The Gettysburg of this War – Frederick Kagan, National Review
President Bush’s Labor Day visit to Iraq should have surprised no one who was paying attention. At such a critical point in the debate over Iraq policy, it was almost inconceivable that he would fly to and from Australia without stopping in Iraq. What was surprising was the precise location and nature of the visit. Instead of flying into Baghdad and surrounding himself with his generals and the Iraqi government, Bush flew to al Asad airfield, west of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province. He brought with him his secretaries of State and Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commander of U.S. Central Command. He was met at al Asad by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, as well as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kemal al Maliki, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, and Vice Presidents Adel Abdul Mehdi and Tariq al Hashemi. In other words, Bush called together all of the leading political and military figures in his administration and the Iraqi government in the heart of Anbar Province. If ever there was a sign that we have turned a corner in the fight against both al Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni insurgency, this was it. Anbar, as everyone knows, has been one of the hotbeds and the most important base for both the Sunni rejectionist insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq since 2003. It has been one of the most violent provinces in Iraq, and one of the most dangerous for American soldiers and Marines, until recently. Now it is one of the safest — safe enough for the war cabinet of the United States of America to meet there with the senior leadership of the government of Iraq to discuss strategy. Instead of talking about how to convince the Anbaris that the Sunni will not retake power in Iraq any time soon, Bush, Maliki, Petraeus, Talabani, and Crocker talked about how to get American and Iraqi aid and reconstruction money flowing more rapidly to the province as a reward for its dramatic and decisive turn against AQI and against the Sunni rejectionist insurgency. In any other war, with any other president, this event would be recognized for what it is: the sign of a crucial victory over two challenges that had seemed both unconquerable and fatal. It should be recognized as at least the Gettysburg of this war, to the extent that counterinsurgencies can have such turning points.
The State of Iraq: An Update - Jason Campbell, Michael O’Hanlon and Amy Unikewicz, New York Times
In advance of the much-anticipated Congressional testimony next week of Ryan Crocker, the ambassador to Iraq, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top United States military commander, many have agreed on what appear to be two crucial realities in Iraq: there is military momentum for combined American-Iraqi forces and there is political paralysis in Baghdad. While the recent Government Accountability Office report on the 18 benchmarks set out by Congress in May gave a very pessimistic view, our data above, culled from official Iraqi and American sources and press reports, support a more mixed picture. Unfortunately, at the moment the political paralysis seems to be a more powerful force than the military momentum, and progress in security is unsustainable without sectarian compromise among Iraq’s Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shiites. The country remains very violent, and the economy rather stagnant. Nonetheless, the military momentum appears real, despite the tragic multiple truck bombings in Ninevah Province on Aug. 14 that made that month the deadliest since winter. Overall, civilian fatality rates are down perhaps one third since late 2006, though they remain quite high. There are also signs that roughly six of Iraq’s 18 provinces are making significant economic and security gains, up from three a year ago. The story in Sunni-dominated Anbar Province is by now well known: attacks in the city of Ramadi are down 90 percent, and the economy is recovering. But there is progress in several regions with more complex sectarian mixes as well.
Surge Politics – Michael Barone, Real Clear Politics
He who frames the issue tends to determine the outcome of the vote. That's a basic rule of political consultants that applies to elections and to the legislative process, as well. In July, when Congress was considering legislation limiting American military involvement in Iraq, the issue was framed -- by Democratic leaders and the mainstream media -- as whether Americans should continue to sacrifice life and treasure in a futile attempt to carry on a war that was already lost. It took some considerable shrewdness and steadfastness by Republican congressional leaders to prevent a stinging repudiation of the Bush administration. They may have been helped by Republican members' recoiling against the harsh partisanship of Democratic leaders -- just as Democratic solidarity may be increased by what is perceived as the harsh partisanship of Republicans. Now, as Congress awaits the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the issue seems to be framed in a different way. Democrats as harshly partisan as Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin and as steadfastly opposed to military action in Iraq as Washington Rep. Brian Baird have had to admit or report that Petraeus' "surge" strategy and forward-moving tactics have produced military progress in Iraq. We are making gains that even strong supporters of the administration were unwilling to claim in July. For Baird, this means Congress should support the surge and not attempt to recall troops now.
