For better or worse... for right or wrong... for corporate profit or democratic idealism... the U.S. Military is in deep in Iraq and must not only make the best of the situation as possible, but attempt to succeed here. Now, with GEN Petraeus' COIN (counter insurgency) plan in effect, there are some visible, tangible signs it is working and having a positive effect on providing security. For those who passionately oppose America's reason for invading Iraq in the first place (with the lack of MWDs), our continued presence even after the capture of Saddam Husein and the establishment of democratic elections and government, it seems any continued presence and efforts to bring about success is hard to accept.
The nightmares of the elongated "quagmire" of Vietnam is still powerful even in the morning of 30 years later, and the distrust and fear of the government is a high hurdle. Soldier's have always done there best, even in Vietnam, with the atrocities limelighted and presented disproportionately to the professional and honorable service the vast majority of people serve their nation.
In this war, Abu Ghraib prison, Guantanamo Bay, the occasional rape and murder will live in the collective memories of our society long after the roadside bombs stop exploding. The first Iraqi to burn an American flag in the streets of Baghdad after the eventual U.S. withdraw will be the final image and declaration of failure, just as the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy of Saigon in 1975 (even though the military had left nearly 3 years earlier) is used in history books as the capstone of the Vietnam experience.
No matter how you may feel about how we got here, looking backward when you are in the middle of a battle and attempting to place blame is no way to fight your enemy. Al Qeada is here now, Radical Islam is here now, Iran is here now, and they are all looking us straight in the eye. The question is will be stare them down or keep looking over our shoulder at the past, whether 4 years ago or 40 years ago. You can't fight the enemy in front of you looking backwards.
bryan
PS Mr. May takes some strong language against what he terms the, "anti-war crowd." I do not hold this same extreme view with people who differ in opinion with me. (All extremism is unhealthy.) I think it is responsible and necessary to have skeptics and people question the validity of our involvement in any armed conflict. I just ask all people have an open mind to listen, analyze and access before they form their opinions.
Like it or not, some of the general's plan is working
By CLIFFORD D. MAY
"The only thing this surge will accomplish is a surge of more death and destruction." That was the prediction of blogger and anti-war activist Arianna Huffington last December -- one month before the Senate unanimously confirmed Gen. David Petraeus as commander in Iraq.
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything." That was the judgment of Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid in April -- two months before the reinforcements that Petraeus needed to fully implement his new "surge" strategy had arrived in Iraq.
In mid-June, just as troop strength was reaching the level needed to carry out the revised mission, Reid added: "As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results."
But now those intended results are being seen -- as even some critics of the war, to their credit, are acknowledging. "More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that's a fact," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters.
"My sense is that the tactical momentum is there with the troops," Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said to PBS's Charlie Rose.
The debate over the war in Iraq is shifting, though more slowly than is the war in Iraq, thanks to a well-funded and determined anti-war movement and too many in the media for whom good news is no news.
A few days ago, CNN's Kyra Phillips interviewed Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Petraeus' top deputy. She might have asked whether his troops now have both the will and a way to defeat al Qaeda suicide-bombers and Iranian-backed death squads. Instead, her inquiring mind wanted to know: "Do you think that this job that you've taken on could be career suicide?"
Because of scant media interest, most Americans don't even realize that the so-called surge is a new and different strategy, implemented by Petraeus because the approach of his predecessors -- not least former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield -- failed.
Rumsfeld wanted a "light footprint" in Iraq, not an intrusive military occupation. He thought more troops would mean more targets for our enemies. He pushed hard for Iraqis to provide their own security as quickly as possible.
Under the Rumsfeld strategy, most American forces spent most of their time in Forward Operating Bases (FOBs). Cut off from the local population, they received little intelligence. And since they were providing security for themselves but not for Iraqis, Iraqis turned to sectarian militias that grew larger, stronger and more violent.
Meanwhile, al Qaeda in Iraq deployed suicide-bombers to mass-murder civilians as a way to stoke sectarian violence. Al Qaeda calculated -- not unreasonably -- that Americans would withdraw rather than remain in the crossfire of a civil war.
Petraeus, the Army's top counterinsurgency expert, decided it was time for a different approach. He moved troops out of the Forward Operating Bases and put them into Iraqi cities and villages where they have been providing security for Iraqis, who have shown their appreciation by providing intelligence that spy satellites can't retrieve.
He is targeting al Qaeda, as well as the Shia militias trained, funded and equipped by Tehran -- their cells, strongholds and bomb factories. And with added troop strength, he has been able to hold the neighborhoods he has cleared.
It also is true that most traditional Iraqi leaders have been repelled by al Qaeda's brutality and extremism. Americans, by contrast, have shown the local sheiks respect while training and partnering with Iraqis -- making it clear they would like nothing better than to see Iraqis take charge of their own security as soon as they are ready.
On top of all that, U.S. soldiers have been doubling as diplomats: helping to reconcile Sunni and Shia tribal groups, and even bringing insurgents -- those not affiliated with al Qaeda or Tehran -- into line with the Iraqi government.
This week, Odierno launched Operation Phantom Strike, a new offensive that aims to pursue the al Qaeda terrorists and Iranian-backed militias displaced from their safe havens by this summer's earlier actions: Operation Phantom Thunder and Operation Fard al-Qanoon (the Baghdad Security Plan).
Operation Phantom Strike, if successful, will mean more "death and destruction" -- mostly for America's sworn enemies. No doubt, the anti-war crowd will both oppose that and pronounce it a failure even before it's fully under way. But other Americans -- if they learn what is really happening in Iraq -- will support the troops. Most will favor giving them the time and resources they need to complete their mission.
(Clifford D. May is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.)
