Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Thank You, War On (Some) Drugs | Main | Bush Derangement Syndrome »

On The Verge Of Victory?

Ralph Peters:

Of the two simultaneous missions under way - maturing a responsible government and advancing our own strategic interests - the latter is far more important. In fact, it's vital. And on that track, we're making stunning progress.

Out here in Anbar Province, al Qaeda did what religion-driven extremists always do eventually - they over-reached, setting the bar so high that nonfanatics couldn't measure up (nor did they want to). The terrorists responded with a campaign of slaughter against their fellow Muslims.

Now the Sunni Arabs who were fighting so bitterly against us are fighting beside us to destroy al Qaeda in Iraq. And the terrorists are going down.

Out here in Anbar Province - long the most troubled in Iraq - the change has come so swiftly and thoroughly that it's dazzling. Marines who were under fire routinely just months ago are now directing their former enemies in battle.

Although this trend has been reported, our battlefield leaders here agree that the magnitude of the shift hasn't registered back home: Al Qaeda is on the verge of a humiliating, devastating strategic defeat - rejected by their fellow Sunni Muslims.

If we don't quit, this will not only be a huge practical win - it'll be the information victory we've been aching for.

No matter what the Middle Eastern media might say, everyone in the Arab and greater Sunni Muslim world will know that al Qaeda was driven out of Iraq by a combination of Muslims and Americans.

Think that would help al Qaeda's recruitment efforts? Even now, the terrorists have to resort to lies about their prospective missions to gain recruits.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 25, 2007 10:22 AM

Comments

...our battlefield leaders here agree that the magnitude of the shift hasn't registered back home...

It doesn't register? It doesn't register because it's being kept from the American people by the MSM. They're too busy reporting car bombs and IEDs to reports this development.

Think that would help al Qaeda's recruitment efforts? Even now, the terrorists have to resort to lies about their prospective missions to gain recruits.

I said recently on another comment section, that we should kill the bad guys faster than they can recruit new bodies. Make it a job nobody wants, that's how you win wars, skirmishes, police actions...

Posted by Steve at August 25, 2007 12:13 PM

Defeating AQI is good news.

But thereafter, we will need to see if those same Sunni tribesmen will live peacefully with the Shia government AFTER AQI is eradicated.

That is a whole new kettle of fish since the Sunni may now be willing while Ssdr, Maliki and Hakim may not be willing.

Posted by Bill White at August 25, 2007 12:59 PM

Heh. Maybe it's best to work on one unattainable goal at a time.

Posted by Bacchus at August 25, 2007 03:24 PM

Ralph Peters is one of the few commentators on war and foreign policy that is worth listening to.

Ralph has spent much of his life living in various places around the world and tends to go to the places that noone else will. He is fluent in several languages, including Russian and (I think) Arabic.

Posted by Kurt9 at August 25, 2007 03:44 PM

All you have to do is note that there has been a major counteroffensive over the last three months, and the casualty rate has dropped. This is almost unheard of in military history (it usually increases casualties even when it goes perfectly), and is some indication that it is going well...for now.

Posted by sjv at August 25, 2007 05:03 PM

But thereafter, we will need to see if those same Sunni tribesmen will live peacefully with the Shia government AFTER AQI is eradicated.

Oh good point. And after that we need to see if they'll only compete fairly in elections -- no sleazy Willie Horton commercials, no taking contributions from Iranian lobbyists -- and after that we need to see whether they give only statesmanlike speeches in Parliament in the mold of James Madison or Pitt the Elder, and do not call each other 'ass of a camel' or other disrespectful names, and after that we need to see if they brush and floss every night and do not kick stray dogs in the street.

I mean, we don't want to lose our heads and overestimate the importance of turning bitter enemies into allies, do we now?

Posted by Carl Pham at August 26, 2007 01:09 AM

Carl, that's rubbish. All we are doing in Anbar is arming a militant faction. And the militant faction likes it. Why wouldn't they? That's it, period. This is a sideshow since AQI was a sideshow in Anbar in the original billing.

If you can even remotesly connect the dots between these so called positives in Anbar and a Sunni-Shia reconciliation, then please indulge your eloquence fully. Can you?

Every indication is that arming the Sunni Sheikhs is setting the stage for major problems with the Shia later on. Not that it matters for the short term sound-bite in September.

Posted by Offside at August 26, 2007 09:42 AM

"Every indication is that arming the Sunni Sheikhs is setting the stage for major problems with the Shia later on."

???

You mean like major problems with our friend and ally Moqtada al Sadr? Or perhaps his rogue Mahdi Army?

Or perhaps you meant major problems with his Persian overlords in Tehran?

MAYBE, just MAYBE the Sunni tribes will develop sufficient organic combat power and demonstrated political will that they can avoid the "genocide or refugee" options that many Shiites prefer to offer.

MAYBE the more sober minds on the Shia side will prevail over their more "militant" co-religionists.

/*

Or, maybe this is unalloyed bad news, news that Rove's mind rays continue to suppress from the conscious thoughts of all but the most enlightened Americans.

*/

Fourth point of contact, Offside. You should think about that.

Posted by MG at August 26, 2007 10:11 AM

MG,

Your goal posts have moved so far they are no longer on the field. No matter, your courage to redefine the situation runs high.

