The Redhunter

1) Shia v. Shia in the South
2) U.S. v. al Qaeda in Anbar
3) Shia v. Sunni in the Shia ethnic cleansing campaign in Baghdad
4) Sunni extremists v. Shia (and everyone else) in its car-bombing/suicide bombing campaign

From what I understand Baghdad #3 is the most important, followed by Anbar #2. #4 comes in as the third biggest problem followed by the Shia vs Shia violence in the South.

In terms of making progress, the Marines have been doing well in Anbar, and as already stated it's so far so good in Baghdad. Stopping the bombing campaign will prove the most difficult, but is just as important because it generates such unfavorable headlines. Not to short-shrift the South, but compared to the other problems it's just going to have to wait.

Whatever one thinks about previous efforts to quell the capital, the good news is that our national civilian and military leaders seem to realize that this time they have to get it right. Mohammed of Iraq the Model noted after his tour of the city last Friday that "the buildup of troops in the capital seems to be incremental and increasing by the day giving a steadily growing sense of the seriousness of the operation."

This seriousness is not just an impression. Austin Bay reports that Iraqi Prime Minister "Maliki understands the United States will no longer wait for Sadr's dissipation." Other observations by Bay:

"The relentless, focused targeting of Shia and Sunni extremist organizations is a far more important feature of what Iraqis are calling "the new security plan" than more U.S. troops" "Attacks on Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army have been the most public examples of "focused targeting." "Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the new security plan is the increased aggressiveness of the Iraqi Army as it conducts counterinsurgent operations.

Rich Lowry's “Pentagon intel guy” wrote him a very interesting email which he posted on The Corner today:

1) Definite and measurable decrease in number of sectarian killings within Baghdad: From nearly 1,400 to 680 in the last two months.

2) We are killing and capturing increasing numbers of Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda fighters. And when I say "we"- I mean Multi-National Forces Iraq as well as the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Police Commando, and the newer "National Guard"/Territorial Forces in Anbar.

3) The recent bombings in ANBAR demonstrate red on red kinetic operations. Something which has been rare until the last few months. More and more Sunni tribes are pledging fealty to the Iraqi government and the Coalition and turning their back on the insurgents/AQI. This has caused them to be targeted.

We have seen the enemy bomb police recruitment drives, and now mosques of "apostate" Imams and Sheikhs who have sided with the Americans. This has happened twice in the last week. While the mainstream media considers this more proof of failure- it is actually a sign of the precarious position the terrorists are in. They need the Sunni population to protect them and shelter them. If they are now butchering them like everyone else- this could be a turning point in the relationship. This is crucial to watch. We need to protect the tribal leaders who have come over to us- and AQI knows that it is a death sentence for them if they can't stop it.

Take it for what it's worth, but it seems to tie into everything else I'v read; cautious optimism.

Meanwhile, the enemy continues to target our helicopters. Their objective is TV drama,a nd they're getting it. They know that dramatic things play well on TV and demoralize the American public. Note that I'm using this to criticize the media, it is part of the Clauswitzian "friction" that we just have to live with. It is what it is.

Also in the department of cautious is Sen Jon Kyle's (R-AZ) report on his recent visit to Iraq

Based on face-to-face meetings with U.S. troops and our top military commanders on the ground, as well as Iraqi officials in Baghdad, I took away three key points.

First, both the Iraqi leaders and Americans we met expressed cautious optimism about the new Baghdad Security Plan, and all believed that it was already showing some signs of working....

The second message I took away from our trip was that we cannot micromanage this war from the U.S. Congress....

Finally, I left the Middle East with a growing concern over the pernicious role Iran plays in the region.....

I returned home from this trip more convinced that stabilizing Iraq is the only acceptable outcome in this struggle, and that the president's new strategy is our best opportunity for achieving it.

Beyond the military news, we have cautiously optimistic news on the political front as well. A long-sought agreement between the various parties on sharing Iraqi oil revinue has finally been reached. The NY Times reported today that "the Iraqi Cabinet approved a draft of a law on Monday that would set guidelines for nationwide distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the immense oil industry."

To be sure, it still has a long way to go before it's enacted into law, but at least the negotiators have struck a deal. Nevertheless, it is good news because each step represents progress. As Andy McCarthy commented on The Corner, it "could very well be a key turning point in Iraq's road to stability." More fundamentally,

An elemental objection of many of us democracy-project skeptics has been whether the Iraqis really view themselves as a single country with a common destiny. The jury is still very much out on that, but a path to success is clear: the three major factions have to come together not to sing kumbaya but to solve difficult national challenges jointly.

And just to put it all in perspective, StrategyPage reminds us that "here are over a dozen wars going on in Africa, and the daily death count far exceeds that of Iraq" and that "the murder rate in South Africa is higher than in Iraq." Ouch. Now is not the place to review the horror of Sudan or Congo, but they are issues that we need to address, and ones that the "international community" has no interest in taking on. Anyone who thinks our venture in Iraq to be difficult need only take a look at a map of either of the aforementioned countries.

Finally, we'll take a look at Sen Lieberman's much commented on editorial that appeared in Monday's Opinion Journal. As always, he lays out the stakes with a clarity not seen among many of his colleagues these days. He reviews the progress that we have been making and stresses that Gen Petraeus must be given time to make the new plan work. He concludes:

I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed....

We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril.

The situation is grave, and the hour late. But in a series of posts I hope to start next week I am going to lay out in some detail the full extent to which the jihadist enemy threatens our nation, and indeed the entire West. I hinted at some of the danger with my reviews of Melanie Phillips Londonstan and Mark Steyn's America Alone, but in this next series I'll go even farther in explaining who the jihadists are and their sophisticated strategies for achieving their goals.

Later this week I'll be at CPAC, so the next several posts will be about what I see and hear there. Hopefully I'll have some good photos too. After that I'll get started on the jihadist threat. Stay tuned.