Big News from Baghdad
- 02.19.2008 - 4:56 PMABC News’ Clarissa Ward reports that:
If you’re looking for one measure of the impact of last year’s troop surge in Iraq, look at Gen. David Petraeus as he walks through a Baghdad neighborhood, with no body armor, and no helmet. It’s been one year since the beginning of what’s known here as Operation Fardh Al Qadnoon. According to the U.S. military, violence is down 60 percent. One key to the success is reconciliation.
“A big part of the effort, over the last year, has been to determine who is reconcilable, who, literally, is willing to put down his rifle and talk, who is willing to shout, instead of shoot.” Petraeus said. I spent the day with Petraeus, touring Jihad, a predominantly Shiite area in western Baghdad. This place was formerly ravaged by sectarian violence, and militiamen wreaked havoc on the streets. In the last year, U.S. and Iraqi troops moved into the neighborhood, set up joint security stations, earned the trust of local people, and found those men willing to put down their guns and work with them. The results of the last year can be seen on the streets. A soccer team practices on the local pitch. The stalls in the market buzz with customers. I stop to talk to local residents, and ask if they feel a difference. Overwhelmingly, the answer is a resounding yes. “The situation in Jihad is certainly better than before,” a mechanic named Ali said. “Work is constant, shops are reopening, and people are coming back to their homes.” Notwithstanding significant progress, much work clearly remains. The Iraqi government has yet to capitalize on the relative peace and improve the local infrastructure. Sewage and trash fester in the streets. “We have very little electricity,” Ali said. The hope is, that with the passing of a budget this week, that will change. “That unlocks a substantial amount of money for the ministries of Iraq, so that they can start going about the jobs that are so essential, like patching roads that we bounced down today; over long term, improving electricity, fixing water systems, sewer systems,” Petraeus said. Normally very guarded in his assessments of the surge, Petraeus now expresses cautious optimism.
“I have to tell you that, having been here for a number of years, this is very encouraging, actually. I mean, this is, this is potentially a big moment.” he said.
A potentially big moment indeed. We are now seeing extraordinary security gains from the last year translate into both political reconciliation and legislative progress. Within the last week the Iraqi parliament passed key laws having to do with provincial elections (the law devolves power to the local level in a decentralization system that is groundbreaking for the region), the distribution of resources, and amnesty. And those laws follow ones passed in recent months having to do with pensions, investment, and de-Ba’athification.
American Ambassador Ryan Crocker told Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard that “the whole motivating factor” beyond the legislation was “reconciliation, not retribution.” This is “remarkably different” from six months ago, according to the widely respected, straight-talking Crocker.
Progress in Iraq means life is getting progressively more difficult for Democrats and their two presidential front-runners, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Having strongly opposed the surge, Obama and Clinton have been forced by events to concede that security progress has been made. But until now they have insisted that the surge is a failure because we’re not seeing political progress. That claim is now being shattered.
Soon Obama and Clinton will have no argument left to justify their position on Iraq. It will become increasingly clear that they are committed to leaving Iraq simply because they are committed to leaving Iraq, regardless of the awful consequences that would follow. It is an amazing thing to witness: two leading presidential candidates who are committed to engineering an American retreat, which would lead to an American defeat, despite the progress we are making on every conceivable front.
At the end of the day, this position will hurt Democrats badly, because their position will hurt America badly.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
February 19th, 2008 at 6:01 PM
I have no opinion on whether USA stays or goes but that it simply cannot. I think they can never leave
. Within this situation there is the major issue of internal & external refugees. There is no argument
on the figures of at east 2 million internally displaced persons plus the 2 million in mostly Syria & then jordan.
Twenty percent of the population driven from their homes & unable to return is a state in civil war.
According to the UNHCR 3 days ago -on moving their office from Amman with a staff of 3 upgraded to 5 , the few who had returned are leaving again.
Given that USA can never leave it has to get these people back plus control them.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:48 PM
There is great progress being made in Iraq, that’s for sure. I may be wrong but I think one of the reasons that the Iraqis (all parties) want to come to a political settlement sooner rather than later is because they are concerned that the Democratic Party will win the White House in Nov.
