Aug 6 02:18 PM US/Eastern
By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
BAGHDAD (AP) - AP Video The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working.
In two weeks of observing the U.S. military on the ground and interviewing commanders, strategists and intelligence officers, it's apparent that the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year.
It is a phase with fresh promise yet the same old worry: Iraq may be too fractured to make whole.
No matter how well or how long the U.S. military carries out its counterinsurgency mission, it cannot guarantee victory.
Only the Iraqis can. And to do so they probably need many more months of heavy U.S. military involvement. Even then, it is far from certain that they are capable of putting this shattered country together again.
It's been an uphill struggle from the start to build Iraqi security forces that are able to fight and—more importantly at this juncture—able to divorce themselves from deep-rooted sectarian loyalties. It is the latter requirement—evenhandedness and reliability—that is furthest from being fulfilled.
There is no magic formula for success.
And magic is what it may take to turn military gains into the strategy's ultimate goal: a political process that moves Iraq's rival Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds from the brink of civil war to the threshold of peace—and to get there on a timetable that takes account of growing war fatigue in the United States.
Efforts at Iraqi reconciliation saw another blow Monday: Five Cabinet ministers loyal to Iraq's first post-Saddam Hussein leader decided to boycott government meetings, further deepening a crisis that threatens Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The boycott would leave the Shiite-led government with no Sunni participants, at least temporarily.
Despite political setbacks, American commanders are clinging to a hope that stability might be built from the bottom up—with local groups joining or aiding U.S. efforts to root out extremists—rather than from the top down, where national leaders have failed to act.
Commanders are encouraged by signs that more Iraqis are growing fed up with violence. They are also counting on improvements in the Iraqi army and police, which are burdened by religious rivalries and are not ready to take over national defense duties from U.S. troops this year.
U.S. military leaders want Congress and President Bush to give them more time to keep trying—to reach a point, perhaps in 2009, when the Iraqis will be closer to reconciliation and ready to provide much of their own security.
The idea, after all, is not to kill or capture every terrorist and insurgent. That can't be done. The idea is to create a security environment more favorable to political action by the government, to provide breathing space for leaders of rival factions to work out a peaceful way to share power.
The U.S. military, partnering in many instances with Iraqi forces, is now creating that security cushion—not everywhere, but in much of the north, the west and most importantly in key areas of Baghdad.
Sectarian killings continue and extremist groups remain a threat, yet they are being squeezed harder. The U.S. military has caught some momentum, thanks to the extra 30,000 troops—for a total of 159,000 on the ground—that Bush agreed to send as part of the new counterinsurgency strategy announced in January. The troops are interacting more with the local people and are protecting them more effectively.
At this stage, however, there is precious little evidence that Iraqi leaders are inclined to take advantage of that.
Even so, U.S. officers seem convinced that it is too soon to stop, that by tamping down the sectarian violence, at least in Baghdad, they are giving the Iraqis a chance to come together. They insist it is unrealistic to expect the Iraqis to resolve their problems in a matter of months. And they argue that withdrawing would only lead to bigger problems, for the U.S. and for Iraq.
That is likely to be the message that Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. officials in Iraq, convey to Congress and to Bush in September. They are in no position to predict how long it might take the Iraqi government to achieve reconciliation, but they are likely to concede, if asked, that if the Iraqis do not take key steps in the months ahead the entire U.S. approach may unravel.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, whose views on how to proceed in Iraq also will figure prominently in Bush's decisions, says the administration, in hoping for movement toward political reconciliation this year, underestimated the depth of mistrust between rival sects.
The culture of fear in Baghdad is ingrained.
The Shiites, now in power after decades of being dominated by the minority Sunnis during Saddam Hussein's rule, remain fearful of a Sunni revival. The Sunnis see their own survival at stake.
Kurds have enjoyed more than a decade of semi-autonomy in the north, where control over oil wealth is in play.
Which gets to two matters that underlie much of the conviction in Congress that it is time to get out of Iraq.
First: Do the potential benefits of sticking with the war strategy outweigh the cost, in American blood and treasure? Total U.S. war deaths now exceed 3,665 and are climbing by more than two per day, on average.
And second: Would Iraqi political leaders be more likely to settle their sectarian differences if they knew that America's patience was ending and that its troops were leaving—at least the combat forces?
There is clearly a consensus among senior U.S. commanders in Iraq that the answer to the first question is yes. They feel that so much has been sacrificed already that it makes no sense to quit now. Lt. Gen. James Dubik, in charge of training and equipping Iraqi forces, said the counterinsurgency strategy, not fully implemented until June, has finally wrested the initiative from the insurgents.
