dug, and arms smuggling has reached a peak since Hamas took control of Gaza. Furthermore, Hamas sends hundreds of its men to Iran for advanced training. And Hamas has significantly enhanced its military capabilities across a range of areas.
Should We Worry About the Hariri Camp? – Michael Young, Daily Star
Half of politics is being there; the other half is knowing what to do once you are there. Many of the better-known figures of the Future movement, including Saad Hariri, have neither been in Lebanon in recent weeks nor have they been particularly adept at advancing their agenda when they are. It's dawning on a number of groups in the majority that the Hariri camp may be the strongest yet also the most vulnerable component in the March 14 coalition, and that the repercussions of this paradox will determine what happens in Lebanon for years to come. Let's start with vacation. That Hariri and his parliamentarians are entitled to one is obvious. That they feel their lives are threatened in Beirut is natural after the murder of Walid Eido. But spending several weeks out of the country at so sensitive a moment, much of that time at the opulent Hotel de Paris in Monaco, is foolish politics. Soldiers are still being killed in Nahr al-Bared, many of their families stalwarts of Hariri support in the Akkar; conditions in the country are uncertain, with people growing increasingly exasperated with basic tribulations such as power outages; and Lebanon's liberal future is being decided at this very moment, with Hariri and his parliamentary retinue nowhere to be seen. You don't build a durable political movement on poorly-timed absences.
Courage in Burma – Washington Post editorial
The most striking feature of the remarkable protests taking place across Burma for the past 10 days is that they are taking place at all. That Southeast Asian nation is ruled by one of the world's most repressive and brutal regimes, led by dictator Than Shwe. Those who dare speak out risk imprisonment and torture not only for themselves but for their relatives. Yet since Aug. 19, hundreds of men and women, students and Buddhist monks, have peaceably taken to the streets across Burma to protest economic mismanagement and political oppression. Scores have been swept into prison; many more have been beaten by government-sponsored thugs. Min Ko Naing, released in November 2004 after 15 years in prison for leading pro-democracy protests in 1988, took to the streets again -- and is once again in prison, facing a possible 20-year sentence for a nonviolent demonstration. What response does such courage call for from the outside world? A lot more than we've seen so far, that much is certain.
-----