Good Morning Vietnam! – Eugene Robinson, Washington Post
The most fascinating aspect of George W. Bush's no-holds-barred campaign to keep Congress from meddling in his foolish and tragic war is the way he has begun invoking the Vietnam War -- not as a cautionary lesson about hubris and futility but as a reason to push ahead (whatever "ahead" might mean) in Iraq. Say what you want about the man, but he's full of surprises -- and I'm not talking about the unannounced visit he made yesterday to Anbar province. With the pivotal report from Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker due to land next week, and with the Iraqi government having made zero progress on political reconciliation, it's no surprise that the Decider would decide to be photographed touring the one part of Iraq where he can claim any measure of success. But seeking support for the war in Iraq by reminding the nation about Vietnam? I'd feel better if I thought this was just some exquisitely subtle, deeply cynical gambit, yet I have the sinking feeling that Bush actually believes the nonsensical version of history he's peddling. I fear the man is on a mission to rewrite the past.
Center First Gives Way to Center Last – David Brooks, New York Times (subscription required)
Have you noticed the change in the Iraq debate? Most American experts and policy makers wasted the past few years assuming that change in Iraq would come from the center and spread outward. They squandered months arguing about the benchmarks that would supposedly induce the Baghdad politicians to make compromises. They quibbled over whether this or that prime minister was up to the job. They unrealistically imagined that peace would come through some grand Sunni-Shiite reconciliation. Now, at long last, the smartest analysts and policy makers are starting to think like sociologists. They are finally acknowledging that the key Iraqi figures are not in the center but in the provinces and the tribes. Peace will come to the center last, not to the center first. Stability will come not through some grand reconciliation but through the agglomeration of order, tribe by tribe and street by street. The big change in the debate has come about because the surge failed, and it failed in an unexpected way.
Iraq Inspection – Ralph Peters, New York Post
There is no substitute for being on the ground if you want a sense of where Iraq may be headed. The reality is almost always different when you smell it up close. Back in the United States, I receive updates from a wide range of military friends and acquaintances - yet, no matter how much progress they report, the constant negativity in the media starts to wear me down, too. Then I return to Iraq. And each time I board a military aircraft to leave Baghdad, I find my confidence heightened that persistence will yield advantageous results. Given the complexity of the situation in Iraq - problems that date back not just to 2003, but to biblical days - no one can guarantee success, however humbly we measure it. But quitting will guarantee failure, with gruesome long-term costs. Given the strategic bravado and operational inconsistency - the battlefield fecklessness - of the Bush administration in the past, it's essential to avoid gushing optimism. But, based upon what I saw, from the dust of Anbar Province to the streets of Baghdad, during Infantry patrols and in interviews with generals I trust, I believe that sober optimism is in order. The critical variant now isn't our military's performance - since Gen. David Petraeus took command, we've made remarkable progress (although Petraeus is quick to credit others - not least, Col. Sean McFarlane, who pioneered reconcilation with the Sunni tribes). The 2,000-pound camel is the Iraqi government. If it doesn't find its way to a truly national agenda that deals justly with all Iraqis, and if it doesn't do so quickly, the choices before us - short of just leaving - will be to engineer the government's replacement, or to let it rot and concentrate on local alliances and completing the destruction of al Qaeda in Iraq.
The Surge is Working - Jeff Emanuel, Washington Times
The region to the south and east of Baghdad — home to the Tigris River Valley, to the former terrorist training center and resort town of Salman Pak and to the long-since defunct Iraqi nuclear reactor — has seen little of the Coalition since the initial invasion of 2003. One of several areas the military quickly transited, killing off Saddam Hussein's army before abandoning it entirely, this strategically important region of Shi'a farmers and former Sunni aristocrats with the snaking Tigris is one of the most fertile in central Iraq. It has long since become home to rival factions of various insurgent and sectarian groups. From al Qaeda in Iraq to Muqtada al Sadr's "Mahdi army" (the Jaish al Mahdi, or JAM), insurgents in the area have now spent months and years fighting among themselves and against each other, in the process terrorizing a cowed civilian population which had all but given up on achieving something better. This was the situation facing the 3rd Brigade of Georgia's 3rd Infantry Division when it arrived this spring in Iraq. The third of the five "surge" brigades, the 3-3 Infantry, also known as "Sledgehammer," was asked to accomplish a great deal in a brief period of time: from hunting down al Qaeda, JAM and others in the area to "interdict[ing] accelerants" — terrorists or materiel — before they can reach Baghdad, plus other tasks such as building rapport with the civilian community and bolstering the Iraqi National Police. Though undermanned for the scope of their mission and the amount of territory to cover, the 3-3 has made an immediate and notable impact.
