Letter From Baghdad – Thomas Friedman, New York Times (subscription required)

Peace in Iraq has to be built on a Shiite-Sunni consensus, not a constant balancing act by us. So far, the surge has created nothing that is self-sustaining. That is, pull us out and this whole place still blows in 10 minutes. You’ll know there’s progress if Shiites or Sunnis do something that surprises you — actually reach out to the other. Up to now, though, all I’ve heard from them is either “I’m weak, how can I compromise?” or “I’m strong, why should I compromise?” No happy medium, no stable Iraq. On my way into Iraq, I had a private chat with an Arab Gulf leader. He said something that still rings in my ear: “Thomas, everyone is keeping you busy in Iraq. The Russians are keeping you busy. The Chinese are keeping you busy. The Iranians are keeping you busy. The Saudis are keeping you busy. Egypt is keeping you busy. The Syrians are keeping you busy...”

Dueling Realities in Iraq - Michael O'Hanlon, Washington Times

In the forthcoming testimony of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, a likely main story line has already emerged: Iraq's military situation is improved, but its national political situation is not. Together these dueling realities make it hard to give up on the surge in one sense, yet hard to know how long we should keep risking young American GIs when Iraqi top leaders dither and quarrel in another. At a more detailed military level, another theme seems likely to be discussed by Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker — the distinction between different types of violence in Iraq. Some forms have declined more than others. While all are clearly important, it will be important to understand if some are more significant lead indicators of an improving security environment. That in turn will help us decide if the military progress is only modest or quite substantial.

The New Counterinsurgency Front - W. Thomas Smith Jr., National Review

Colonel Lindsey Graham — the U.S. senator who holds an Air Force Reserve commission as a JAG (Judge Advocate General) officer — believes we are finally getting it right in Iraq: “Finally figuring it out,” he says. Having been to Iraq eight times, twice in the capacity of his Air Force JAG duties, and having just returned over a week ago; Graham ought to know. His time spent in-country is hardly “the dog and pony show” suggested by Democrat Sen. (and former Marine officer) James Webb on Meet the Press. Graham has worked in Iraq’s backcountry, and he’s been heavily involved in that country’s fledgling judiciary and penal/reconciliation systems — one of the keys to winning the counterinsurgency, he argues.

Moving the Goalposts on Iraq – Jack Kelly, Pittsburg Post-Gazette / Real Clear Politics

Democrats in Congress are scrambling to move the goalposts before General David Petraeus reports on the situation in Iraq. Democrats used to argue that we should withdraw because we couldn't win militarily. "I believe that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told journalists in April. Now that it is plain even to most of the Democratic members of Congress who have visited Iraq recently that we are winning militarily, it's time to change the game. Okay, so we're winning militarily, but we should get out of Iraq anyway because not enough political progress is being made, the current Democratic line goes. The goalpost moving began in earnest Tuesday with a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the recent report by the Government Accountability Office that the government of Iraq has failed to meet 13 of 18 "benchmarks" of progress toward political reconciliation.

Graduate School of Hard Knocks – Mario Loyola, National Review

As it turned out, when we invaded Iraq we had basically no idea what we were getting into. That’s not a criticism — you go to war with the army you have, and with the knowledge you have, and you adapt both to the unexpected as rapidly as possible. That’s the only way to do it. But all of the bad things that happened after we invaded — from the collapse in basic services, to the erosion of Iraqi support for the coalition, to the insurgency itself — occurred in large measure because of that knowledge deficit. We didn’t understand Iraq. We have paid a terrible price for it, and the Iraqis far worse. It was a hard fall, but we bounced back quickly. How? By learning, of course. This weekend I visited what is informally known in Iraq as the “counterinsurgency academy.” Created in late 2005 to do “lessons learned” counterinsurgency, the academy has evolved rapidly. Today, all commanders in the theater — from the level of Brigade Combat Team down to company captains — have to pass through its training course when they deploy. But that’s not all. Almost as soon as it launched, the academy started reaching back into every unit’s training stateside, so that now almost as soon as units return to the U.S. to begin refitting for their next deployment, they began absorbing the latest training that the academy can make available to them. Now the academy — located at Camp Taji, traditionally the site of Iraq’s military academy — is churning out the cadres of the Iraqi Security Forces as well.

Another Iraq Photo Op – New York Times editorial

Iraq is a long way to go for a photo op, but not for President Bush, who is pulling out all the stops to divert public attention from his failed Iraq policies and to keep Congress from demanding that he bring the troops home. As Americans and Iraqis continue to die — and Iraqi politicians refuse to reconcile — Mr. Bush stubbornly refuses to recognize that what both countries need is a responsible exit strategy for the United States, not more photo ops and disingenuous claims of success. With Congress launching a series of pivotal hearings this week, Mr. Bush’s eight-hour stopover in Iraq on Sunday won him major play in the news media, including photos of smiling American military forces with their commander in chief. But the facts of the visit undermined his claims that his troop escalation is working and deserves more time and more lives to bear fruit.

