Notes on the War in Iraq: The good news cannot be ignored

This is the tenth in a series. The bulleted points below are culled from several sources. They are compiled to show how much information on an issue is available to those who are seeking it.

September and October 2007 were not good months for those who believe the people in the Middle East are barbarians who should be left to their own devices. In other words, they believe that the war can’t be won, and the nation of Iraq will never be anything other than a breeding ground for people who wish to rule through bloodshed and terror. What follows is a sampling of very recent articles showing that despite the mainstream media’s relative silence on the issue of Iraq, there’s a lot of good news to report.

  • Iraq for most Americans is now a toxic subject — best either ignored or largely evoked to blame someone for something in the past. Any visitor to Iraq can see that the American military cannot be defeated there, but also is puzzled over exactly how we could win — victory being defined as fostering a stable Iraqi constitutional state analogous to, say, Turkey.
  • But war is never static. Over the last 90 days, there has been newfound optimism, as Iraqis are at last stepping forward to help Americans secure their country.
  • Whether in various suburbs of Baghdad, or in Baqubah, Ramadi or Taji, there is a familiar narrative of vastly reduced violence. Until recently, the Americans could not find enough interpreters, were rarely warned about landmines and had little support from Iraqi security forces.
  • But now they are being asked by Iraqis in the “Sunni Triangle” to join them to defeat the very terrorists the locals once championed. Anbar, a province that just months ago was deemed lost by a U.S. military intelligence report, is now in open revolt against al-Qaeda. Why the change?
  • Officers offered a number of theories. The surge of American troops, and Gen. David Petraeus’ risky tactics of going after the terrorists within their enclaves, have put al-Qaeda on the run. Likewise, in the past four years, the U.S. military has killed thousands of these terrorists and depleted their ranks.
  • Sunnis — angry over their loss of power to the historically discriminated-against Shiites — discovered their al-Qaeda allies to be worse than their Shiite rivals. We forget that jihadists drew in not merely religious fanatics but also repulsive common criminals and psychopaths who extort, butcher and mutilate innocents.
  • Iraqis of all tribes and sects are also growing tired of the nihilistic violence that is squandering the opportunity for something better than Saddam’s rule. The astronomical spike in oil prices has resulted in windfall profits of billions of dollars for the Iraqi government — and with it the realization that Iraq could someday become a wealthy advanced state.
  • Iraqis have said that their widely held fear that Americans are going to leave soon has galvanized Sunnis to finally step up to secure their country or face even worse chaos in our absence.
  • The result is that ordinary Iraqis are increasingly willing to participate in local government and civil defense. Such popular engagement from the bottom up offers more hope than the old 2003 idea that a democratically elected government could simply mandate reform top down from their enclaves in the Green Zone.
  • There is also a new sense of urgency on the part of the military that Iraqis must seize this new opportunity before it fades. Unless the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government steps up to reconcile with the Sunni provinces and begins funding social services, the insurgency will only rekindle.
  • Meanwhile, the American military, after four years of hard fighting in Iraq, is strained, its equipment wearing out. America’s finest citizens, fighting for an idealistic cause that has still not been well explained to the American people, continue to be killed by horrific murderers.
  • If the unexpectedly good news about the surge has given Gen. Petraeus another six months to improve further the situation, the political debate at home has changed only from “Get out now!” to “Victory still isn’t worth the cost in blood and treasure.”
  • Lost in all this confusion over Iraq is the fact that about 160,000 gifted American soldiers are trying to help rebuild an entire civilization socially, politically and economically — and defeat killers in their midst who will murder far beyond Iraq if not stopped.
  • The former top commander in Iraq – Army Lt.-Gen. Ricardo Sanchez (ret.) – recently called the situation in Iraq “a nightmare with no end in sight.” Citing insufficient prewar planning and a strained military, he painted a dismal picture of American prospects there.
  • War critics painted a similar picture when violence in Iraq peaked in ’05 and ’06 – using terms like “civil war” and “sectarian violence” – as they pushed for a rapid draw-down or immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. An Iraq “at war with itself” shouldn’t be America’s problem, they argued. In fact, the existence of a “religious civil war” remains the chief antiwar talking point to this day.
  • Problem is, the new U.S. strategy has changed the facts on the grounds.
  • A year ago, the assertions of Sanchez and the antiwar critics were an accurate description of the violence throughout Iraq: Armed death squads freely roamed the streets in Baghdad and outlying areas, responding to massive bombings committed by al Qaeda. And vice versa. Each week saw hundreds of innocent Iraqis – the victims of sectarian attacks and reprisals – kidnapped and killed. Worst of all, compromised members of the security forces (Iraqis in uniform) were complicit in many killings.
  • The critics had a point: American soldiers were simply caught in the middle – not permitted to take action to stop the violence, and yet still very much in harm’s way. But what the critics failed to see was that it didn’t have to be that way – that what the troops lacked was an adaptive strategy that recognized and addressed underlying causes of the violence.
  • Enter Gen. David Petraeus and a strategy that did just that. (The term “surge” is far too simplistic, as it implies simply throwing more forces at the problem, when Petraeus’ changes in tactics are even more important).