No Withdrawal from Iraq – London Daily Telegraph leader
It would be comforting to think that the successful redeployment of British troops from Saddam Hussein's former palace in Basra to the more secure confines of the airport complex on the city's outskirts represents the beginning of the end for Britain's controversial military intervention in Iraq. The main objective has been to prepare the four Iraqi provinces - placed under British control following Saddam's overthrow in 2003 - for a new Iraqi government eventually to take them over. Three of the four provinces have already been handed back to the Iraqis, and yesterday's redeployment has raised expectations that the fourth - Basra - can be returned by the end of the year. Our Armed Forces have paid a heavy price for helping the Iraqis to get back on their feet after suffering decades of Ba'athist dictatorship. To date, the British have suffered 168 combat deaths, with hundreds more sustaining serious injuries. Arguably many of these casualties might have been avoided had more thought been given to the country's post-war administration. As General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army at the time of the invasion, writes in his autobiography, which this newspaper is serialising, the American-led coalition made a series of catastrophic errors, such as not providing sufficient numbers of troops and needlessly disbanding Iraq's security infrastructure. Whatever mistakes have been made in the past, Britain and America have a moral obligation to help the Iraqis rebuild their war-ravaged country before any serious consideration can be given to a full-scale withdrawal of coalition troops.
Basra Pull-out Sends a Clear Message - The Australian editorial
The great strength that justified the US-led coalition campaign to remove dictator Saddam Hussein and help build democracy in Iraq was the fact it was always conceived as a liberation, not occupation. As such, military intervention came with the guarantee that foreign troops would one day leave and political decision-making and security enforcement would be left in the hands of an elected Iraqi government. The withdrawal of British troops from a former presidential palace compound in the southern Iraq city of Basra to a military base near the airport is a welcome first sign that this promise is coming closer to reality. There are, of course, many layers of politics at play in Britain's decision. For the UK, the decision reflects a desire by newly appointed Prime Minister Gordon Brown to differentiate his premiership from that of the recently retired Tony Blair. It is calculated to take some heat out of the Iraq issue in preparation for what could well be an early general election. For Washington, Britain's decision is something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it has the potential to send a worrying message to insurgent forces and any wavering coalition partners that America's major ally in Iraq has watered down its commitment. On the other hand, Britain's staged retreat sends a much-needed message to the Iraqi Government, led by Nouri al-Maliki, that local politicians must face the reality that foreign troops will not be in Iraq forever and they must step up to the plate. This is exactly the message that John Howard has been emphasising to Mr Maliki in recent correspondence. It will also test the political capacity of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has wide support in the region. Britain's decision to negotiate with Sadr and begin to withdraw troops should not be seen as confirmation that it has abandoned support for the coalition objectives in Iraq. Basra is not Baghdad, and removing 500 troops from the city does not signal a unilateral withdrawal. Rather, it represents the first stage of a carefully managed soft transfer of authority to Iraqi forces. By pulling troops out at night, without the glare of publicity, Britain has sought to limit the opportunity for insurgent forces to briefly escalate the level of violence, providing an easy but superficial comparison with America's humiliating military retreat from Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War. The next phase in Britain's strategy in southern Iraq will be a formal handover of control of the city to Iraqi forces, which is expected to happen sometime in October.
Reporting from the Front – New York Post editorial
For the past 10 days, Post military columnist Ralph Peters has been report ing from Iraq. His final report from the war zone appears in these pages today - one day after President Bush's touch-and-go visit and on the eve of what's likely to be a make-or-break congressional debate on the future of the war. A retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, he has been on the ground with soldiers and Marines, and has spent time with high-ranking officers in Baghdad as well. For those who understand the necessity of the conflict, and who wish the troops and their commanders well, Peters has been a bearer of good news. His evaluation: What was once an untenable and seemingly out-of-control military situation has undergone a profound change - for the better. There is room, he says, for guarded optimism - a real possibility that America can finish what is shaping up to be a crushing defeat of al Qaeda forces.
Getting Out of Iraq - Jeff Danziger, Boston Globe
The Pentagon has little choice but to begin planning for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The House of Representatives has just passed rules that make a soldier's second or third tour in Iraq possible only after an equal amount of time has been assigned at home. We don't have enough troops now, and the House action will mean even fewer troops will be available. Journalists have an interesting way of illustrating the difficulties involved in a withdrawal: If all the trucks, humvees, tanks, semitrailers, and wheeled artillery pieces were lined up in a convoy down the road south to Kuwait, Time magazine reported, they would stretch 100 miles. It wouldn't happen this way of course, but for sheer history-book gee-whiz quality, that would be a photo opportunity to equal the helicopters leaving the roof in Saigon. And appropriately so. For that photo, which showed the haste and confusion of Vietnam withdrawal that occurred almost entirely without planning, probably hurt US military prestige more than any other single image. Vietnam proved that wars are a lot easier to get into than out of. If you can get out at all.
