Could it really be true that Iraq is on the verge of being self-sustaining?

Barak Obama (or rather a committee of his advisors) writes in a New York Times op-ed:

THE call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

It is really the case that Iraq is approaching the point where it can sustain its own existence without U.S. troops? According to Obama, “Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.”

If this is true, it is specacularly good news.

Was I wrong when I repeatedly said that our policy, by itself, could not produce a self-sustaining Iraq? I will be addressing that question soon.

Meanwhile, reports the Times, “9 Americans Die in Afghan Attack”:

The attack was the worst against Americans in Afghanistan in three years and illustrated the growing threat of Taliban militants and their associates.

- end of initial entry -

Terry Morris writes:

“Was I wrong when I repeatedly said that our policy, by itself, could not produce a self-sustaining Iraq? I will be addressing that question soon.”

No, you weren’t wrong. We can’t wish independence and self-governance on the Iraqis, nor can we force it upon them. They have to take an active role, a willing role, in their own independency. But I’ll be interested in how you answer the question.

As far as their real ability to sustain their own independency goes, however, that won’t be known for many years to come. Am I wrong to have my doubts?

Clark Coleman writes:

A couple of years ago, I was complaining that there was no clear definition of “victory” in Iraq. Was victory:

1) The establishment of American-style constitutional democracy that we would approve of for ourselves?

2) The complete military defeat of all outside forces, even if indigenous Iraqi conflict continued?

3) The reduction of violence to a level that we would find acceptable in our society?

4) The assumption of security responsibilities by Iraqi forces and the withdrawal of U.S. forces?

5) some other criteria?

When I talked to my fellow Republicans, each had a different definition of victory!

I also questioned whether we should consider it “victory” if a steady ethnic cleansing accounted for the progress towards one of these measures. My cynical prediction was that violent ethnic cleansing of all neighborhoods that were mixed Sunni/Shiite would eventually lead to a reduction in violence, which the Dubya administration and its supporters would hail as a great “victory,” even though the entire world would have rejected such a definition of victory if it had been given a priori in 2003. Imagine if Dubya had stated in 2003 that he planned to unleash a bloody civil war in Iraq, leading to ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods all across the country at tremendous cost in human life, and leading to hundreds of thousands of refugees felling the country. Who would have supported him?

I used to talk back to the talk radio neocons when I heard the likes of Sean “rah-rah” Hannity talk about how the Democrats “did not want us to achieve victory in Iraq” or similar statements: “What is the definition of victory?” I would ask. These mindless cheerleaders would blather on and on about “success” and “victory” without ever feeling the need to define the terms.

Google the statistics on how many Iraqi refugees are in Syria and Jordan when you respond to claims that “victory” is imminent.

LA replies:

First, while Bush and his Bushbots’ definition of victory has changed a great deal, in the last year or so it has become more reasonable and more consistent: a stable, self-sustaining government reasonably friendly to the West, and not supporting terrorists.

Second, even if ethnic cleansing has reduced violence in local areas, wouldn’t the Shi’ites and Sunnis still be contending for national power? This was why I have believed all along that a unified, self-sustaining Iraq would not be possible, even if al Qaeda went away.

Third, I would assume that as a result of the dramatic decline in violence in Iraq many or most of the two million people who had fled Iraq would have returned home. But I haven’t seen any recent information on that.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 14, 2008 08:45 AM | Send