This is the text of my oped in today’s Wall Street Journal:
Vicory Is Within Reach in Iraq
By MICHAEL A. LEDEEN
October 20, 2007; Page A11
Should we declare victory over al Qaeda in the battle of Iraq?
The very question would have seemed proof of dementia only a few months ago, yet now some highly respected military officers, including the commander of Special Forces in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, reportedly feel it is justified by the facts on the ground.
These people are not suggesting that the battle is over. They all insist that there is a lot of fighting ahead, and even those who believe that al Qaeda is crashing and burning in a death spiral on the Iraqi battlefields say that the surviving terrorists will still be able to kill coalition forces and Iraqis. But there is relative tranquility across vast areas of Iraq, even in places that had been all but given up for lost barely more than a year ago. It may well be that those who confidently declared the war definitively lost will have to reconsider.
Almost exactly 13 months ago, the top Marine intelligence officer in Iraq wrote that the grim situation in Anbar province would continue to deteriorate unless an additional division was sent in, along with substantial economic aid. Today, Marine leaders are musing openly about clearing out of Anbar, not because it is a lost cause, but because we have defeated al Qaeda there.
In Fallujah, enlisted marines have complained to an officer of my acquaintance: “There’s nobody to shoot here, sir. If it’s just going to be building schools and hospitals, that’s what the Army is for, isn’t it?” Throughout the area, Sunni sheikhs have joined the Marines to drive out al Qaeda, and this template has spread to Diyala Province, and even to many neighborhoods in Baghdad itself, where Shiites are fighting their erstwhile heroes in the Mahdi Army.
British troops are on their way out of Basra, and it was widely expected that Iranian-backed Shiite militias would impose a brutal domination of the city, That hasn’t happened. Lt. Col. Patrick Sanders, stationed near Basra, confirmed that violence in Basra has dropped precipitously in recent weeks. He gives most of the credit to the work of Iraqi soldiers and police.
As evidence of success mounts, skeptics often say that while military operations have gone well, there is still no sign of political movement to bind up the bloody wounds in the Iraqi body politic. Recent events suggest otherwise. Just a few days ago, Ammar al-Hakim, the son of and presumed successor to the country’s most important Shiite political leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, went to Anbar’s capital, Ramadi, to meet with Sunni sheikhs. The act, and his words, were amazing. “Iraq does not belong to the Sunnis or the Shiites alone; nor does it belong to the Arabs or the Kurds and Turkomen,” he said. “Today, we must stand up and declare that Iraq is for all Iraqis.”
Mr. Hakim’s call for national unity mirrors last month’s pilgrimage to Najaf, the epicenter of Iraqi Shiism, by Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni. There he visited Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shiite cleric. The visit symbolically endorsed Mr. Sistani’s role as the most authoritative religious figure in Iraq. Mr. Hashemi has also been working closely with Mr. Hakim’s people, as well as with the Kurds. Elsewhere, similar efforts at ecumenical healing proceed rapidly. As Robert McFarlane reported in these pages, Baghdad’s Anglican Canon, Andrew White, has organized meetings of leading Iraqi Christian, Sunni and Shiite clerics, all of whom called for nation-wide reconciliation.
The Iraqi people seem to be turning against the terrorists, even against those who have been in cahoots with the terror masters in Tehran. As Col. Sanders puts it, “while we were down in Basra, an awful lot of the violence against us was enabled, sponsored and equipped by. . . Iran. [But] what has united a lot of the militias was a sense of Iraqi nationalism, and they resent interference by Iran.”
How is one to explain this turn of events? While our canny military leaders have been careful to give the lion’s share of the credit to terrorist excesses and locals’ courage, the most logical explanation comes from the late David Galula, the French colonel who fought in Algeria and then wrote “Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice” in the 1960s. He argued that insurgencies are revolutionary wars whose outcome is determined by control of, and support from, the population. The best way to think about such wars is to imagine the board game of Go. Each side starts with limited assets, each has the support of a minority of the territory and the population. Each has some assets within the enemy’s sphere of influence. The game ends when one side takes control of the majority of the population, and thus the territory.