Surge Politics – Washington Times editorial

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 Lt. 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 Gen. 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 Mr. Baird, this means Congress should support the surge and not attempt to recall troops now.

MoveOn vs. Democrats – Wall Street Journal editorial

In the Hell Hath No Fury sweepstakes, groups like MoveOn.org are gearing up to take on a new set of perceived traitors in their midst--Democrats who have acknowledged some success from the troop surge in Iraq. Chief among the targets is Washington Congressman Brian Baird, whose indiscretion was recognizing progress on the ground, despite having initially opposed the surge and having opposed the war in the first place. After a recent trip to Iraq, Mr. Baird said: "One of the things that gets very little attention is that virtually every other country I visited says it would be a mistake to pull out now." We hope he took his flak jacket home from Baghdad. MoveOn is rolling out an ad this week in Mr. Baird's Washington district, in which a former soldier tells of being shot at in 2003 by the Iraqis he had fought to liberate and calls America's continued presence in the country "wrong, immoral and irresponsible." What does this have to do with the wisdom--or lack thereof--of the current strategy? Nada, which tells you something about MoveOn's honesty. The group doesn't aim to engage in debate, but to punish and silence Democrats who dare to think for themselves. There's a pattern here: When John Dingell contradicted party orthodoxy on global warming and auto mileage standards this year, MoveOn ran ads in his Michigan district calling the 81-year-old Congressman "Dingellsaurus."

Rogue Regulator – Washington Post editorial

For some time Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian diplomat who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, has made it clear he considers himself above his position as a U.N. civil servant. Rather than carry out the policy of the Security Council or the IAEA board, for which he nominally works, Mr. ElBaradei behaves as if he were independent of them, free to ignore their decisions and to use his agency to thwart their leading members -- above all the United States. Mr. ElBaradei was lionized by opponents of the Iraq war for debunking Bush administration charges that Saddam Hussein had restarted his nuclear program before the 2003 invasion. Emboldened, he has now set himself a new task: stopping what he considers to be the "crazies" in Washington who "want to say, 'Let us go and bomb Iran.' " We're not part of that camp, though we consider its members saner than many of the statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But what's really unacceptable is Mr. ElBaradei's way of accomplishing his aim, which is to excuse the Iranian activity that most justifies the would-be bombers -- uranium enrichment -- while also trying to undermine the principal non-military leverage against it, which is economic sanctions.

Options on Iran – Washington Times editorial

With the Islamist regime in Tehran making clear that it has no intention of complying with U.N. Security Council resolutions on its nuclear weapons program, U.S. policy-makers appear to have yet come up with a clear response (judging from the public record.) Every major American politician, whether Democrat or Republican, says that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. President Bush last week stated the case with more urgency than anyone else, describing Iran's actions in Iraq as "murderous" and warning that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons technology "threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." Washington seemingly has three main options for stopping Tehran's efforts: 1) hoping a popular revolution would drive the current regime from power before it develops atomic weapons; 2) persuading Europe and Japan to deny credit to the Iranian government and support sustained economic sanctions against the government; or 3) using military force to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and/or remove the current regime from power.

No More Illusions – Andrew McCarthy, National Review

For three decades, Iran has made war on the United States and unabashedly told the world that it seeks the destruction of the United States, all the while — directly and by proxy — murdering and imprisoning Americans. For three decades, Iran has brayed that “Death to America” is the alpha and the omega of its revolutionary designs. And for three decades, the United States — under Democratic and Republican administrations — has pretended it just isn’t so. Any day now, diplomats from Cyrus Vance to Robert MacFarlane to Madeleine Albright to Richard Armitage to Condoleezza Rice have wishfully maintained, we will strike the Grand Bargain. Any day now, the rapprochement will take hold. If we just overlook this atrocity or apologize for that indignity, the Iranian mullahcracy, a regime myopically dedicated to expanding and exporting its messianic hatred, will transmogrify into a normal government. It will renounce the terrorism that has been the spectacularly successful instrument of both its foreign policy and its iron-fisted domestic control. It will see the purported wisdom of abandoning its nuclear ambitions and the terror-mongering that has brought it to the brink of dominance on the world stage.