Are you hinting at a partition of Iraq?

Whatever happened to that united, free, democratic, secular, pro-American vision for Iraq, once used to hit some of us on the head with?

So now its how we can set the factions against each other. Interesting. Working our way back to the crappy old ways of managing the ME.

Posted by Offside at August 26, 2007 10:28 AM

No matter what the Middle Eastern media might say, everyone in the Arab and greater Sunni Muslim world will know that al Qaeda was driven out of Iraq by a combination of Muslims and Americans.

That must be a first.

The governments of Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE, Jordan, Brunei, etc. should take notice.

They have even managed to do the same thing without American forces! Golly, I wonder why and how.

Posted by Offside at August 26, 2007 10:36 AM

Offside,

My goalposts have remained fixed in concrete since spring 2003:

Two peaceful transitions of political power from one parliamentary coalition to another, as a result of free and fair elections.

I am prepared to wait for quite a few years. Mexico, for example, has not quite yet gotten there.

Distributing the power to commit violence helps limit the ability of one faction to liquidate the others.

Fourth point of contact, Offside. Think about it.

Posted by MG at August 26, 2007 11:52 AM

If you can even remotesly connect the dots between these so called positives in Anbar and a Sunni-Shia reconciliation, then please indulge your eloquence fully. Can you?

Sure. The division between Sunni and Shia in the first place (the political division, not the religious) is a result of:

(1) Sunni perception that they are being disenfranchised and will have no power over their own affairs.

(2) Sunni short-sightedness, in that they don't realize supporting anarchy is not an effective route to participation in government -- but taking a small role in government is.

(3) Shiite short-sightedness, in that they don't realize they must accomodate some of the Sunni wishes to avoid catastrophe -- they must learn to compromise with legitimate Sunni power.

You'll notice that having a legitimate Sunni power base in Anbar, which has earned its chops and respectability, not to mention the techniques of peaceful government, by booting out the anarchists and crazies in its midst, and with which the central government must learn to deal, ameliorates all three of these problems.

You're talking double-talk. On the one hand you say the Sunni-Shia split has to be cured peacefully, i.e. by other than ethnic cleansing. That means power-sharing, painful compromise, guarded mutual respect for each other's ability to ruin everything.

And then you complain about the fact that a new, legitimized Sunni power base will make things difficult for the Shiite central government? You mean, like the Shiites might have to learn to compromise with the Anbar Sunnis? The Sunnis might need to learn to work with the Baghdad Shia? And this is a bad thing?

Now it's your turn. Defend your proposition that empowerment of a peaceful, orderly, Sunni self-government movement in Anbar is fatal or at least damaging to the prospects of national Sunni/Shia compromise. Tell us why those prospects would be brighter if the Anbar shieks were still embittered, divided, uninterested in cooperative local rule, and instead supported anarchist crazies like al Qaeda.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 26, 2007 12:41 PM

On the one hand you say the Sunni-Shia split has to be cured peacefully, i.e. by other than ethnic cleansing.

Huh? When did I say that?

I'm not in the curing business. It's guys like you who think you have a cure.

Everything you've said argues well for partition. You should change your goal and maybe you will be on the right track.

(1) and (2) are obviously right, which is why no one should be surprised at the events in Anbar. Would have happened anyway. No reason for patting yourself on the back.

(3) Is where it's at. There is absolutley no reason for the Shiites to recognize these supposed legitimate Sunni grievances and share power. They have quite the memory these Shia of what it used to be like.

How are you going to prove this (3) to them? That's back to the fundamental problem isn't it? Back in the middle of a religious war. And why would the Sheiks, fed and maintained on American taxes, want to exchange a benign master such as ourselves for a Shia handout? Why not just keep the spigot open for as long as they in America can sound-bite the real problem.

Of course you could start a bigger war, Sunni vs. Shia in Iraq that possibly might make the Shia see sense. Oh wait, maybe that's what arming the Sunni is all about.

Heh.

Posted by Offside at August 26, 2007 01:15 PM

There is absolutley no reason for the Shiites to recognize these supposed legitimate Sunni grievances and share power.

Except, perhaps, to avoid yet another long and bloody (on both sides) war? At some point, Iraqis will have to decide whether they are Iraqis, Shia, or Sunni (or Kurd).

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 26, 2007 01:32 PM

Everything you've said argues well for partition.

Balls. Partition is a total chimera invented by Westernized people who haven't a clue about the nature of Arabic culture. You think the major divisions in Iraq are between religious groups? No way. The important divisions are between tribes and families. That's been Arabic culture for the last thousand years, and Islam has only laid a superficial layer over it. That's why the Sunni sheiks turned against al Qaeda --- because they ultimately came to see them as outsiders, despite their similar religion. Why is that? Because the tribal identity is foremost.

When AQI made it clear they didn't give a damn about tribal identity, about family, and were just a bunch of ideologues, the ancient Arab identity asserted itself, and they said not for me thanks.

To "partition" Iraq so that every conflicting group had its own state you'd have to partition it down to the level of the village, practically. You'd have hundreds of states, not just three.

So this is a brainless non-starter.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 26, 2007 08:05 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?