Whoever gains popular support wins the war. Galula realized that while revolutionary ideology is central to the creation of an insurgency, it has very little to do with the outcome. That is determined by politics, and, just as in an election, the people choose the winner.
In the early phases of the conflict, the people remain as neutral as they can, simply trying to stay alive. As the war escalates, they are eventually forced to make a choice, to place a bet, and that bet becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The people have the winning piece on the board: intelligence. Once the Iraqis decided that we were going to win, they provided us with information about the terrorists: who they were, where they were, what they were planning, where their weapons were stashed, and so forth.
It’s easy to say, but quite beside the point, that any smart Iraqi would prefer us to the terrorists. We’re short-termers, while the terrorists promise to stay forever and make Iraq part of an oppressive caliphate. We’re going to leave in a few years, and put the country in Iraqi hands, while the terrorists — many of whom are the cat’s-paws of foreign powers — intend to turn the place into an alien domain. We promise freedom, while the jihadis impose clerical fascism and slaughter their fellow Arab Muslims.
But that preference isn’t enough to explain the dramatic turnaround — the nature of the terrorists was luminously clear a year ago, when the battle for Iraq was going badly. As Galula elegantly observed, “which side gives the best protection, which one threatens the most, which one is likely to win, these are the criteria governing the population’s stand. So much the better, of course, if popularity and effectiveness are combined.”
The turnaround took place because we started to defeat the terrorists, at a time that roughly coincides with the surge. There is a tendency to treat the surge as a mere increase in numbers, but its most important component was the change in doctrine. Instead of keeping too many of our soldiers off the battlefield in remote and heavily fortified mega-bases, we put them into the field. Instead of reacting to the terrorists’ initiatives, we went after them. No longer were we going to maintain the polite fiction that we were in Iraq to train the locals so that they could fight the war. Instead, we aggressively engaged our enemies. It was at that point that the Iraqi people placed their decisive bet.
Herschel Smith, of the blog Captain’s Journal, puts it neatly in describing the events in Anbar: “There is no point in fighting forces (U.S. Marines) who will not be beaten and who will not go away.” We were the stronger horse, and the Iraqis recognized it.
No doubt Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno know all this. It is, after all, their strategy that has produced the good news. Their reluctance to take credit for the defeat of al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq is due to the uncertain outcome of the big battle now being waged here at home. They, and our soldiers, fear that the political class in Washington may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They know that Iran and Syria still have a free shot at us across long borders, and Gen. Petraeus told Congress last month that it would not be possible to win in Iraq if our mission were restricted to that country.
Not a day goes by without one of our commanders shouting to the four winds that the Iranians are operating all over Iraq, and that virtually all the suicide terrorists are foreigners, sent in from Syria. We have done great damage to their forces on the battlefield, but they can always escalate, and we still have no policy to direct against the terror masters in Damascus and Tehran. That problem is not going to be resolved by sound counterinsurgency strategy alone, no matter how brilliantly executed.
Mr. Ledeen is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His book, “The Iranian Time Bomb,” was recently published by St. Martin’s Press.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
13 Comments
Lance Morrison:EXACTLY why this left coast police officer made a politically CONSERVATIVE music CD called ‘Blaming America First!.’ The LIbs always do, and I give Hillary, Edwards, Ward Churchill and the rest their due–to music! @
http://www.conservativemusiconline.com
Oct 20, 2007 - 4:45 pm Publius NonSap:I think we may consider that we’ve won the Battle of the Surge. The surge should be considered as only one prolonged battle, in the same way as the Battle of the Atlantic occurred over many months, with many separate, individual actions. Winning the Battle of the Atlantic didn’t guarantee winning World War II. In the same way, winning the surge doesn’t mean we’ve won in Iraq, but it dramatically improves our chances. The battle of the surge isn’t the whole war, but it is a significant, important milestone to victory.
Oct 20, 2007 - 9:41 pm TomT:Although I agree with you on the change of tactics, I think we just won the waiting game. Eventually insurgents will show their true colors and overplay their hand with the population. If they had the best interest of the population in mind, they wouldn’t be fighting us. Nobody will tolerate the brutal and tyranical ways of the insurgent for very long. We just needed to be there when the population was ready and motivated to cooperate with us. This was the Rumsfeld strategy.
