More Troops Coming Home, al-Qaeda On The Run, Iraq = Success

What will the cry from the left be now?

Probably something crazy like “bring the troops home”.

But, of course, violence in Iraq in terms of Iraqi deaths is similar to 2005, when Iraq was also in a civil war, just not as bad as in 2006.

And speaking of 2006, Michael Yon in 2006 was saying “we are winning in Iraq.” In other words, he’s a government propagandist whose whole point is to keep the Iraq civil war going as long as possible. He claims now that he was admitting that the war was going badly, but of course he didn’t; now that things are back to the horrible levels of 2005, he’s once again pretending that Iraq is hunky-dory and that we’re “winning” when we’re merely helping make sure that Iraq will remain a failed state.

Oh, and Petraeus mentioned today that Iraq’s provincial elections will have to be postponed. And Petraeus mentioned that Sadr is an influential and important guy whose movement speaks for many poor Shi’ites.

So, to review: Iraqi civil war violence is as bad as in the horrible days of 2005 when most Americans (except government propagandists like Michael Yon) turned against the war; we’re helping Iranian puppet Maliki foment civil war in advance of provincial elections that can’t happen on schedule, and the only troops we can bring home are the extra troops that were supposed to be home months ago. Winning!

In other words, in that 2006 article he says we’re winning for exactly the same reasons he’s giving now: the ISF is improving, the government is democratic. Which is kind of the point: the improvements since Sadr’s cease-fire are really just back to the status quo of 2005 and early 2006, where Iraq is in a civil war that America can’t “win,” but conservatives have the same illusory “progress” to point to as they did then.

The idea that Iraqis killing other Iraqis is “engaging and destroying the enemy,” that the possible return of a few surge brigades means “troops are coming home,” that Sadr is “done” when even Petraeus acknowledge today that he is a legitimate representative of many Iraqis, that Iraq’s Iranian-owned “government” is getting more done than the actual functioning government of the U.S., is all very cool double-speak, but it’s the same double-speak we were hearing in 2005, when conservatives said what they are saying now, and accomplished nothing except getting lots more Iraqis and Americans killed.

Thanks Chris.

They do all sound remarkably alike don’t they?

Instead of “What will the cry from the left be?”, the better question is when will the right start shouting out about our success?

chad, they will never shout about success. they will see it as their failure to make the world all equal. the libs see things they don’t like and are sure they are right and then when their way doesn’t work because it makes no sense they accuse it all of being a conspiracy. god i hope that made sense. they are to stupid to know what they don’t know. i really hate how they twist things to try and suit there own agenda.

First, thousands of troops will start to come home from Iraq this fall because their 15 month tour is ending:
http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/08/3030-dod-announces-army-units-up-for-next-iraq-troop-rotation/

Second, Gen. P. said it was too early to predict how many soldiers will be redeployed and when exactly that would happen.

Third, keep in mind that Gen. P. stated that if conditions allowed it, he will be able to recommend troop withdrawals in the fall:

“”I will be able to make a recommendation for further reduction at that time,” — meaning he will make a decision in the fall.

Further, thought many of you might be interested in this:

Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.
…
A longtime official at al-Sistani’s office in Najaf would not deny or confirm the edicts issued in private, but hinted that a publicized call for jihad may come later.
…

It’s things like this that make troop deductions so conditional, and success so tenuous.

So, in essence, Iraq’s political and military dynamics have now radically changed; the same day that Gen. P. painted a bit of optimistic color into the public tableau Sistani has taken a spray can and written black graffiti all over his rhetoric.

Kevin Drum on the news Sistani may be wanting to triangulate affairs again:

…
All the usual caveats apply here. The purpose of the fatwas is murky, the leakers may have axes to grind we don’t know about, and it’s a good idea not to overreact to daily news from Iraq.

That said, this ranks fairly high on the worry meter. As badly as the U.S. occupation of Iraq has gone, it would have gone way, way worse if Sistani hadn’t cooperated with us. And for the most part he has, mostly by tolerating our presence and refusing to countenance the kind of active resistance favored by Mutqda al-Sadr. But these recent fatwas might be a sign that this is changing. Eric Martin:

Sistani is moving in this direction, at least partially, because of public sentiment and Sadr’s ability to capitalize on his anti-American stance. Opposing the American presence is popular. That’s not going to change any time soon.

But why now? There has to be some reason not just for the fatwas themselves, but for leaking their existence to the press at this moment in time. Maybe Sistani was feeling the heat from Sadr. Maybe after five years of waiting for us to draw down, his patience has finally run out. Or maybe it was just a shot across the bow, a way of telling us that a long-term American presence is not in the cards.

There’s no way to know for sure based on this single report. Still, it’s probably not too much to say that if Sistani turns openly against us, our continued presence in Iraq will truly become impossible. He may have decided that if we’re not going to set a timetable ourselves for leaving, he’s going to set one for us. Stay tuned.

…Or maybe he didn’t like the 2013 date that McCain set for victory. Or maybe he didn’t like US forces taking sides on political conflicts (Basra and Sadr City).

While the reasons for his change of mind remain unclear, one thing is clear; if this report (“leaks”) is true, and if Sistani is leaning away from our occupation, then he has reached his limit …and even if he doesn’t openly call for violence against American forces, he’s already given a green light for it.

Finally, if both al-Sistani and al-Sadr call for jihad at the same time, the Iraq occupation is over.

Mike,

That’s a standard hold-fast-to-the-task in Iraq argument I’ve glossed over many times—despite the Iraqi citizens polling data (pages 49 onward) tucked away at the end: despite the data indicating the country is politically divided; despite the country being divided on security perceptions; despite 70-80% opposing our presence in their country. Despite the fact that Iraqi’s by 3-1 are blaming Americans for the violence over Iranians (p.53). Therefore, I believe this public polling data be accented over the political ‘progress’ data.

I’ve parsed these polls with many of you before, so there’s no need for me to do it again. However, I’ll state this fact, much of the report is meaningless without the final voices of the people of Iraqi. All the statistical pandering is irrelevant in comparison to what the public thinks. To think otherwise now that we are in a 6 year conflict only inflames public anger and promotes the perception that we not interested in what a vast majority of Iraqi’s think.

Those last few pages of polling data probably explain why Sistani may be back in the game and opposing our presence now.

…and Mike, as usual, you refuse to permit the metric of ‘winning’ to be defined by the Iraqi populace and, instead, subordinate their will to an American metric of ‘winning’ defined by political attainments, that are always “achieved” in ‘fragile and reversible’ terms resulting in additional time and resources to maintain a “progress” empty of any public Iraqi voices.

Now time for reality. As soon as we start to drawdown, violence will increase to the degree that the Shias will try for dominence and the Sunnis too. It still amazes me how Americans continually view the middle East through an American lens.