Operation Hope – London Times leader
Historians will find it hard to resist labelling September 3, 2007, as the day Britain and the US finally parted company on Iraq. Two high-security dramas that concluded on the same hot morning – one in which President Bush flew into the al-Asad airbase for a “war council” with his top generals, the other the British withdrawal from Basra Palace to the airport – appeared to symbolise two rapidly diverging views on what can still be achieved by coalition forces. On paper, the evacuation of the palace by the 4th Battalion The Rifles, under cover of darkness and a media blackout, was part of a longstanding plan agreed with US forces to hand over the city to the Iraqi Army. In reality, control of territory and timing in Basra has long since rested primarily with rival Shia militias, and no one can predict with confidence how they will respond to the withdrawal. Yet this much is clear: short of mounting a “surge” of its own, the British Army’s decision was the only realistic one in the circumstances. And while the pullback was hardly triumphant, it was orderly, purposeful and the fulfilment of a promise made four years ago. Mr Bush’s purpose in touching down in the Iraqi desert was to highlight progress made against al-Qaeda cells in parts of Anbar province, and to ensure that he can evaluate General David Petraeus’s long-awaited report to Congress later this month on the basis of first-hand experience, however brief. Thanks to the continued presence of 5,500 British troops at Basra airport, he will also be able to claim that the core of the coalition that removed Saddam Hussein remains intact. Critics will argue that this face-saving role for Washington is the only real purpose left for British Forces in Iraq. This is not true. They will continue to patrol beyond their base, and in doing so will be well placed to gather intelligence on three vital issues: the relative strengths of the militia groups vying for control of the city, their level of penetration of Iraqi police and army units, and the extent of Iranian influence on local government and clerics.
Iraq’s War of the Warlords – Boston Globe editorial
When the radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada Sadr called last week for a freeze on his Mahdi Army's operations, it might have been tempting to take it as a positive step toward reducing violence and promoting stability in Iraq. But even if his directive is heeded by most components of the far-from-unitary Mahdi Army, any such timeout will only be a tactical pause to let Sadr's forces regroup. It hardly portends a transformation of the basic situation in Iraq. Iraq is a smashed state. Indeed, the government housed in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone is practically irrelevant to the multifarious power struggles fought in the streets by disparate militias and gangs. The fracturing of Iraq has had tragic consequences for Iraqis who lost their families, their homes, and their communities amid the anarchy. Before the war, many Iraqis had hoped that a pluralist sense of national identity could be cultivated in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's overthrow. That illusion is long since lost. And however the blame is apportioned for Iraq's shattering, the desolating reality is that Iraq has devolved into a collection of separate cities and regions ruled by sectarian or criminal militias - and the warlords who command the men with guns.
Israel’s Example – Washington Post editorial
No one would say that Israel is soft on terrorism, which makes it all the more fascinating that a country that essentially lives under siege provides so many legal accommodations to those it detains as unlawful combatants. It's a stark contrast to the Bush administration's approach and one the administration may be able to learn from. That's essentially the point made by a handful of Israeli law professors and military law experts in a recently filed friend-of-the-court brief in Boumediene v. Bush. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case this fall to determine whether the administration has lawfully detained Mr. Boumediene as an enemy combatant. Mr. Boumediene and five other Algerians who had become Bosnian nationals were arrested in Bosnia at the behest of the United States in October 2001 on suspicion that they were plotting to bomb the U.S. Embassy there. In January 2002, the Bosnian courts ordered the release of the detainees after finding no basis for the allegations, but the United States demanded and got custody of the men. The six have been held at Guantanamo Bay for the past 5 1/2 years, with limited consultation with lawyers and limited ability to challenge their detention. The Bush administration argues that non-U.S. citizens detained on foreign soil have no right to the constitutional protections enjoyed by Americans. The Supreme Court may yet agree, but there is little doubt these six detainees would have had a dramatically different experience had they been detained by Israel.
Permanent President Putin? – James Hackett, Washington Times
Russia may be a democracy, but it is rapidly morphing back into an authoritarian state. President Vladimir Putin looks very much like a man running for re-election. The question is whether he plans to scrap the constitution and become president for life or rule from behind the scenes and return to office later. The constitution adopted in 1993 by the new Russia states in Chapter 4, Article 81, "No one person shall hold the office of president for more than two terms in succession." Mr. Putin was elected in 2000 and won re-election by a landslide 71 percent in 2004. He will complete two terms next year, so is ineligible under the constitution to stand for re-election. Elections to the Duma will be held Dec. 2, after which the political parties will nominate their candidates for the presidency. That election will take place March 2, with the new president taking office May 7. Barely six months before the election, Vladimir Putin dominates Russian politics like a colossus, with polls showing an approval rate as high as 80 percent.