Oct 20, 2007 - 10:15 pm Richard Robinson:For those who say “there is still no sign of political movement to bind up the bloody wounds in the Iraqi body politic” I would suggest that the actions and statements of Ammar al Hakim and Vice President al-Hashemi contrast greatly with our own political leaders and establishment.
Oct 21, 2007 - 1:41 am a Duoist:It would be nice to see some sign of political movement to bind up the bloody wounds in the United States body politic.
I would share your optimism if the Iraqi government invited the U.S. to build a Marine Corps base in Iraq along the southeastern border with Iran, and an Army base in Kurdistan along the northwest border with Syria, on ten-year leases renewable by a plebiscite of all the Iraqi people. Then, if ever the Iraqi people vote us out, we leave immediately.
Because of rotation requirements, we have to draw down troop levels beginning in just over ninety days, regardless of the success of the surge. If we don’t have bases in place to keep Syria and Iran at bay for a decade, the surge’s success might be unnecessarily wasted.
The surge gains are wonderful, and credit to all the troops, Iraqi and American. But we have ‘muffed’ victory twice in fifteen years in Iraq; where’s the strategy to avoid a third missed opportunity?
Oct 21, 2007 - 4:58 am David Thomson:It is imperative that we constantly remind voters that America still has troops in places like Korea and Germany. Victory in Iraq should not be determined by the number of soldiers remaining in the country. They are likely to stay for at least another ten years. This will likely be the number one argument employed by the self-hating Americans who belong to the Democratic Party during the elections of 2008.
Oct 21, 2007 - 11:01 am Doug Jones:I’m reminded of the Winston Churchill quote about the end of the beginning. Getting the troops out completely would be disastrous- the US still has forces in Europe (not just in Germany) three generations after WWII, and that presence arguably is what has prevented another major war in Europe.
Also, Lance Morrison’s comment above is pure spam, I’ve seen the exact same wording in other comment threads on other sites. I suggest it be deleted
as spam.
ML:
well nobody in the military is arguing for a withdrawal; when the marines say they should move on, it’s because their kind of work isn’t needed, at least for the moment, in that place. others can do that. and they think they can add value in other areas of Iraq or Afghanistan.
as for the spam, i’m happy to deal with it if you can find a link.
Oct 21, 2007 - 2:12 pm winston:Very well written!
ML:
thanks. i am piling up those style points!
Oct 22, 2007 - 12:58 pm Ira Zad:Bin Ladin released a video today in which he admitted that mistakes were made by Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It seems that Al-Qaeda and the Iranian regime operatives in Iraq have been dealt effective blows after the surge.
But, this is not the time for us to rest on our laureates. This is a window of opportunity to go in for ‘complete kill’ of the forces behind the insurgency in Iraq, mainly Iran and to some degree its lackey Syria.
This struggle against Islamic Fascism will not be over, until such time as we face the instigator and financer of all Islamic terror, our enemy: the Iranian regime, once and for all with resolve and serious action.
But, judging by the hollow rhetoric (with no action backing it) that is coming out of US administration, it is very doubtful that we are planning to face Iran in a serious or meaningful way anytime soon. Case in point, Vice President Cheney’s comments on Sunday that “We are prepared to impose serious consequences” if Iran “stays on its current path”. This statement was made, apparently, in a reaction to the firing of Iran’s Ali Larijani (a ‘Reformist’ with British ties) who headed the nuclear negotiations with EU’s Solana. The Vice President’s conditional statement for penalties “if Iran stays on its current path” could be construed as US administration still hopeful that the European mullahs like Khatami and Rafsanjani could take over power in an internal coup against Ahmadinejad and company.
Fact is that our lack of any decisive, serious action with resolve to confront the regime as a whole could be construed as the hope for compromise with another “form” of the same regime in Iran. Despite the innuendo and rhetoric, Washington seems to be going towards appeasement of the European faction within the regime in Iran (the “Reformists”.)
So much for regime change.
Oct 22, 2007 - 4:49 pm David W. Lincoln:http://mor2com.blogspot.com/
Michael, its good to see that you can be accessed this way.
What you recommend is those things done right as seen in “The face of evil”.
