By Jeff Emanuel on 7.16.07 @ 12:08AM
Do Americans even care to know the facts about the war in Iraq?
The war in Iraq is vital to America's national security, and to
the Global War on Terror. It is a fight which we are not
currently losing on the ground, and which we will not lose
if we simply put petty partisan politics aside and commit to
victory, rather than seeking to take the easy way out (in the short
term) and abandoning yet another battlefield to the enemy.
Despite the fact that we live in an age of unparalleled access
to information, this message (along with seemingly every other
accurate detail about the war in Iraq) is still not being heard by
the majority of Americans, many of whom harbor misconceptions borne
out of ignorance and, ironically, a lack of information -- and its
reception by the American people and our leaders is vital both to
military success in that country, and to the security of our
country in the long term.
Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization which attacked us in 1993,
in 1998, in 2000, and in 2001 -- among other times -- has the dual
distinction of being both the highest-profile enemy in the War on
Terror, and enemy number one in Iraq. Regardless of Speaker of the
House Nancy "The Real War on Terror is in Afghanistan" Pelosi's
apparent belief, along with many of her colleagues, that the latter
is untrue, the leaders of that terror network (who, it may be
safely supposed, have a bit more knowledge of their own
operations than Ms. Pelosi) have said otherwise, and have done so
both loudly and repeatedly. Just the other week, Ayman al-Zawahiri
(via video) spoke of the vital role that Iraq currently plays as
"the centerpiece of [al Qaeda's] anti-American fight."
Since the war's beginning, the calls have come, from retired
military officers, politicians, and activists, for a change in
course in Iraq. Voting 223-201, the Democratic House last passed a
resolution (HR 2956) that says exactly that, and sets a date for
withdrawal of U.S. forces in120 days -- despite the fact that only
six months ago, the Senate, by unanimous (81-0) vote, confirmed a
new military leader who was bringing with him a brand-new strategic
approach to the fight in that country.
Despite being corrected ad nauseam, the majority of
people seem to have the same misconceptions about the relation
between this new strategy and the so-called "surge" now that they
did when it was first proposed. The "surge" -- an increase in boots
on the ground in Iraq -- was never the strategy itself. The
increase in troop levels, requested by General Petraeus, was one of
many components (or "strategic shifts," as national security
advisor Stephen Hadley called them in a January 29 Washington
Post
op-ed, in which he even then was attempting to clear up the
misconception that the "Surge" was the strategy in its entirety)
necessary to implement the sweeping new strategy, which radically
altered our country's course in Iraq and sought to solve the
problems and shore up the weaknesses which four years of fighting
had created and exposed.
THE STRATEGY ITSELF WAS and is far more intricate and multi-pronged
than a simple "surge" in troops. The main focus of the new strategy
has been the Baghdad Security Plan -- a strategy focused on the
capital city of Iraq, which seeks (with increased Iraqi and
American forces) to permanently rid neighborhoods of terrorists and
extremists and keep them that way, and to secure the population.
The new strategy in Baghdad was to be met with new rules of
engagement, set to ensure that Iraqi and U.S. forces could pursue
lawbreakers and terrorists regardless of their community or sect,
and to be followed by economic assistance and reconstruction aid --
including billions of dollars in Iraqi funds -- which would combine
to offer employment and the prospect of better lives for average
citizens. While this operation has been ongoing since Gen.
Petraeus's appointment in January, troop levels in Iraq have just
recently reached the amount necessary to fully implement the BSP
and to undertake the other aspects of the new strategy.
Outside of the Baghdad Security Plan, the new strategy stepped
up the fight against al Qaeda -- the most brutal and violent foe we
have in that country, and the one which has the most to lose from a
U.S. and Iraqi victory there. Beginning in Anbar Province -- until
six months ago, the most-written-off area of Iraq, and a sanctuary
for AQI -- U.S. forces have systematically driven al Qaeda from
their strongholds, rallying tribes, clans, and groups of all sects
to the cause of liberty and of a free Iraq. Though one of the major
successes of this war, Anbar is hardly mentioned in the news media
at all today, and Michael Yon recently reported having spent a
month there without hearing a shot fired (an amazing development,
as gunfire had been as common a background noise in Iraq as traffic
is in America). Further, the U.S. military is currently wrapping up
week three of Operation Arrowhead Ripper, the largest offensive
since 2003 and one aimed directly at rooting out and destroying al
Qaeda in Baqubah (in Diyala Province just north of Baghdad), one of
their final Iraqi strongholds. Each place that the coalition openly
fights against al Qaeda, the citizens and tribesmen join in,
standing side by side with Americans -- their differences forgotten
-- and helping to win back their neighborhoods, their cities, and
their country.
Other aspects of this new strategy included doubling the number
of provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in Iraq. These
civilian-led units have been helping the Iraqi government
distribute development aid across the country; this year, ten new
civilian PRTs have been be embedded with U.S. combat brigades. The
training of Iraqi security forces has been accelerated, with
benchmarks set to track progress, and numerical goals decided upon
to best bolster the size and effectiveness of those forces.
Contrary to popular belief, training and supporting Iraqi troops
has been and will remain our military's essential and primary
mission in that country.
VICTORY IN IRAQ IS NOT an option, not only for the citizens there,
but for America's national security. The Iraqi people do
by and large want us there -- not forever, but until they are
secure enough to take over themselves. Taking a shattered state --
especially one like Iraq, which, being comprised of people who
think of themselves as members of a tribe, sect, clan, or
mahalla, has no sense whatsoever of itself -- and
making it whole again is a long and arduous task. It is doubly so
when an effective insurgency is being waged against the rebuilding
force -- and make no mistake about it: this insurgency is
effective. However, along with the new strategy in Iraq came the
author of America's brand new field manual on counterinsurgency,
General David Petraeus -- a situation which should lend itself to
great confidence on the part of the American people in our ability
to effectively and correctly prosecute this war.
There is no "Plan B" to success in Iraq. If we fail there, the
Iraqi government and its security institutions will almost
certainly crumble under the pressure of widespread sectarian
violence, ethnic cleansing, and extrajudicial killing. The chaos,
which would spread across the country like wildfire, could very
well engulf the region. Even if it did not reach that far, our
withdrawal would give al Qaeda exactly what they have so often
asked for: a base of operations outside of Afghanistan, from which
they can carry out attacks on American interests and on our
homeland itself.
The American military can win this fight. The effort will take
time, as all successful counterinsurgencies have. Whether or not
our fast-food, instant-gratification culture, can demonstrate the
requisite patience remains to be seen; however, without time and
patience, failure is all but assured. America will stand no chance
in this or any future conflicts, as those we fight will constantly
have the advantage of far greater dedication and patience than we
will allow ourselves to display.
topics:
Law, Military, Iraq