The New Anti-Semitism - Denis MacShane, Washington Post
Hatred of Jews has reached new heights in Europe and many points south and east of the old continent. Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain. None of us are Jewish or active in the unending debates on the Israeli-Palestinian question. Our report showed a pattern of fear among a small number of British citizens -- there are around 300,000 Jews in Britain, of whom about a third are observant -- that is not acceptable in a modern democracy. Synagogues attacked. Jewish schoolboys jostled on public transportation. Rabbis punched and knifed. British Jews feeling compelled to raise millions to provide private security for their weddings and community events. On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their opinions. More worrisome was what we described as anti-Jewish discourse, a mood and tone whenever Jews are discussed, whether in the media, at universities, among the liberal media elite or at dinner parties of modish London. To express any support for Israel or any feeling for the right of a Jewish state to exist produces denunciation, even contempt.
High Noon in Egypt? - Devika Parashar and F. Andy Messing, Washington Times
The parallels between President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and the deposed shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran, are attention-getting. In 1979, prior to the notorious Islamic Revolution, which was instigated and controlled by radical Muslim cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the shah wielded personal and authoritarian power in a manner comparable to the dictators of the time: Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, and earlier, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba. These rulers brandished their power with little restraint, unencumbered by the rule of law and basically insensitive to the needs of their populace. Unfortunately, Hosni Mubarak alarmingly resembles these former dictators in social, political, economic and security issues. He is inadvertently pushing his country towards an Islamic revolution.
Don't Expect Much from Raúl Castro - Jaime Suchlicki, Miami Herald
The first year of Gen. Raúl Castro's rule is now over, and no significant changes have occurred in Cuba. Yet expectations remain that the younger Castro will follow the Chinese or the Vietnamese model and even find an accommodation with the United States. Wrong on both counts. Despite economic difficulties, General Castro may offer more consumer goods and food to tranquilize the Cuban population, but no major structural reforms that would open the Cuban economy. In his July 26 speech, he talked about more foreign investments, but emphasized greater discipline and productivity as the road toward improving the economy. With Fidel alive, or even when he is dead, it would be difficult for Raúl to reject his brother's legacy of political and economic centralization. Raúl's legitimacy is based on being Fidel's heir. Any major move to reject Fidel's ''teachings'' would create uncertainty among Cuba's ruling elites -- party and military. It could also increase instability as some would advocate rapid change, while others cling to more-orthodox policies. Cubans could see this as an opportunity for mobilization, demanding faster reforms. For Raúl, the uncertainties of uncorking the genie's bottle in Cuba are greater than keeping the lid on and moving cautiously. For the past 47 years, political considerations have always dictated economic policies.
Checking China – Peter Brookes, New York Post
Starting today, the navies of India, Japan, Singapore, Australia and the United States will hold several days of exercises in the Bay of Bengal in the largest multilateral, peacetime naval maneuvers in the Indian Ocean - ever. Naturally, the five participating capitals claim the exercises aren't aimed at any particular country - especially if that country might happen to be a very large Asian nation whose name starts with a "C."U.S. Pacific Commander Adm. Timothy Keating said that the exercises, consisting of as many as 25 ships and submarines - including two U.S. nuclear aircraft carriers and one Indian (formerly U.K.) flattop - aren't directed at China. "You could connect the dots geographically . . . But there's no effort on the part of the U.S. or on the part of any of these other countries to isolate China," the four-star admiral insisted during a late August visit to India.
As Recruiting Falters Army Offers Cash - Miami Herald editorial
Remember that old recruiting poster -- ''Uncle Sam Wants You''? Forget it. That is so World War II. Today's Army offers something better: ``Uncle Sam Wants to Show You the Money.'' After falling short of its recruiting goals for two months in a row, and facing a probable failure to meet its overall goal for the fiscal year, the Army has come up with something called the ''quick ship'' bonus. It means exactly what it says. Anyone who signs up for this qualifies for a $20,000 bonus -- more than most high school graduates in their teens could expect to earn in a year -- if they agree to leave for basic combat training by the end of September. Next stop for many of them: Iraq. To absolutely no one's surprise, more than 90 percent of the Army's recruits since late July, when the program began, have accepted those terms in order to qualify for ''quick ship'' bonuses. The amount is more than what the average recruit coming out of basic training can expect to earn in the first year of service, which makes the bonus both a good deal for the recruit and a sure sign of the Army's desperate need for warm bodies.
-----