Waking Up to the Iranian Threat – Mike Rogers, National Review

There was the disturbing news in June at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna where an IAEA official reported that Iran, in defiance of the international community, has made substantial progress in its nuclear research and may have 3,000 uranium centrifuges. This could produce, when operational, enough fuel for one nuclear weapon per year. According to press reports, Iran could have 8,000 centrifuges by January. And the theocratic government in Tehran has said it plans to construct up to 50,000 centrifuges. The House Intelligence report also noted Iran’s extensive efforts to destabilize Iraq and Tehran’s involvement in attacks on U.S. and Coalition forces. Since last year, the Iranian government has stepped up its intensive meddling in Iraq by training insurgents and providing powerful weapons to attack and kill American troops. Iranian President Ahmadinejad stated last week that Iran is prepared to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq after the Coalition departs.

Iran’s Murky Prisoner Release – Los Angeles Times editorial

The good news: Iran has released two of the four Iranian Americans it has been detaining on trumped-up charges. The bad news: Nobody in Washington seems truly to know why they were released. Demanding to know why the Americans have been released now may seem churlish. But in fact it's every bit as essential as probing Iran's nuclear plans. After 27 years of severed relations, U.S. understanding of Iran appears to be shallowerthan ever, even as Iranian politics remain a black box. With tensions rising between the two adversaries, that's a dangerous disconnect. U.S. and Iranian officials are slated to meet for a third round of talks about Iraq. Now is the time to broaden the agenda and begin a real conversation.

US Must Reassert Global Leadership - Samuel Berger and Eric Schwartz, Boston Globe

In the capital of East Timor, a gleaming Presidential Palace is rising, near a sparkling new seaside compound for the Foreign Ministry. How can a struggling, newly independent East Timor afford such impressive projects? They are gifts from the government of China, along with army barracks, new uniforms for Timor's soldiers, and a range of technical assistance and exchange programs. Of course, China has every right to extend its influence in East Timor through the fulsome use of its accumulating resources. But this application of Chinese "soft power" is ironic, as it was the United States that helped to midwife the birth of Timor's democracy in 1999 by deploying thousands of troops in support of a peacekeeping force that helped guarantee Timorese independence. Six years later, consumed by the economic and military pressures of our grinding engagement in Iraq, the United States led the charge to remove a follow-up UN force that ensured stability in Timor, while cutting bilateral aid by nearly 40 percent between 2001 and 2006. Certainly, Timor is not a national security priority for the United States. But the story of East Timor is being played out around the world by China and other powers, as the United States scales back its engagements in Asia, Latin America, and Africa under the weight of our preoccupation with Iraq. These developments have serious and perhaps irreversible strategic consequences.

Turkey is Vital to Europe’s Future – David Miliband, London Daily Telegraph

In the 20th century, Britain's national security came under threat from hostile nations. Today, the threat is from terrorist groups, such as al-Qa'eda, operating within failed states, seeking to fracture the world along religious lines. The response by the police and the Army, at home and abroad, is necessary, but on its own not enough. To marginalise extremists, we have to address causes as well as symptoms. We must tackle the gulf of understanding and empathy that too often exists between religions and regions of the world. This does not have to be only the stuff of sermons; it needs to be central to hard-headed diplomacy. The activities and narrative of al-Qa'eda seek to emphasise that which divides us. Our task is the reverse: to nurture understanding, tolerance and commitment across religions, ethnicities and nations and to marginalise extremists.

Nuking the Nuke Deal – Washington Times editorial

After two years of negotiating a civil nuclear deal with the United States, India could hardly have expected a sweeter deal. Hailed as the centerpiece of President Bush's new strategic relationship with India, India won concessions on securing a supply of nuclear fuel. Now, its politicians are crying foul. Shockingly, the deal is being jeopardized by politicians in India. The charge from the Communist parties is that India is compromising its sovereignty and foreign-policy decision-making ability. What India's leftists really oppose, however, are closer relations with the United States. The largest opposition party has also objected, but out of concern that the deal would hinder India's nuclear weapons program. A strange criticism, as most analysts believe the opposite.

The Great Game Over Burma – Christian Science Monitor editorial

China and the US are budding partners in Asia – aside from their usual rivalry – after they forced North Korea to partially relent on its nuclear ambitions. Now they should work jointly on another repressive regime, Burma's junta, and free the world's most famous political prisoner, Aung San Suu Kyi. This weekend, President Bush plans to press the US case for political freedom in Burma with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, at the annual summit of Asian-Pacific nations in Australia. He's not alone in this effort. First lady Laura Bush, who rarely speaks out on world issues, called the UN secretary-general last month to ask that he not remain silent about Burma's recent crackdown on dissidents and that he push for Security Council action. The time is ripe for change in this Southeast Asian country, despite 45 years of military rule. On Aug. 19, the regime was forced by its bumbling policies to raise prices on fuel by up to 500 percent. For a people already racked by poverty and inflation, the higher prices slice deep. The political damage was particularly acute because Burma (also known as Myanmar) exports natural gas to Thailand.

-----

SWJ News Links

SWJ Blog Links