It seems a memo went out to war supporters everywhere, issuing a collective call for the “stay the course” crowd to declare victory.
Joe Lieberman is the latest to jump on the bandwagon that’s traveling in the wrong direction.
“I’m proud to say that the tide has turned in Iraq and we’re winning that war,” Lieberman said. “And if we don’t let down our troops, they’re going to bring home a victory that will protect us here at home from today’s threat — totalitarian terrorist Islamism that’s trying to take our liberty from us.”
What a very odd claim. We’re “winning” the war? Against whom? Also notice that that Lieberman subtly argues that most Americans and a majority of both chambers of Congress want to “let down our troops,” and that staying in the middle of Iraq’s civil war will “protect us here at home.” It’s as if Lieberman were randomly hitting all the right-wing talking points at once.
Of course, Lieberman might have a shred of credibility if he hadn’t been wrong about every possible aspect of this war for the last five years, including repeated claims about various tides having turned. TP runs through some of the greatest hits, but this gem from two years ago stands out: “The last two weeks…may be seen as a turning point.” That was in December 2005.
After a while, the boy who cries “mission accomplished” a few too many times, without any connection to reality, deserves to be ignored.
That said, there has been some good news in Iraq of late. U.S. casualties aren’t as high, Iraqi civilian deaths are on the decline, and there are fewer roadside bombs going off.
But before Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol clink champagne glasses in the Heritage Foundation lobby, there are a few things they might want to keep in mind.
Phillip Carter — lawyer, blogger, and Iraq-war veteran, suggests the good news may not be quite what it appears to be.
[T]he truth behind these numbers is elusive. It’s near impossible to discern whether they reflect the success of our military operations or some larger, deeper trends in Iraqi society, such as the success of the Shiite campaign to rid Baghdad of its Sunni residents. The situation does present a paradox, however. If the surge is the reason, as the generals claim, we’re in trouble, because the surge is about to end. If Iraqi reconciliation and ethnic cleansing get primary credit, and the surge is mostly acting as a catalyst, our inevitable drawdown over the next six months to pre-surge levels may not be catastrophic, because the positive trends result more from Iraqi societal shifts and less from American soldiers brokering the peace. As commanders plan for the 2008 reduction in troops, they must try to reconcile these competing explanations and find a way to sustain the success when there are fewer—or no—American soldiers on the streets.
In a press conference Thursday, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno expressed cautious optimism about the trends, calling them “positive” but not “irreversible.” He also took credit, saying the statistics “represen[t] the longest continuous decline in attacks on record and illustrat[e] how our operations have improved security since the surge was emplaced.” Clearly, U.S. security operations are having an effect in Baghdad and beyond. Sectarian violence and insurgent activity in Baghdad has been tamped down by the aggressive U.S. strategy of basing troops in Iraqi neighborhoods and patrolling them on foot. Where we have sufficient troops to control the ground, the violence is down. That’s no surprise.
But where we don’t have sufficient troops, as in volatile Diyala province north and east of Baghdad, violence remains high. The large northern city of Kirkuk, a powder keg of Kurdish and Iraqi Arab residents, continues to see significant insurgent activity. Over the past few months, Tal Afar and Mosul have also seen spasms of deadly violence. As a general rule, where Sunnis, Shiites, or Kurds live in close proximity and we have too few American troops on the ground, violence persists.
In fact, American forces don’t control very much in Iraq. Rather, we influence events there by our presence and activities, and we exploit opportunities where they arise. Though our commanders may take credit for the reductions in violence over the past few months, this recognition is misplaced. Our paltry force of 169,000 contributed to an improved security situation, and likely catalyzed the Iraqi security forces to restore order in parts of Baghdad, but our security measures pale in comparison to the decisions by tribal leaders in Anbar and by Muqtada Sadr’s militias to abstain from violence. Similarly, all the Maliki government’s entreaties and statements make for good press releases, but they, too, have little to do with reality in Baghdad or in Iraq’s provinces, because the corrupt and overly sectarian central government is still incapable of actually governing the nation.
And, of course, political reconciliation — you know, the point of the surge — remains all but impossible, in part because Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki doesn’t think any more work needs to be done at all. For that matter, much of the improved data is the result of a successful ethnic cleansing campaign.
We still don’t have any real strategy for the occupation aside from “let’s hope things get better”; we’re still arming both sides of a civil war; we still don’t have a long-term plan for the future of Iraq; and we still have to keep an eye on Sunnis who appear to be eyeing a return to an insurgency.
But Joe Lieberman is convinced we’re “winning.” It’s not like he’s been wrong before, right?