  • The new counterinsurgency approach – namely, to take territory from al Qaeda, hold it, secure it and empower tribal sheiks to work together and rebuild their communities – finally provides an effective “counteroffensive” to the chief tactics of al Qaeda militants and Shiite death squads.
  • America’s enemies in Iraq, radical insurgents living and fighting among the general public, understand that they can’t continue their fight without capitulation from ordinary Iraqis. Finally, after almost four years, the U.S. military understands this as well.
  • Whereas we used to emphasize overwhelming firepower (even when I was there in 2006), we now emphasize firepower as a last resort. Whereas we used to rush to the scene after the violence occurs, we’re now there to repel it or deter it altogether. This commitment – up and down the chain of command – has made a major impact on the tit-for-tat death toll that was threatening to tear the country apart. Sectarian violence has been severely curtailed.
  • Moreover, ordinary Iraqis are providing far more tips and other information. We now get some 23,000 tips a month, four to five times the level of a year before. This measure – which directly correlates to the trust and support of the population – is promising.
  • These are significant and consequential numbers and indicate real successes in stomping out the civil war. But it’s not just numbers that make the case that the civil war is ending. Look, too, at what the new strategy lets commanders do in their now-daily discussions with ordinary Iraqis.
  • Petraeus reports that foreign (non-Iraqi) recruits conduct over 80 percent of al Qaeda’s attacks; and therefore, by refocusing local tribal leaders on this fact, American commanders are making a convincing argument to the sheiks: Why launch an indiscriminate reprisal against another sect, ratcheting up the level of violence, when you can simply tell us and Iraqi security forces where the foreign insurgents are and we’ll go get them? The numbers say that’s exactly what’s happening.
  • A people drowning in sectarian violence and warped by perpetual vengeance aren’t going to immediately engage in political reconciliation. Security improvements must first dampen the violence, lower tensions and restore humanity. This is exactly what Petraeus has done, and we have finally begun providing the tangible security improvements necessary for lasting political solutions at the local and national levels.
  • Although many hope to convince America otherwise, the Iraq war has fundamentally changed in ’07. It’s not a civil war anymore. It’s the people of Iraq vs. al Qaeda and Iranian proxies, with the U.S.-led Coalition helping the Iraqi people swing their sword of sovereignty.
  • That’s the kind of good news that people on both sides of the aisle should appreciate.
  • This week, the U.S. announced that military deaths in Iraq had fallen dramatically, to the lowest levels since March 2006, a sign that the surge of troops is working. Officers say increased cooperation from Iraqi civilians – who are tired of the terrorism and violence – has helped stem attacks.
  • In what remains of a former labor camp nicknamed “Coolie Village” after a truck bomb locals attributed to al Qaeda had flattened it – not surprisingly, the anger and frustration in response to this mass murder helped the villagers overcome their fear of the thugs who had taken hold of their community.
  • All across Iraq, people are fed up with the abuse of power, even when it wears the badge of a police officer, even when it’s a local hero. Many people in the city of Hit directly attribute the resurrection of their city in large part to the courage of Iraqi Police General Ibrahim Hamid Jaza, who took an aggressive stand against the al Qaeda Iraq (AQI) terrorists who had brazenly made Anbar province a home base and slaughterhouse with their marketplace car bombs, beheadings and reputation for hiding bombs intended to kill parents in the corpses of dead children they’d gutted.
  • Between shooting people for using the Internet, watching television or other “moral transgressions” such as smoking in public, AQI’s claim of fundamentalist piety proved to be a thin veneer, quickly eroded by blatant drug, alcohol and prostitute use. The people of Anbar rejected AQI, but AQI was still strong and well-armed, so rejection was only a first step.
  • The level of brutality against ordinary Iraqis throughout Iraq, often directed against women and children, is what prompted many Sunni insurgent militia groups to come forward and work with Coalition forces. Some groups, such as the 1920 Revolution Brigades, were formerly allied with al Qaeda, or at least willing to facilitate or ignore their attacks against Shia or Coalition forces.
  • “It’s becoming almost bizarre how specific the informants are becoming. Informants have called up saying they are with bad guys right now and giving their location. Our guys show up and arrest everyone. Hours later, the U.S. soldiers let the informants go. JAM and AQI are getting slammed in many areas because local people are sick of the violence and local people trust Americans to help them end it.”
  • Where all this can end was suggested to me on Wednesday, when I was at a large Sunni-Shia reconciliation meeting where more than 80 local leaders attended and signed an agreement.
  • Whether it can be sustained here, or spread to other areas, is in question. But the resolve of Iraqi people to end the scourge of sectarian violence that has stalled and scarred their country is not.
  • Serious success in Iraq is not being recognized as it should be. Is no news good news or bad news? In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news.
  • There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathizers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached.
  • This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarized by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centers of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time.