They are concerned that having the Demos in control will change the nature of the political process and debate in Iraq by Hillary’s or Obama’s insistence on “involving” and “sharing” with others in the region. Like Syria, Hamas, Iran, the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, AQI, the Muslim Brotherhood, and elected representatives of the Iraqi “diaspora” around the world of course.
I think the same concern is driving the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. IMO.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Let’s see. We have had troops in Germany and Japan for 53 years, in South Korea for 55 years, in Kuwait for 17 years, and in Bosnia for 11 years, and in Afghanistan for 6 years. We have been in Iraq for just 5 years.
Should we not withdraw in the order that we went in?
Ask this question to the typical brain-dead Democrat, and see them change the subject with great cowardice.
It was predicted way back in May 2006 that 2008 would be the year of victory in Iraq. So it is.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:57 PM
*Make that 63 years for Germany and Japan. Typo.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:42 AM
“Twenty percent of the population driven from their homes & unable to return is a state in civil war.”
so says Unamerican.
Sorry, those people are called “refugees”. (even if your statistics are suspect, in that they seem to be dated).
The millions who fled their homelands during WWII: were they fleeing war, or civil war?
If the latter in Iraq’s case, just tell us the statistics (you seem to like to cite them) that show that the ever-diminishing violence in Iraq is due to sectarian IRAQI violence (as opposed to the “lets you and they fight” violence fomented by foreign Al Qaedas.
then give current stats about how many refugees are returning.
I suspect you won’t be answering, at least with real hard numbers.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:49 AM
“It will become increasingly clear that they are committed to leaving Iraq simply because they are committed to leaving Iraq, regardless of the awful consequences that would follow.”
I disagree. You assume that the mainstream media, in an election year no less, are going to be singing the praises of the surge? Fat chance if you ask me. They’ve done a great job of ignoring and downplaying any successes at all over the past five years. What reason to believe that’s going to change now? They will focus on the negative aspects as always. Hell, on the day Saddam’s statue was torn down by cheering Iraqis, we were already hearing about supposedly “looted” museum artifacts by that evening! The tone of coverage is not going to change until a Democrat is in office.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:56 AM
zqll is right to say that Iraqis are making political deals now because they are”concerned that the Democratic Party will win the White House in Nov.”
What a brilliant “good cop/bad cop” routine the US has going! With a whack-left Democrat party making Republicans look reasonable, the US can scare all sorts of fence sitters into action now by making noises like we are going to actually give these people the war to run and lose.
What a piece of genious it was to send Mrs Pelosi to call on Syria’s Assad a year ago. That certainly sent a chill down the spine of anyone in the Middle East interested in political freedom and self government. Who actually organized that trip?? Condi??
And now, Obama and Hillary are litterally driving former Iraqi blood enemies into each others arms every time they say they “support our troops”. Who is pulling the strings there??
How ironic it would be to have a Republican elected after all that..
February 20th, 2008 at 4:05 AM
In the measure that General Petraeus’ strategy is working in Iraq, which I don’t doubt (we only got to this point after 4,000 casualties and trillions spent, though), it doesn’t really change the fact that Americans weren’t exactly included in the plan that called for indefinite occupation and indefinite spending in a country that was not exactly a mortal threat to us (considering it had neither air power, nor weapons of mass destruction, nor an effective army). Even if we succeed in pulling the country out of total failed-state status, even if we’ve defeated Al Qaeda which we attracted into the country in the first place, it doesn’t change the fact that most Americans have already made up their minds about the relative worth of this fabulous adventure that the Republicans have embarked us on. They hate it. They want out. When we withdraw, luck may be with us and Iraq might just be ready. But unless we’re willing to soldier into every single conflict zone in the world to stop violence everywhere, what reason is there to hold on to the Republicans’ idiotic Iraq fantasy one second longer than is necessary? Let’s leave it to the Iraqis to sort out, while using the money to assist all the Iraqis who stood by us and worked for us to leave the country if they want.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:13 AM
We are now seeing extraordinary security gains from the last year translate into both political reconciliation and legislative progress.
No we aren’t! The Awakening Sunnis in 2 provinces have quit and the Sunnis as a whole will never will accept a Shiite-run central government.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:38 AM
I’m glad my tax dollars are being used to lift Iraqis out out of their former tyrannical hellhole than used to prop up spoiled narcissists living in a secure and protected paradise whose biggest problems in life are how much botox they need to keep them young and how many toys they need to keep them happy.