"It was fought over and died for, and there's no reason to give it back right now," Dubik told AP.
On compelling Iraq's political leaders to move toward reconciliation, few American officers appear to believe that an early pullout would do the trick. They think it would propel the country further into chaos.
Crocker is explicit on that point.
"A massive human catastrophe (could follow), with the bloodshed among the Iraqi civilians on a scale we have not seen and may find hard to imagine," he told AP.
Nonetheless, leaving—in at least a limited way—appears likely to begin in 2008. Petraeus might be inclined to send home, perhaps as early as January, one of the extra five Army brigades that Bush sent to Baghdad. Some of the roughly 4,000 extra Marines in Anbar province might head out by then, too.
If that happens, and if Bush overcomes congressional pressure to get out faster in a presidential election year, Petraeus probably would stretch out the troop drawdown over many months. He might also switch some units from one part of the country to another, reflecting an uneven pace of security progress, while leaving the bulk of the force in place at least until 2009, when a new president will be in the White House.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE—AP Military Writer Robert Burns, on his 18th reporting trip to Iraq since the start of the war in 2003, has written about U.S. military involvement in Iraq and the Middle East since the 1991 Gulf War, mostly from his base in Washington.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Support For Surge Growing
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 6, 2007 03:58 PM ]
posted on August 7, 2007 08:32:24 AM new
"What will Democrats do if we win in Iraq?;
"Focused on scoring political points off negative news, they ignore signs of progress and the prospect of victory..."
WASHINGTON -- Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no "Plan B," which would be success.
==
An article from Lexis-Nexis points out just how heavily invested the dem party is in OUR FAILURE.
To the point that their house leader, pelosi, pretty much says she DOESN'T CARE what Gen. Patreaus will say in his report to the congress next month.
Now THAT'S about as un-American as one can get. How can ANY American NOT CARE that we are making positive strides in Iraq? Unless they don't WANT us to be successful....as many on the left PROVE they don't. tsk tsk tsk
posted on August 7, 2007 09:34:56 AM new
And while the liberal left often doesn't believe what our military commanders say....or like pelosi, says what they report doesn't matter.....they'll believe a lot of things stated, anonymously by most any anti-war left blogger....just like they do with those who post 'falsehoods' on blogs like the daily kos. tsk tsk tsk
Then they CLAIM they're 'in-the-know'. lol lol lol
Well, here's another anonymous blogger who pretended to be 'in-the-know', reporting directly from Iraq, and of course, ALL NEGATIVE LIES about our soldiers actions in Iraq....and guess what?
ANOTHER anonymous, anti-war FRAUD has been exposed.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.
Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.
According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."
==============================
I question over and over again why it is that the left is always so quick to believe anything negative, especially when it's about the actions of our troops on the ground. And YET, they SAY they support our troops.
Those actions are NOT showing support for our troops.
But when their wacko leftie sites, like the dailykos and the New Republic prints anything.....they'll take it as gospel - no verification necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 7, 2007 09:41 AM ]
posted on August 8, 2007 06:04:03 PM new
Well....GENERAL pelosi still works for our DEFEAT.
What is with these liberals wanting to see us FAIL. Denying what our commanders on the ground are reporting?
Are they really as delusional as I believe them to be? Or are they just so un-American they can't STAND to see our troops actually seeing progress?
And they want to be re-elected? THEY want to have their ilk in the WH - surrendering/waving the white flag FOR all American's?
GAWD.....I hope that NEVER happens.
Such negativity.
Such defeatism.
Such arrogance.
Such gall.
Since they're NOT hoping for/believing in success in Iraq....then, imo, there's NO WAY they should EVER, EVER, EVER 'lead' this Nation.
-----
August 8, 2007
Pelosi: Surge still failing
PORTSMOUTH, New Hampshire (CNN) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, told CNN in an interview Thursday that the surge in Iraq “has not accomplished its goal,” and the first item on her agenda after the recess will be the war in Iraq.
When the House reconvenes in September, Pelosi says Iraq will be “front and center.”
She also told CNN that there will be a new “political standard” set for the war, the surge, and the Iraqi government.
Speaker Pelosi also offered a prediction for the 2008 congressional elections, proclaiming, “I have absolutely no doubt that we will keep the majority in the House and grow it.”
– CNN Political Researcher Xuan Thai
==============
And again I note - WATCH the way they VOTE....not what they SAY. Usually they're two different things.
They're FULL of 'talk' that accomplishes NOTHING.....absolutely NOTHING.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
