Iraqi National Security Adviser Muwafaq Al Rubaie talks tough:
“It has become disintegrated and their gunmen can no longer hold contacts with the armed men in Diyala and Salah Eddin,” Al Rubaie said.
Al Rubaie said Al Qaida maintains a single network in Iraq. The network was believed to be based in the Baghdad area.
“If we suceed in dismantling it, we would be able to declare the end of its history in Iraq,” Al Rubaie said in a briefing.
Inshallah. Meanwhile, casualties remain low, both civilian and military, American and Iraqi.
This story brings up a point that bears repeating: as many problems as the 2003 invasion/occupation/liberation of Iraq encountered, it accomplished three very important things: one, it removed a virulent, hostile, horrifyingly repressive Saddam Hussein regime that was a major sponsor of terrorism; two, it established a relatively liberal democratic state which is a major ally in the war on terrorism (by what other means could we possibly have hoped to arm half a million Muslims and get them fighting Islamic extremists?); and three, it sucked Al Qaeda into a battle they could not hope to win, a battle in which they not only suffered a humilating defeat in their own backyard, but simultaneously discredited their movement with the brutal and repressive methods they employed.
Given all this, the invasion has to be viewed as a strategic masterstroke, whatever tactical blunders we may have made. This is beginning to become clear to more people, as evidenced by a Rassmussen poll finding a plurality believe history will judge the mission a success.
{ 6 comments }
Put this, in part, under the heading of "historical records of John McCain and Barack Obama".
Both of them have taken stands. One of them was wrong at least once.
Of course we all know who the real victor here is.
"We now see that things are a lot better in Iraq. Maybe if we had put a surge in in the beginning, it would’ve been a lot better…"
jrogge,
Al Q had to have a year or two as the bad guys to make the strategy work. We had to fail before we succeeded. That is not a normal plan. That is improvisation.
What I find fascinating about the whole thing is that, viewed in any realistic military historical lens, Iraq was never a disaster and was never honestly "a mess," even though that is now the conventional wisdom. Consistently, casualties were at a tiny fraction of any previous (victorious or failed) military campaign of comparable or larger scope by the American military.
What’s more is that, even at the darkest, bleakest times, by most rational measures things were much better for most of Iraq, although you’d never know it from the news stories.
So, some things we were doing in our original plan (the one we supposedly didn’t have, even though we’d it was published and put before Congress before we even went in) didn’t work out as well as we had hoped. There were some screwups, which is normal with any large military (or any large bureaucratic) endeavor. Plans were changed, adaptations were put into place, and new people were put in charge to clean things up. Now success is so spectacular it’s no longer deniable, even though of course things still are not perfect and never will be.
So be it. As I say, history is going to be much kinder to those who were in charge of this whole thing than most people are right now. Bet on it.
It was always foolish to bet against the Iraqi people. Who are, it turns out, not raving madmen who hate anyone who isn’t them, and who are actually normaly people who love their country, hate fascism, and hate terrorism–and always have.
Now success is so spectacular it’s no longer deniable, even though of course things still are not perfect and never will be.
That is true, we pretty much have the country locked down now, and the government there has been able to build itself up to the point where they have a good chance of being able to defend themselves.
Some people though suggested more troops from the onset. The 1991 Gulf War was carried out much better. This was due to the fact we came in with overwhelming force.
History points out already that this was not well executed in the beginning. 358 deaths (during the entire first campaign) vs. 482 (Less than a year in the first year of the current war). The numbers are up to 4,104 now. It wasn’t until the surge that we had a decisive hold there.
It was a new strategy alright, but an old one won the war for us.
Comments on this entry are closed.