Violence is DOWN dramatically in Iraq. Fewer American troops were killed in December than in any month except February 2004, and the rate of American deaths was actually the lowest since the war began. Civilian deaths across Iraq also appear to be falling, though numbers are far from reliable.
However you count it, though, whatever the final numbers are, the surge has worked. Given the past four years of dreadful violence, that is unreservedly good news, both for U.S. troops and for Iraq’s besieged citizens.
But the surge also appears to be working on another level, a potentially more durable one. The reason for raising the number of U.S. troops and pushing them into the neighborhoods was to give the Iraqi people and government time to work out their differences. Over the weekend, the government finally made progress.
On Saturday, parliament passed a law allowing some Baathists — members of Saddam Hussein’s ruling party — to return to government jobs. The U.S. decision to oust the Sunni elites shortly after the invasion resulted in years of sectarian violence.
The measure is one of several keys to stabilizing Iraq, along with finding a way to share oil revenues, holding new elections and forging constitutional reforms. The Iraq government’s inertia on those issues has long caused immense frustration in Washington and turned much of the country sour on the war.
On Saturday, the Iraq parliament moved for the first time since the surge began. The law, though more complicated than many would like, will allow thousands of Baathists to return to work for the government and to receive pensions.
“It’s an important step toward reconciliation,” said President Bush. “It’s an important sign that the leaders in that country must work together to meet the aspirations of the Iraqi people.”
Progress in Iraq has a habit of being temporary, and of being undermined by shifting alliances and allegiances, not to mention terrorists and insurgents. Still, recent advances provide hope in a place that hasn’t generated much.
The hope also comes in the form of “Iraqi solutions,” the subject of a long piece in The Washington Post last week. In short, the story said, “U.S. officials have made a virtue of necessity and have praised Iraqi ingenuity for finding different routes toward the same goals.”
Which means, for example, that oil revenues are being shared and provincial governments are working without action from parliament. Such a shift, led by Ambassador Ryan Crocker, represents a diplomatic counterpart to the military’s approach under Gen. David Petraeus.
Both have shown a flexibility absent for much of the war’s first years, and its first leaders.
Those strategies involve aspiring to the possible instead of the perfect and working toward what the Iraqis are willing to do rather than what America wants. That means progress has been slower and accomplishments far smaller, but there has been undeniable improvement and real accomplishment where for years there was only death and chaos.
At long last, there is a legitimate opportunity for Iraq’s government to begin to finally make some good on so much American money spent protecting them, and so many American deaths.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Adios benchmarks, we barely knew ya (thanks to CS)
When u dont meet your own benchmarks, you get lower ones ("solutions"). The stated purpose of the surge is to quell violence enough to allow for political gains. The unstated political purpose was to kick the can down the road & dump it on someone else. While noting the drop in violence, the editorial does not mention reasons for the drop in violence; Sadr militia ceasefire, Sunni-cleansed neighborhoods, paying awakening councils & arming Sunnis. Crucial points to overlook when talking about violence levels.
First Sgt. Richard Meiers of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division: "We're paying them not to blow us up. It looks good right now, but what happens when the money stops?"
Hell, we shoulda paid them a long time ago not to blow us up.
The editorial heralds the re-Baath law as the sign of political progress but fails to mention the problems Baathists have with the law. And its now being reported that law has yet to be approved.
More than a dozen Iraqi lawmakers, U.S. officials & former Baathists here & in exile expressed concern in interviews that the law could set off a new purge of ex-Baathists, the opposite of U.S. hopes for the legislation. Yet U.S
no expert?
OK. So your mention of your presence there and chats with some locals was irrelevant. It seemed very important to you to mention it.
No expert
My experience on the ground gives me no insight into what decisions are made or when by policymakers in Washington. You're asking a question to which nobody knows the answer because it hasn't been decided yet.
not figured out at all
You have set yourself up as the expert with your proclaimed presence and experience with some locals.
Good question
I don't have an exact date - perhaps you could tell me. You seem to have everything figured out.
point not missed
When will Bush's Berlin walls come down?
Missed the point
The Berlin Wall and the security barriers in Baghdad are two completely different things. The former was built to keep people from seeking freedom in the west. The latter are there to prevent suicide bombers from killing people trying to shop or seek employment. You can cleverly try to link the two and call the barriers "Bush's Berlin walls" but it's an incredibly bad and inaccurate analogy. And as a temporary fix, yes, they are working. The Iraqis I talk to don't like them but want them anyway. Much like I hate the TSA but am kinda glad they don't let suicide bombers on airplanes.
Bush's berlin walls
So you're bragging that Bush's Berlin walls work. When will Bush's Berlin walls come down.
Poor analogy / wrong credit
The Berlin Wall was built in 1961 specifically to prevent people from fleeing the paradise that was the German Democratic Republic that basically lasted as long as that country did. The security barriers in Baghdad are a temporary measure intended to provide Iraqis a secure environment to start a return to normalcy. This has happened as businesses have reopened, people feel more secure in the streets and have been providing coalition forces with a lot of intelligence that has led directly to counterinsurgency operations that have significantly reduced violence. The barriers will go away.