Funny about life not only being linear, but also cyclical.
ML:
Yes, and it goes round and round too…:=)
Oct 22, 2007 - 6:32 pm Curt:Great article. I would only add that despite the Administration’s mistakes, half-measures and sometimes wrong-headed strategies, we may be winning not only in Iraq but in the global war against radical Islam.
North America: No major terrorist attacks since 911. And Canadians have replaced an anti-American prime minister with a pro-American, who is attempting to rebuild the Canadian military to better shoulder its responsibilities.
Europe: Chirac and Shroeder are gone, replaced by pro-American leaders. Hopefully, they will help apply more pressure on Iran. NATO is already taken over military operations in Afghanistan. Finally, Europe is starting to get serious about defending itself against radical Islam as evidenced by tougher policies and fewer terrorist attacks.
Africa: Libya cried uncle shortly after America overthrew Saddam. Al Queda-linked terrorists were thwarted in taking over Somalia.
Asia: North Korea has agreed to give up its nuclear program (though that saga is far from over), the Taliban have been overthrown, and the Khan nuclear bazzar has been disrupted.
Middle East: The Syrians have been kicked out of Lebanon, replaced by an anti-Syrian, anti-Hezbollah coalition in the parliament. The military successes in Iraq are being followed up by reconciliation efforts by the various parties.
Sure there are still problems, which the mainstream media likes to focus on, but sometimes its healthy to step back and look at the big picture.
Now about Iran…
ML:
Well said. Thanks.
Oct 24, 2007 - 3:25 pm Alireza:When I heard Khamenei has sent Larijani as his own personal representative to visit with Solana, I’m sensing IRGC might have taken over MOST of the power, which basically allowed Larijani to be removed/resign.
Then, when I hear U.S. is sanctioning the IRGC alone, that is another validation that indeed this group have taken over most of the power in Iran, where even Khamenei looks like doesn’t have much influence, since it allowed Larijani to be removed.
My basis for this internal conflict is that he still made sure Larijani to attend the meeting with Solana, and that Solana is saying he is not happy with dealing with two power sources in Iran.
Now the REAL CHALLENGE with this new sanction is if it is not enforced at 150% force, it is worthless just like how they have managed invasion of Iraq.
So, what U.S. must do is to allocate as many people as needed in a war room-like to truly monitor and fight with every single company from ANY country that sell even small nuts and screws to IRGC. Anything short of that will cause more embarrassment and lack of credibility for U.S.
I also make sure to announce the name of individuals that are in this new sanction, almost like the 52 deck of cards in Iraq. Although, I would not go that far, but I do make sure to broadcast their names as publicly as possible so it makes more noise in Iran about these people. This will bring more shame to these individuals among Iranians, for sure.
ML:
I have no idea what you are talking about, frankly, but maybe somebody else does.
Oct 25, 2007 - 5:33 pm Kourosh:Let us forget about Iraq for a moment and pay closer attention to the escalating event in Iran. Ms. Rice and Mr. Paulson did a wonderful job sanctioning Terrorists pasdaran, and their basiji stooges and stop dealing with the main banks in the hands of terrorists Khomeinists. However, the follow of money these days are mainly through Dubai, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, and some other collaborators with terrorists like Malaysia. Most of the transactions with China is conducted from Dubai, where a well known terrorists, ex-spokesperson for Islamist Republic Of Terrorists (IRT)is now Ambassador. If US and the world really want to stop the terrorist activities, it must stop first Dubai and Turkey transactions, the Malaysia, Pakistan, India and others. That is the only way Khomeinists Taliban in IRT can be hurt. Otherwise, they can survive with a bit difficulty but nevertheless survive. As a result, they will continue occupying Iran, Murdering its people, and as it is now obvious to the Iranian people, IRT is and has been hiring terrorists from Lebanon and other parts of Middle East to crush any resistance by Iranian people. The recent activities by Khomeinists Thugs against Iranian people demonstrate they guards of no mercy on the people and utilize Jihadi animalistic tactics against innocent people and young men and women. It is time for the world to intervene in support of human rights and life. As ML has been saying: Faster Please.
Oct 26, 2007 - 11:14 am