December 12, 2007
After the surge
If the furore over the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran hadn’t intervened, the US delegation to the IISS security conference in Bahrain last weekend would have spent the time boasting about progress in Iraq. In 2006, the Americans sent a relatively low-level delegation to Bahrain. This time they were out in force. The delegation was led by Robert Gates, the defence secretary and included William Fallon, the admiral in charge of Centcom - which runs the US military presence in the Middle East. Also at the conference was Colonel HR McMaster - the American officer who pioneered the "clear and hold" tactics that became the model for the US "surge" in Iraq.
As it was, Gates did spend a fair amount of time talking about the progress that had been made in Iraq. But he was cautious about making sweeping claims that things have taken a decisive turn for the better. Everybody remembers the hubris of "mission accomplished". And the Americans are well aware of the fragility of security gains, without real political progress to back it up.
Still, it seems perverse to deny that things have improved. The Iraqi politicians who went to the Bahrain conference seemed more confident and assertive than in previous months. (Unlike most of their Gulf counterparts, they are usually engaging people to speak to.) Violence is down - dramatically so in Baghdad; refugees are returning. Plenty of reputable reporters - who are not shills for the American military - have come away impressed. There was a striking report from Baghdad on the BBC’s Newsnight programme last night.
But the Americans are right to be cautious. They know that they have benefited from developments that are well beyond their control - in particular, the decisions by Sunni tribes to turn on al-Qaeda and by Shia militias to cool it for a while. Both of these decisions could easily change.
Above all, we’re reaching a crucial moment. The "surge" is about to be wound down. This month, American troop levels will start falling again. The party line in Bahrain was that the security gains are solid enough for some troops to start packing up. Talking to me and some FT colleagues, Admiral Fallon said that - of course - there are some risks involved in winding down the surge, but "we need to get moving".
Behind the scenes, however, some of the Americans were considerably less sanguine about what is going on. They argue that it is a huge risk to start pulling troops out now, endangering the McMaster strategy of ensuring security for Iraqis in areas that have been pacified. The pace of withdrawals, it’s acknowledged, is being dictated by domestic American considerations - rather than the needs of Iraq. The regular army simply has no more troops to deploy without morale-busting extensions of tours of duty. And the alternative - to mobilise more regiments of the National Guard - is a political non-starter.
So let’s hope that President Bush and John McCain are wrong when they say that it’s the surge that has made all the difference in Iraq. Because if that’s true, things may soon take a turn for the worse again.
Interesting intelligence from the front line, as it were. However, the surge is only one of the criteria for success in Iraq, and it was never going to lead to a lasting panacea by itself. The other essential element, a political solution, is still to be tied down as far as I understand it. Without a political success, the military effort was never going to succeed by itself. The Americans failed to recognise this before the invasion, and the Iraqis themselves don’t seem to have grasped it either - at least at the national level, although the tribes, as you say, are more on top of it. The time for them to act is truly now, otherwise the failure won’t be America’s alone.
Posted by: AYC | December 13th, 2007 at 9:15 am | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
Might I suggest that you cast your eyes on the enclosed recent article from professor Juan Cole of Michigan University, as published in the Salon magazine?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/04/iraq/
I think it deals with the points you raise quite well.
Here is an extract:
Quote
The current “good news” campaign from the Bush administration regarding the troop surge is only the latest in a long history of whitewashing the war since the 2003 invasion. First, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denied that there was massive looting following the fall of Baghdad. Then he denied that there was a rising guerrilla war. Then, after the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani maneuvered an unwilling Bush administration into holding relatively free elections, the victory of Shiite fundamentalists close to Iran was obscured by the “purple thumb” good news campaign. That is, the administration focused on the democratic process and relative success of the voting, diverting attention from the bad news that the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq had taken over.
Later, it was good news when the Iraqi parliament produced a theocratic constitution with all the weaknesses of the U.S. Articles of Confederation, even though all three Sunni-majority provinces rejected it in the subsequent referendum. What was in the constitution was not important, only that it existed. The Bush administration has heralded any number of such “milestones” reached, but not whether they led to worthwhile results.
Obscured by these “milestones” is that the orgy of violence in Iraq has displaced 2 million persons abroad and another 2 million internally, and left tens of thousands dead. But now the “good news” is that the guerrillas appear not to have been able to keep up the pace of violence characteristic of 2006 and early 2007, even if the pace they maintain today is horrific.
Moreover, the relative reduction in violence is artificial and probably cannot endure. Blast walls enclose once posh Baghdad districts like Adhamiya, but although they keep out death squads they also keep out the customers that shopkeepers depend on. When a Baghdad pet market was bombed recently, it was revealed that the US military had banned vehicles in its vicinity for some time, but allowed cars to drive there again just a few days before the bombing. Vehicle bans are effective, but not practical in the medium or long term. When they end, what will prevent the bombs from returning?
Unquote
BTW, are you aware of professor Cole’s blog, the Informed Comment?
http://www.juancole.com/
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 10:40 am | Report this commentTo the last poster (AYC),
Posted by: steve jennings | December 13th, 2007 at 12:18 pm | Report this commentOf course Mr. Rachman is aware of Juan Cole’s blog and writings, just as he is aware of the fact that the supposed reduction in violence in Iraq is a pure fiction created by the lack of reporting of violence.
Unfortunately his political leanings make it imperative that he ignore this information.
It is a truism that you can not make a man understand something when his income depends upon his not understanding it.
Regards
SJ
Dear Mr. Jennings,
All things considered, I think Mr. Rachman is one of the good guys in this segment of British journalism. (Not that he needs me as a spokesman!!)
If you look at the supposedly analytical and dispassionate Economist magazine and at the supposedly liberal Guardian, you see that they have been infected with the warmongering disease that one only used to see in the rightwing press. (The Economist are obviously hell-bent on selling to the Americans and that clearly causes them to appeal to the Yanks’ baser instincts, of which there are many!. But what the hell is the matter with the “Gruniad”?).
In the above context, I would suggest that Rachman and co and the FT have not been stampeded by the herd and one has to be grateful for small mercies.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 1:18 pm | Report this commentI agree with Pacifist. Gideon Rachman may not be able to tell the whole truth, but he is certainly telling what he can within the confines imposed by the fact that he is in the British media establishment. The FT should be congratulated for maintaining some sense in this mad world and for giving its journalists such independence.
If I may, another point to be appreciated is that he is not a smug pontificater (like his former colleagues at the Economist), grabbing hold of some line and banging on about it until, as they say, the cows come home.
GR, I’ve always wondered: was the shift in the editorial line at St James Place a reason for your leaving?
Posted by: Red | December 13th, 2007 at 9:30 pm | Report this commentHas anyone been reading Daniel Dombey’s blog on Bush’s trip to the Middle East. It’s pretty good:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f469974-be06-11dc-8bc9-0000779fd2ac.html
Posted by: Pacifist | January 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Report this commentToday’s FT editorial on Iraq is brilliant. Don’t miss it.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 10th, 2008 at 11:45 am | Report this comment