President Bush, incompetent or otherwise, did not start this benchmark business. The Congress did, with H.R. 1263, The Iraq Benchmarks Act, in March of last year. You can look it up.
It just seems to kill some people when things actually improve in Iraq.
The benchmarks have always been irrelevant?
Then why did incompetent Bush set them? Are Bush's Berlin walls helping? Reagan got credit for tearing the Berlin Wall down. Bush gets credit for building many miles of them in Baghdad.
Context
"Too complicated for some." So the ugly head of liberal condescension rises yet again, the philosophy of "if you don't agree with me it's because you're too stupid to understand." The benchmarks have always been irrelevant because what matters is what happens at the local level. Just as in the US, tangible progress is generally more effective at the lowest level. Unfortunately, liberals believe all must be pushed down from a benevolent federal bureaucracy.
The problem is that numbers are never put into context. Casualties were up earlier in the year because we took the fight to the enemy. Unfortunately, increased combat means increased casualties - that's how it works. Operation Phantom Phoenix was a smashing success, but the news only reported the American casualties without explaining why.
Neighborhoods are starting to reintegrate, by the way. I know because I'm in Baghdad and see it first hand.
Again, bad reporting
You can stick a candle in a cow pie & call it a cake, but its still a cowpie.DOD (JointChiefs & others) have been saying for months that troop drawdowns will HAVE to occur. So call it what you will if it will help bring our guys home. Good news is always welcome. If violence levels go from horrific to just disasterous, thats a start. My problem with this editorial is that it simply left out reasons for the drop in violence. A point that you fail to address. Reporters have simply regurged the admin's line well BEFORE the war & well after. This editorial is similar. If shia have cleansed neighborhoods of sunni such that there are no more sunni to slaughter, which in turns results in lower levels of violence, one could consider that progress on a macabre level. Same with Sadr's cease fire.
With all the claims of "corners turned" in 04, 05, 06, & 07, one should be a bit skeptical. Report the drop in violence. Report the causes, even those that challenge "the surge has worked" line.
"I do not believe that one U.S. soldier being killed almost every day is success"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/15/mccain/
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post
It's not complicated
All news is bad news. We get it.
Details make for better reporting
I knew my post would be too complicated for some.
Of course the surge has worked, even though '07 was the deadliest year for our troops. Even though we still lost 71 soldiers a month since June07. Even though we continue to spend $10B a month. Even though the purpose of the surge was to allow for stated political gains to take place that have not. Even though the Iraqi defense minister said we need to be there for 4-5 more years, & up to 12 more years assisting in border security. Even though Shinseki called for more troops in 2002 but was pummelled by the admin for it.
If the author is going to trumpet a drop in violence, perhaps the author should have discussed the causes, like sunnis 'cleansed' from Bahhdad neighborhoods, ceasefires, payola. Doing so may be useful in gauging if the drop is artificial or if it reflects real gains.
If the author is going to trumpet the newly passed re-baathification law (which was passed to address Paul Bremmer's de-baathification decree... which is somewhat circular in a "Yes, they finally fixed that decree that we imposed!"), perhaps the author should include the opinion of Baathists that the law impacts.
How sad
How sad that the republicans sent our nation's sons and daughters off to fight in a war with inadequate equipment and insufficient numbers to do the job.
For the record
I was being sarcastic. The fact that anyone would take me seriously is a testament to how nutty the anti-war "get out at any cost" crowd has become.
Whether you think we should have ever gone into Iraq or not, we are there. No amount of wishing and whining changes the fact. We created a power vacuum in Iraq by basically destroying their government. We CANNOT wash our hands of them and abandon them to their own devices. If we do that, we may as well just nuke them.
How long will we need to be there? No telling. How long are we going to stay in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kosovo?
Sad
I feel sorry for those of you who cannot accept that things are getting significantly better in Iraq. How sad to hope your nation's sons and daughters fail in a war because you hate the president so much.
I agree with TR
The Iraqi's are not perfect and they haven't achieved utopia so it's just a lost cause. We should pack our people up, bring them home and just nuke the whole place and put them out of their misery.
More
When Bush announced the surge last Jan, he said that the Iraqi gubmint would be responsible for security throughout Iraq by November, that oil revenue sharing would be enacted, and that provincial elections would be held in 2007. None of those happened.
Corner turning again?
Normally a "surged has worked" article includes the fact that AlSadr ordered a ceasefire, & that the US has begun paying factions not to fight each other or us, & that ethnic cleansing can reduce violence once neighbors are cleansed. But not this article.
About that passed re-bathification law...
A day after the Iraqi Parliament passed legislation billed as the first significant political step forward in Iraq after months of deadlock, there were troubling questions — and troubling silences — about the measure’s actual effects. But the legislation is at once confusing and controversial, a document riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in, particularly in the crucial security ministries.
There has been no progress in the oil revenue sharing. The Iraqi defense minister just stated that we've got about 4or5 years before iraq can handle the job on their own. The term "benchmarks" has been dropped by this admin & replaced with "Iraqi solutions", since no benchmarks have been met.
When Bush announced the surge last Jan, he said that the Iraq