I had a great idea for a post this morning. I was going to explain how conservative supporters of the president’s Iraq policy were making fools of themselves by arguing that recent successes against al Qaeda in Iraq were a result of the surge. I was really looking forward to pulling the post together — and then I saw Kevin Drum had already done the exact piece I was planning to write. (Worse, his is probably better than mine was going to be.)
Oh well. To punish Kevin for unintentionally spoiling my fun, I’ll just steal borrow his content to make the point I wanted to emphasize.
I got the idea after seeing Charles Krauthammer tout the success of the surge by arguing, “Al-Qaeda has been seriously set back as Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar, Diyala and other provinces switched from the insurgency to our side.” The same argument has been common in GOP talking points, and Kevin pointed to this gem from the latest National Review editorial:
The fact is that the surge is President Bush’s policy, and one that he implemented over the vociferous opposition of Democrats who thought the best strategy against al Qaeda in Iraq was to begin to leave. Now the surge has helped turn Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, advancing the goal that nearly everyone in the U.S. notionally shares of routing the terror group from Iraq.
Let’s not brush past this too quickly. To hear the National Review (and not just the National Review) tell it, the fact that some Sunni tribes are combating AQI is a direct result of the surge, which those dastardly Democrats opposed. This wasn’t just some comment on Fox News or Limbaugh’s show; this is the official, written position of one of the most important conservative political magazines in the country.
And it’s completely, embarrassingly wrong.
National Review either doesn’t understand, or doesn’t care, about what the surge actually is. The magazine’s editors are either ignorant or intentionally trying to deceive its readers.
The fact that these tribes and militias are attacking AQI has nothing to do with the surge.
The turnabout began last September, when a federation of tribes in the Ramadi area came together as the Anbar Salvation Council to oppose the fundamentalist militants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
….The council sought financial and military support from the Iraqi and American governments. In return the sheiks volunteered hundreds of tribesmen for duty as police officers and agreed to allow the construction of joint American-Iraqi police and military outposts throughout their tribal territories.
….Beginning last summer and continuing through March, the American-led joint forces pressed into the city, block by block, and swept the farmlands on its outskirts. In many places the troops met fierce resistance. Scores of American and Iraqi security troops were killed or wounded.
….The fact that Anbar is almost entirely Sunni and not riven by the same sectarian feuds as other violent places, like Baghdad and Diyala Province, has helped to establish order. Elsewhere, security forces are largely Shiite and are perceived by many Sunnis as part of the problem. In Anbar, however, the new police force reflects the homogeneous face of the province and appears to enjoy the support of the people.
Are developments in Anbar encouraging? Of course. Are they the result of the surge? Absolutely not. Is the status quo a tenable strategy for the long-term? Not even a little.
[A]ligning Americans with fighters whose long-term agenda remains unclear — with regard to either Americans or the Shiite-led government — is also a strategy born of desperation. It contradicts repeated declarations by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that no groups besides the Iraqi and American security forces are allowed to bear arms. And some American soldiers worry that standing up a Sunni militia could have dire consequences if the group turns on its U.S. partners.
“We have made a deal with the devil,” said an intelligence officer in the battalion.
I can’t wait to see the National Review’s correction.