« "Winning in Iraq, Losing in Washington" | Main | Here's an Idea Guaranteed to Stir Up Trouble »

July 30, 2007

"A War We Just Might Win"

This Op-Ed in today's New York Times is getting a lot of plan in the conservative blogosphere, but I think it worth printing here because it is important (h/t NRO)

It's titled "A War We Just Might Win", and once again yes it's in the New York Times. Not by the editors, it is identified as a Op-Ed, but in the Times nonetheless. The authors are Michael E O'Hanlon and Kenneth M Pollack. Michael E. O’Hanlon is identivied as "a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution." Kenneth M. Pollack "is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings." You don't have to go far into the Brookings Institution website to discover that it's not exactly a conservative think-tank.

Let's take a look at some of O'Hanlon and Pollack's key findings

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

I talked about the problem with the Iraqi Army in a previous post, about how the issue holding them back was logistics, not fighting spirit or even leadership. O'Hanlon and Pollack bolster that view

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

Much of the article consists of evidence to support the above conclusions, so follow the link and read it. For here let's go straight to their conclusion

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Good questions. But I would also hope that the politicians follow their final recommendation, that we sustain the surge at least into 2008.

Posted by Tom at July 30, 2007 9:39 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/954

Comments

No amount of evidence is going to sway the ardent radical anti-war crowd. But the O'Hanlon and Pollack piece, as well as Keith Ellison's remarks, indicate that there's a larger and more important group to be won over: the rhetoric of the skeptics and agnostics is beginning to change from "lost hope" to "begrudging acceptance."

Posted by: Angevin13 at July 31, 2007 9:08 PM

The Dhimmi-crats are heavily invested in defeat, but Ken Pollack was very down on the war a year & change ago [I read his book in 2002 warning of Saddam's revenge coming once the toothless UN lifted sanctions & it was a strong manifesto for invading Iraq]. Pollack is a sort of windsock, bellwether for vibes in DC and if he is signing on to supporting the Surge, the vibes must be strong. John Burns deserves another Pulitzer for keeping his head while the rest of the NYT reporters have all gone haywire against the war.

Posted by: daveinboca at August 1, 2007 12:22 AM

I am for the war on terror - it is winnable. But Iraq is hopeless unless we stop Iran from infiltrating al-Qaeda operatives into the country to kill our troops and the Iraqis. It is a desperate situation.

I would not be too hard on the Democrats-many Republicans now see how mismanaged, miscalculated, and unfortunate this Iraq debacle has become. It is pathetic.

I expect to be called all sorts of names because I got off the "blind faith" - "rah rah" team, but even Sandgram wrote in May that this war is no longer winnable. I would think he knows better than any one of us since he was there himself and is privy to some intelligence coming out of the Pentagon of late.

Iraq must be re-thought. PERIOD.

Posted by: Layla at August 3, 2007 5:11 PM

What does "Iraq must be re-thought" mean? What are your ideas?

bty, most of the infiltration comes from Syria.

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at August 4, 2007 10:45 AM

And who do you think finances Syria? Wake up. Just this morning Fox News reported that rockets were found in Baghdad that were earmarked to kill Iraqis and Americans -- those rockets were marked Tehran.

Iran is funding the insurgency and Syria is their puppet-Syria does nothing without the funding and OK from Iran.

That my friend is not Laylaology-that is from the mouth of Col. Hunt!

When I speak - I get my facts from the experts - it is the experts opinions and knowledge I base my views on.

Posted by: Layla at August 8, 2007 10:47 AM

Fair enough that Syria is in cahoots with Iran.

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at August 8, 2007 8:22 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)