Are things getting better in Iraq?

Question

O'Hanlan and Pollock say things are getting better in Iraq and that the surge is working. Should we stay the course?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

coragryph: I didn't know that. Those are interesting points. Thanks for the info. Things are never as simple as they at first appear over there I guess.

Answer 1

The scope of "getting better" is fairly limited -- even they agree that it's just in a few provinces, and that the "getting better" is just a reduction in sectarian violence, not an increase in the overall political stability.

BUT, more importantly, the Iraqi govt thinks the "progress" is actually going to be more harmful in the long run, because the stability was achieved by arming Sunni militia groups -- which are the same groups supporting Al Qaeda and opposing the Shiite govt in Baghdad.

So, yes, some provinces are more stable. But the Surge was intended to make the govt more stable, and these actions are having the opposite effect.

Answer 2

I have always been guarded when hearing things from the NY Times. This does not give me cause to change my position.

After all they are still a BUSINESS. Could they be peppering their content in response to the fact that their readership is in the tank?

If anyone learned any lesson at all from VietNam it was the military. They now know that there is no profit in padding sit-reps. With that in mind, I am more inclined to take their word.

Indications are that the surge has yeilded positive results. That was a logistical certainty. Of course, it was also a certainty that there would be a surge in casualties on both sides and among civilians. The BBC has chosen to rate progress based soley on that number. More casualties, more failure. Typical for them.

The test of time will be if it sticks. Are the Iraqis fair-weather partners? Sunni Police recruits are up. Why? because the risk is lower or because they have a new found hope? Have they signed on to a goal that is the product of a policy designed by an occupying foreign power? That would be out of character for an Islamic Arab country.

If I'm an Al Queda commander, I sit this out, strategically retreat and regroup or I take the fight to a new battle ground for the time being, perhaps the US or European mainland and return when the knee-jerk congress reacts. Sooner or later the congress will find a reason to cut or illiminate funding and the door will open again.

Will the Iraqi military be able to fill that vaccum?

OK, I'll be a little more optimistic, but you can't blame me for remaining gaurded.

Answer 3

I'm glad to hear the good news. Its unfortunate that Rumsfeld was so stubborn to put the necessary number of troops there in the first place. Hopefully the Iraqis will be taking care of their own security soon, and we can start to pull out. We shouldn't have US troops policing the streets of Baghdad.. that's not what their mission should be.

Answer 4

It's great to see an article from dissenters of the war offering an optimistic picture and military progress. bad time to take a month of for the iraqi government though. the surge is working it seems.

Answer 5

Overall, things are not getting better.

It is only in a few areas. And the surge was meant to create a more stable government, which it has not done.

Answer 6

The assesment sounds great but I don't believe it. There's talk of September, now November, and I've heard two years before any troop pull out.

Answer 7

Depends on what happens with the Iraqi govt. They need to make at least a little progress.

Answer 8

If its working bring our troops now, time for the Iraq's to run their own country and stop using our troop to do their work. The money we are spending over there should be spent here on this country. Fix the health problem. If we are winning what is that over in Afghanistan?

Answer 9

Hills and Valleys, Hills and Valleys, if things are so good why cant we leave?

Answer 10

Yes, it's working.