Not So Much A Surge, Then?
From the Washington Post:
But I guess we don't really have to wait.
Funny thing about that.
Does anyone remember when Congress authorized the use of military force to embroil us in an Arab version of Northern Ireland? I missed that vote.
(I find myself wondering which part of the Northern Ireland situation the General is thinking of as "9 or 10 years." Perhaps the period between the signing of the Good Friday Agreement until the most recent deal between Sinn Fein and the Unionists? Because most people think of the hot part of that conflict as starting around 1968, and lasting twenty years or more, into the 1990s, with years of negotiation after.)
Perhaps the General chose Northern Ireland as an example of a 'successful' counterinsurgency, to reinforce the idea that, if we hang on, it will all work out. But he may want to think twice about that rhetorical element.
Quite a few of us remember that conflict as a horrific time, when sectarian violence ran insanely out of control, a sympathetic populace lived in fear, a 'civilized' world power stooped to brutal, illegal and immoral methods to fight it, terrorists opposed to the 'occupation' bombed their capital, and, despite everything the British forces did for decades, it wasn't until the Irish themselves got tired of fighting that things got better.
Not that, as we've proven in Abu Graib and Guantanamo, we're not tough enough to have our own Long Kesh and H blocks. But the American people never actually signed up for a brutal military occupation of a foreign country, just toppling a dictator who supposedly was a threat. In Iraq, there are more sides and complexity than there ever was in Northern Ireland, and they show no signs of getting tired of fighting. In fact, they seem to be just warming up, and using our troops both to provide training and then to be target practice.
General Petraeus is probably right that bringing peace to Iraq could take a decade or more. So, let's stop talking about a surge, expecting it to have changed anything big by September. It's time, now, to decide if we want to be over there for decades, running an protracted occupation and counterinsurgency, or to come home.
Because if the guy in charge is comparing his job to being in Northern Ireland, we really need to stop talking about the situation changing in a few more months.
Conditions in Iraq will not improve sufficiently by September to justify a drawdown of U.S. military forces, the top commander in Iraq said yesterday.Many people in Congress have been suggesting that decisions about funding and what to do in Iraq have to wait until September, when General Petraeus is scheduled to tell us how the President's new war strategy, a.k.a. the "surge", is going.
Asked whether he thought the job assigned to an additional 30,000 troops deployed as the centerpiece of President Bush's new war strategy would be completed by then, Gen. David H. Petraeus replied: "I do not, no. I think that we have a lot of heavy lifting to do."
But I guess we don't really have to wait.
Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, his diplomatic counterpart in Baghdad, said a key report they will deliver to Washington in September will include what Crocker called "an assessment of what the consequences might be if we pursue other directions." Noting the "unhelpful roles" being played by Iran and Syria in Iraq, Crocker said: "We've got to consider what could happen."Slow progress, many challenges, not be resolved in years? Isn't that where we were last year? Isn't frustration and impatience with that situation the whole point of the January announcement of the 'new strategy', with all of its dynamism and "surge"? Wasn't that strategy supposed to start showing results in a matter of a few months?
Comments by Petraeus on "Fox News Sunday" and Crocker on NBC's "Meet the Press" were an indication of the administration's evolving strategy for confronting rising congressional demands to begin planning troop withdrawals. In addition to warning about the possible regional consequences of withdrawal, both men emphasized a "mixed" picture on the ground, citing successes while acknowledging the difficulty of the task ahead.
Asserting steady, albeit slow, military and political progress, Petraeus said that the "many, many challenges" would not be resolved "in a year or even two years."
Funny thing about that.
Similar counterinsurgency operations, he said, citing Britain's experience in Northern Ireland, "have gone at least nine or 10 years."Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland?! So now we've gone from a few months of intense effort to help the Iraqi government finally assert control to playing the British in a replay of Northern Ireland?
Does anyone remember when Congress authorized the use of military force to embroil us in an Arab version of Northern Ireland? I missed that vote.
(I find myself wondering which part of the Northern Ireland situation the General is thinking of as "9 or 10 years." Perhaps the period between the signing of the Good Friday Agreement until the most recent deal between Sinn Fein and the Unionists? Because most people think of the hot part of that conflict as starting around 1968, and lasting twenty years or more, into the 1990s, with years of negotiation after.)
Perhaps the General chose Northern Ireland as an example of a 'successful' counterinsurgency, to reinforce the idea that, if we hang on, it will all work out. But he may want to think twice about that rhetorical element.
Quite a few of us remember that conflict as a horrific time, when sectarian violence ran insanely out of control, a sympathetic populace lived in fear, a 'civilized' world power stooped to brutal, illegal and immoral methods to fight it, terrorists opposed to the 'occupation' bombed their capital, and, despite everything the British forces did for decades, it wasn't until the Irish themselves got tired of fighting that things got better.
Not that, as we've proven in Abu Graib and Guantanamo, we're not tough enough to have our own Long Kesh and H blocks. But the American people never actually signed up for a brutal military occupation of a foreign country, just toppling a dictator who supposedly was a threat. In Iraq, there are more sides and complexity than there ever was in Northern Ireland, and they show no signs of getting tired of fighting. In fact, they seem to be just warming up, and using our troops both to provide training and then to be target practice.
General Petraeus is probably right that bringing peace to Iraq could take a decade or more. So, let's stop talking about a surge, expecting it to have changed anything big by September. It's time, now, to decide if we want to be over there for decades, running an protracted occupation and counterinsurgency, or to come home.
Because if the guy in charge is comparing his job to being in Northern Ireland, we really need to stop talking about the situation changing in a few more months.
posted by Paul at 8:46 AM |
|
email this
