Another Iraq Headache From The Inky On "Ferris Friday"

Maybe it’s a sign of progress that Kevin Ferris of The Philadelphia Inquirer doesn’t seem to be leveling unsubstantiated charges and engaging in character assassination towards those who oppose the Iraq war these days as he did so notoriously here about a year ago.

However, he still gives us the following here today…

The military won't solve all of Iraq's problems, but the gains in the last year are remarkable: reducing violence in the country dramatically; holding the towns and territory taken from insurgents and protecting the population; consistently beating al-Qaeda in Iraq and limiting its area of operations. And, at long last, improved security is leading to political gains.

Now, the question is:

If it's in the best interests of both countries for Iraq to be a stable, secure and democratic partner in the war on terror, how do you simultaneously nurture that nascent political and security progress, responsibly redeploy U.S. troops, nudge Iraqi security forces into the lead, and maintain the sense of security needed for continued political compromise?

Here's what you don't do: Threaten to bail out in 120 days. Why would Iraqis fight beside our troops or compromise with one another if it will be every man for himself in four months' time?

God, Ferris is still horrible, even if he’s toned down the name calling a bit. For his information and ours, this is what was stipulated in S.2633 introduced by Senator Russ Feingold on Tuesday (noted here)…

Requires that after 120 days, funding in Iraq be limited to the following: conducting targeted military operations against al Qaeda and its affiliates, providing security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure, training Iraqi Security Forces, providing equipment and training to U.S. troops, and continuing to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq.

Where in that description do you see “bail out of Iraq in 120 days”?

And with all due respect to our fine service people and their courageous efforts and sacrifice, I’m really tired of reading about how great everything supposedly is over there because the violence is down by comparison.

As Brian Katulis, Peter Juul, and Ian Moss of the Center for American Progress tell us here…

...what has been extolled as a central “success” of the surge has also exacerbated existing political divisions and fomented new political cleavages in an already fractured and fragile Iraqi body politic. Newly empowered sahwa leaders are challenging each other, traditional Sunni Arab political parties, and the Iraqi government.

Al Qaeda in Iraq and its remaining allies in the Sunni insurgency have also begun a bloody campaign against the sahwa movement—more sahwa members have been killed since December 2007 (100-plus) than American troops (79 as of February 12).

U.S. policymakers have not explained these new and dangerous political and military dynamics to the American people, choosing instead to focus on the important accomplishment of putting Al Qaeda in Iraq on the run. What’s worse, current U.S. policy in Iraq does not take into account how the sahwa movements have further fractured and fragmented Iraqi politics, making it more difficult to achieve progress in striking the power-sharing deals necessary to stabilize their country.

And as noted here…

In slightly more than a year, Anbar's sheiks have helped accomplish what US military might, and endless rounds of political negotiations, could not: driving out the extremists who had flourished in Iraq's western desert since the invasion in 2003. Pockets of resistance remain in Anbar, but the US command says many of the Sunni insurgents, now allied with Al Qaeda in Iraq, are seeking new sanctuaries north of Baghdad.

Now, the sheiks say, it's payback time. They want more schools, better healthcare, clean water, and reliable electricity for their war-ravaged province. They want jobs for their followers. And above all, they want a stake in government for their Iraqi Awakening Conference movement.

"Anbar is a tribal society, and the Awakening came from the tribes," said Sheik Ahmed abu Risha, who succeeded his slain brother, Abdul-Sattar abu Risha, at the helm of the movement in September.

And what do you think will happen when the Shiite-dominated majority in Iraq’s parliament decides that they don’t want to share power with the Sunnis who have helped drive out al Qaeda in Iraq?

And as georgia 10 of The Daily Kos notes here…

Five years after the fall of Baghdad, and the Iraqi government has yet to agree on a power-sharing agreement (or otherwise meet 18 benchmarks of progress). As the AP points out, the "surge" was supposed to make this process easier:

Such power-sharing agreements are the end goal of last year's buildup of U.S. troops. The hope has been that the declining bloodshed will remove the fear that has paralyzed Iraqi politicians, enabling them to compromise and strike deals across the sectarian divide. And that, in theory, should blunt support for the Sunni insurgency and allow American troops to withdraw from the country.

...

U.S.-backed Sunni volunteer forces, which have played a vital role in reducing violence in Iraq, are increasingly frustrated with the American military and the Iraqi government over what they see as a lack of recognition of their growing political clout and insufficient U.S. support.

And as noted here…

Since Feb. 8, thousands of fighters in restive Diyala province have left their posts in order to pressure the government and its American backers to replace the province's Shiite police chief. On Wednesday, their leaders warned that they would disband completely if their demands were not met. In Babil province, south of Baghdad, fighters have refused to man their checkpoints after U.S. soldiers killed several comrades in mid-February in circumstances that remain in dispute.

Some force leaders and ground commanders also reject a U.S.-initiated plan that they say offers too few Sunni fighters the opportunity to join Iraq's army and police, and warn that low salaries and late payments are pushing experienced members to quit.

And the post by Daily Kos diarist dday also notes that insurgents are starting to infiltrate the Sunni groups that have led the so-called “awakening,” threatening to utterly shatter the relative calm of the moment interpreted by some as lasting progress; would that that calm would remain, but it appears to me to be more similar to the sound of a fuse burning before it ignites the power keg that will engulf Iraq once and for all.

Not just I, your humble narrator, but the majority of this country have long since grown tired of witnessing our military stuck in Iraq having to referee tribal civil war among groups that have fought each other for centuries, with ever-escalating costs in lives and treasure that should be used for this country instead of flushed into the black hole of Mesopotamia. And any notion that Iraq will ever be “a stable and secure democratic partner on the war on terror” is a delusion adhered to by only the most rabid of right-wing partisans.

And anyone who would expect Ambassador Ryan Crocker to do anything but feed those delusions is an idiot.

And speaking of which, I just came across this little item from someone named Nathan Thornburgh at Time's blog "Swampland"...

No matter what his advisers say, Obama wins nothing by shying away from his differences. After all, Obama is the candidate of change. He should take a cue from McCain's courage on Iraq.

And you can watch more about McCain's "courage" here.



Update: And here's another depressing history lesson...