We hear that the so-called surge is accomplishing its purpose: violence has fallen so far in Baghdad that refugees are beginning to trickle back into town. Republicans accuse Democrats of disliking the news because "they want America to lose the war." This nonsense is part of the propaganda blitz from the Bushies, caroling that Bush is Right! Commanders on the ground, however, caution that it is too soon to tell if the decrease in violence is permanent.
Stories from outside the Green Zone tell us that
some of the returning refugees fear to re-occupy their old homes because someone from an opposing sect has taken over their property ("confiscated" might be a better word), so they instead find new quarters in neighborhoods composed of their same religious sect. (http://www.washingto...) In other words, we frequently now have a voluntary geographic segregation or a sort of apartheid replacing the formerly integrated city. I have heard, too, from some unconfirmed reports: first, that American patrols leave Sadr City alone, letting it be patrolled by the Shiite militias which have infiltrated the Iraqi national police, and second, that, since over 2 million Iraqis have fled the country and another 2 million have been "displaced internally," the ethnic cleansing is almost complete anyway, so the need for violence therefore has declined. Many of the returnees have done so because the host countries made it difficult to remain, and they fear a return of violence is inevitable.
All in all, while we are grateful for the apparent decline in violence in Baghdad, it is still a risky business, and there is no certainty that quiet will endure, especially in view of the fact that America is re-arming Sunni tribes in order to bribe them to fight the al Qaeda in Iraq insurgents----- much we armed the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, and we know how that turned out. Anyone familiar with history in that part of the world fully expects those arms to be used in the future against not only Americans, but the Sunni's Shiite enemies and other tribes at a time of their choosing.
THE BRITISH ANSWER
For some reason the American media has virtually ignored another decrease in violence being reported from the British occupied zone in Basra in the south, an area which had previously recorded the second largest amount of violence. This reduction was achieved by the exact opposite of the surge. The British commander, Major General Graham Binns, told reporters of the International Herald Tribune on 15 November (http://www.iht.com/b...) that the British wondered "if 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?"
The 5,000 British troops were removed from the heart of Basra and concentrated at the airport at the edge of the city. Surprisingly, there was a dramatic 90 percent drop in attacks on British troops, and no spike in intra-militia violence, which Binns attributed to the fact that the Mahdi Army (that's a militia loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the same man to whom the Americans have tacitly ceded control of Sadr City in Baghdad) is more powerful than its nearest Shiite rival, the Badr militia, which is tied to the Iraq's largest Shiite party, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.
It is true that Basra is not mixed, but is heavily Shiite; however, various Shiite factions all over Iraq have fought open battles with each other (notably in Karbala) as well as with everybody else in Iraq, which means there is no guarantee of peace among co-religionists The British contingent in Iraq has been gradually reduced from 46,000 during the March 2003 invasion to about 5,500 now. They expect to turn Basra completely over to the Iraqis in December this year, and will probably withdraw the remainder of their troops next year. The canny Brits have meanwhile been secretly talking with al-Sadr's militia, hoping to entice the radicals into joining the political process in Basra, or at least enough of them to blunt the intra-militia violence and establish control by the Iraqi security forces.
LESSONS
First, when foreign troops leave, violence drops.
What strikes me is that, as said many times, the coalition troops (i.e., the Americans and British) are considered occupiers, therefore suitable to be attacked by any Iraqi, and their presence provides al Qaeda with a ready-made recruitment rationale. Remove the troops removes the rationale.
Second, Iraqis have their own reasons and their own timelines, completely unrelated to any American preferences, for making any political decisions.
The Sunnis in al-Anbar did not suddenly become pro-American; their interest is in getting as much money and as many arms from Americans as possible, and if doing so means fighting al Qaeda, then so be it; they will tell the Americans whatever they think we want to hear. Sadr City is seemingly quiet and so is Basra because the occupiers have left the area, and the militia boss in control has his own reasons for tamping down violence.
Third, talking with the factions is helpful.
The Americans in al-Anbar and the British in Basra decided to talk with the trouble-makers, whether they were Sunni or Shiite. Using brains instead of muscle is often remarkably effective. That is, provided you do not insist upon your point of view (such as the Bush insistence on dividing up Iraq's oil so 80 percent of it or more goes to foreign companies instead of to Iraq- that will never be a permanent solution so far as any Iraqi is concerned). It also helps if you basically do not care if the Iraqis have some disagreements among themselves which they sort out with violence amongst themselves. Sooner or later it will all sort itself out, in an Iraqi way not an American way, no matter what we think is best. Get used to it.
Then there is the possibility that the Iraqis, who are not stupid and follow American politics closely, have seen the handwriting on the wall, and realize that Democratic pressure is going to remove the American troops sooner or later, and they will then be on their own. If Americans are no longer handy (as both a prop for the government and as targets to blame) then how much more violence are the Iraqis themselves willing to undergo? Self-interest may kick in because of American politics as well as their own.