  • Indeed, on every relevant measure, the shape of the Petraeus curve is profoundly encouraging. It is not only the number of coalition deaths and injuries that has fallen sharply (October was the best month for 18 months and the second-best in almost four years), but the number of fatalities among Iraqi civilians has also tumbled similarly. This process started outside Baghdad but now even the capital itself has a sense of being much less violent and more viable.
  • As we report today, something akin to a normal nightlife is beginning to re-emerge in the city. As the pace of reconstruction quickens, the prospects for economic recovery will be enhanced yet further. With oil at record high prices, Iraq should be an extremely prosperous nation and in a position to start planning for its future with confidence.
  • None of this means that all the past difficulties have become history. A weakened al-Qaeda will be tempted to attempt more spectacular attacks to inflict substantial loss of life in an effort to prove that it remains in business. Although the tally of car bombings and improvised explosive devices has fallen back sharply, it would only take one blast directed at an especially large crowd or a holy site of unusual reverence for the headlines about impending civil war to be allowed another outing.
  • The Government headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has become more proactive since the summer, but must immediately take advantage of these favorable conditions. The supposed representatives of the Iraqi people in Baghdad need to show both responsibility and creativity if the country’s potential is to be realized.
  • The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed.
  • Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have to appreciate that Iraq is no longer, as they thought, an exercise in damage limitation but one of making the most of an opportunity. The instinct of too many people is that if Iraq is going badly we should get out because it is going badly and if it is getting better we should get out because it is getting better. This is a catastrophic miscalculation. Iraq is getting better. That is good, not bad, news.
  • You can certainly debate whether America was right to go to war in Iraq, or whether our nation is being effective in promoting democracy in the Middle East. But it seems absurd to argue that spreading democracy in the Middle East is a bad or failed idea. It is, by any objective measure, a good and right idea – and a necessary policy for America today.
  • America is at war with an enemy driven by radical, ideological hatred to destroy us and all that we stand for. These terrorists were not created by U.S. policy: They are religious zealots who will stop at nothing in achieving their objective of establishing a global caliphate in which individual lives have no value, women are chattel and the only legitimate faith is a perverted version of Islam.
  • To accomplish their objectives, the terrorists need recruits. Because the top terrorists don’t do the dirty work themselves: They’ve got to find young men and women willing to strap bombs onto their bodies and detonate them, killing themselves and taking as many innocents with them as possible.
  • For decades, the terrorists have known that they can prey most effectively in societies where young people live in despair, where they have no hope for a better future here on earth – societies with brittle, autocratic regimes and closed, static economic systems.
  • For too many years, America perpetuated this status quo. We supported those authoritarian regimes; we ignored the aspirations of their people. This policy – essentially what we’d return to, if we give up on supporting democracy – brought only a false sense of security and stability.
  • Young people in the Arab world, as elsewhere, yearn for the freedom to be heard. They yearn to stand for something larger than self. They yearn to control their own destinies and choose their own leaders – and only democracy can fulfill those aspirations.
  • Critics will argue that supporting democracy is messy, that elections don’t always turn out the way we would like them to. That’s true here in America, too. But it’s an argument about how to effectively promote democracy – not about whether promoting democracy is a bad idea.
  • Let’s dispense with some straw men. Promoting democracy isn’t only about supporting elections. Elections are necessary, but not sufficient. They should often come last in the reform process, not first. America’s democracy policy (quite rightly) includes supporting freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, women’s rights and a thriving civil society.
  • Others say that somehow promoting democracy in the Middle East is an imperial imposition of American values. That requires ignoring two critical things. First, it ignores the fact that the desire for freedom is a universal human desire. At heart, it implies that only some people – maybe those of us fortunate enough to be born in the West – really desire human freedom.
  • Second, it means ignoring the massive changes now under way in the Middle East. Five or six years ago, state press dominated the media in the region. Since then, we’ve seen an explosion of independent newspapers, TV programming and Internet access. Six years ago, no woman had ever run for or voted in an election in the Gulf. Today they’ve done both.
  • Six years ago, a discussion about democracy in the Arab world would have brought ridicule and potentially jail time. Today, leaders, reformers, journalists and millions of others are engaged in a constant ongoing debate and discussion about democracy.
  • And America’s actions in this regard matter. As an Egyptian reformer said recently, “When the outside world softens its call for reform, regimes are emboldened to ignore their citizens’ rights.” The knowledge that we’re on their side empowers and strengthens those fighting for freedom. Abandoning them would be unjust and unwise.
  • Indeed, abandoning America’s push for democracy in the Middle East – returning to the policy of support for autocrats, turning our backs on the aspirations of the Arab people – would do grave damage to our credibility and image there.
  • If we were to tune in right now to any of the scores of Arabic satellite channels, we’d find young men and women from across the region debating the issues of the day, arguing and questioning authority. Giving up on support for democracy means betraying those young men and women.
  • Should we tell them America doesn’t believe they’re ready for democracy? Tell women across the Gulf that, although they’ve been able to vote and run for office these last few years, that was just temporary? That the world that, instead of supporting freedom fighters, we will throw America’s great and unparalleled strength behind autocrats and against the people?
  • That surely is a world in which the terrorists have won – and not a world in which many of us would like to live.