Winning and Losing in Iraq and at Home

Michael Totten has published his latest piece from Iraq. It shows both the successes and the complexities of the situation there. I am really impressed by how well our troops now understand the complexities of the society over there...

“Do you think your friendship with the locals is genuine?” I askedLieutenant Colonel Silverman. Ramadi is in the heart of Iraq’s Sunni Triangle, the most anti-American region in all of Iraq. I had seen what appeared to be genuine friendship and warmth from the Iraqis I’d met, but it was impossible to tell from anecdotal experience if that sentiment was typical in Anbar Provinceor even real.“I do,” he said. “Don’t just assume Iraqis are faking their friendship.

The first time I was here in 2003 I made friends with locals in Salah a Din Province. They still email and call me to talk even though they know there is nothing I can do for them now that I’m out here in Ramadi. Some of the people we work with just want to make money. For them it’s all business and has nothing to do with their private opinions of us. But most really do want to make Iraq better. You can tell when you interact with people one-on-one if they’re sincere. You can see right through people who are insincere. Many of these guys have been in fire fights with us, so I know they’re on our side.”

it continues...

“The average Iraqi post-Fallujah was not very happy with us being here,” he said. “If the insurgency only attacked Americans, the people of Ramadi would not have been very upset. But Al Qaeda infiltrated and took over the insurgency.They massively overplayed their hand. They cut off citizens’ heads with kitchen knives. The locals slowly learned that the propaganda about us were lies, and that Al Qaeda was their real enemy. They figured out by having dinner and tea with us that we really are, honest to God, here to help them.”

Anbar Province as a whole isn’t completely secured yet. But most areas have been cleared, and it’s increasingly difficult for terrorists and insurgents to evenshow up in the province let alone find refuge there.“Anbar Province allalong the Euphrates used
to be one huge rat line for getting terrorists intoBaghdad from Syria,” he said. A rat line, in military speak, is an enemylogistics route. “That’s over.”“Do you think what happened here canhappen in Baghdad?” I said.He sat motionless for a time and consideredcarefully what I had asked him. It was obvious by the look on his face that hewasn’t particularly optimistic about it.“I don’t know,” he finally said. “One advantage we had here was that the tribes are like small communities, like in rural America. The sheikhs are politically powerful. If we turn them, weturn the people. Urban areas erode tribal affiliation. It’s still there inBaghdad, but it’s weaker. So I don’t know. It did work in the urban parts ofRamadi, though. If we can get it to work in all the provinces in Iraq – and itis working in Diyala Province right now, I know it is – then maybe it can work in Baghdad.

It’s hard to say.”He’s right that the formula works inDiyala Province, and in Salah a Din Province as well. Both provinces, likeAnbar, are made up mostly of Sunni Arabs and have had similar troubles with AlQaeda in Iraq. Even some tribes in the Shia South are beginning to emulate theAnbar model and work with the Americans against Shia militias.

At this point, it is beyond arguement that our administration went into Iraq without even the basic knowledge of the complexities of the relationships in their country and complexities of the relationship in their society, however reading any interview with any military person that is no longer the case. Their society structure is now being used in our favor. In other words, our troops now know how to win Iraq.Then, there is this article from J.C. Watts

I once heard a fellow say, "If you don't believe it, it's not because there's not
enough evidence for you to believe it."As in so many circumstancesin politics, this pearl of wisdom applies to the war in Iraq. Democratleadership keeps saying they don't and won't believe that we're having successin Iraq, but it's not because things aren't going favorably for the good guys.Such is the case with the Democrat leadership on all matters Iraq. Maybeit's just me, but I'm thinking the Democrats have invested a lot in seeing theUnited States not win in Iraq. So many have invested politically in ournon-success that they don't want to hear truth and they ignore evidence.Conversely, Republicans were so politically invested in winning that we ignoredDefense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's failed war policies early on.

For evidence of this failed investment, one needs to look no further than their local headlines before Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress. Talk abouta rush to pre-judgment."Democrats Already Discrediting Upcoming PetraeusReport," bannered an ABCNews.com story. Leaving any doubt that Sen. Harry Reidknows the heart and mind of one of the most respected military leaders ourcountry has produced, the majority leader proclaimed, "(Petraeus' report) willpass through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored ortwisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked."As if that weren'tconclusive enough, Reid impugned the general's integrity with this gem:

"He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be
factual."Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois came out with this whopper. "Even if the figures are right, the conclusion is wrong."And, perhaps my favorite of all, wanna-be president Sen. Joe Biden -- a self-proclaimed civilian expert on foreign affairs -- had the impudence the week before his testimony to declare Petraeus is "flat, dead wrong."Frankly, I agree with those who believe the execution of the war under Rumsfeld was abysmal. Sen. John McCain and others were correct when they said at the outset of the war that we didn't have enough troops in play.

Before anyone pulls our troops out, we all must ask then what...