But isn't Baghdad so much calmer that Iraqi refugees who fled the country are now returning? That's another story spun to fit the new conventional wisdom, in other words, a myth, says Cole. Baghdad used to be a city of 6 million people, 65 percent Shiite in January 2007, but by July 2007 over 700,000 residents, or 10 percent of the population, had fled to Syria, turning Baghdad into 75 percent Shiite- that is, the Sunni residents were forced out precisely during the U.S. troop escalation/surge. Indeed, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees says that as of December 2007, 2.4 million Iraqis have been internally displaced, and at least another 2.25 million have left the country, (http://www.alternet.or/story/72688/) of whom perhaps 46,000 have so far returned. That some refugees are now returning is mainly because they were not allowed to work in Syria or other destination countries, had no permits or visas to be there, and finally plain ran out of money. Worse, when they returned, most found their former homes destroyed or taken over by defiant strangers.
As for the myth that Prime Minister al-Maliki's Shiite-dominated government has made progress on religious-political reconciliation, forget it: his government has lost the support of the Sunnis in Parliament, Sunni cabinet members have resigned, and Baghdad has been in effect, ethnically cleansed- purified neighborhoods are now cut off from each other by walls and "anti-terrorist" barriers. Cole points out that about 600 civilians per month are still being killed in direct political violence, excluding the deaths of soldiers and police.
What about those "benchmarks" that were supposed to be achieved under the protection of the American Surge? No progress whatsoever there, either. Senator Carl Levin points out that "approving a hydrocarbon law, approving a debaathification law, completing the work of a constitutional review committee, and holding provincial elections" all promised by 1 January 2007 still have not been accomplished one year later, surge or no surge. So, forget any so-called national reconciliation.
Remember how proud Bush-Cheney were of the peaceful Kurdish North? The truth is, there is a "subterranean battle among Kurds, Turkmen, and Arabs" for control of Kirkuk (do you suppose all that oil in Kirkuk has anything to do with that covered-up violence?) Then, there are the regular Turkish bombing raids across the border against the Kurds, who are harboring the PKK or Kurdish Workers Party guerrillas from Turkish Kurdistan. Not-so-peaceful, not-so-stable in the North, either, it seems.
The U.S. government has paid over $50 billion to Western companies to re-build Iraq's infrastructure, with so far poor results- for example, Iraqis average less than 7 hours of electricity per day. Moreover, there is 50-70 percent unemployment, inflation of 70 percent, and it is generally acknowledged that the infrastructure is "in a shambles," far worse than what existed under Saddam Hussein, even during the 12 years of economic sanctions. As for the position of women, they are worse off beyond a doubt, being forced off the streets by religious fanatics, and now find themselves far worse off economically.
Yet construction on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad continues apace, the largest, most fortified embassy in the world, and the same goes for various permanent U.S. military bases scattered across Iraq. Bush, through his former spokesperson Tony Snow, has said that he would like to see U.S. troops remain in Iraq just as in Korea, for years. All the Republican candidates for President agree, and John McCain has even said, "Fifty years. A hundred years." And what, exactly, do the Democratic candidates say? Not much better (except, possibly, John Edwards and Kucinich, whose ideas are trivialized and smeared as unrealistic).
Across the board, "Iraqis believe that their conflicts are mainly caused by the U.S. military presence," says Cole. "They are eager" for the American military presence to end, and regard as illegal the 18 December 2007 U.N. resolution extending the Occupation for another year.
It seems obvious to me that it is only because of Middle Eastern oil that we are hanging on in Iraq, whatever the cost---- along, perhaps, with a bizarre notion of fighting the anti-Christ and preparing for Armageddon. Can this be one more example of the neocon-Republican philosophy of perceived short-term bottom line profit, of not thinking more than one move ahead, of Cheney's no-possible-threat-left-unanswered theory otherwise called the One Percent Doctrine? Have we painted ourselves into a corner, cannot think outside the box, and the hell with our children and grandchildren, who will have to pay for it?
Like you, I've found that reading juancole.com every day is the most efficient way to get some idea of what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq and the area. McClatchy also occasionally comes up with a worthwhile piece.
But in the major U.S. media, especially television? Impossible. The reporting is beyond mediocre. It is trivial and without context. Pravda on the Potomac and Izvestia on the East River are hardly any better. The British newspapers do an occasional bit of interesting investigative work in Iraq, but not very much.
As you have so ably done here, it possible to catch glimpses of ground truth only by scouring the Internet and various international wire services daily and trying to piece together a shred of reality here or an illustrative anecdote there.
To the extent that violence is down, there are two major reasons: (1) as you point out, the reduction has come because ethnic cleansing in many areas is virtually complete and (2) bribing Sunni tribesmen in Anbar Province and elsewhere to "police" their own neighborhoods rather than having U.S. or Iraqi Army troops kick down their doors or reduce civilian dwellings to rubble with laser-guided bombs. But have we really "bought" the loyalty of Sunni tribesmen? Have we really laid the basis for a viable Iraqi administration? Has anyone figured out what to do about the 4 million plus displaced Iraqis? Doubt it. There still is no endgame.
It all reminds me of one of Sun Tzu's aphorisms: "Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
We do not get to choose where the adversary will focus. Right now we are experiencing a sense of hope born from what military professionals know as an operational pause. For the future of our involvement in Iraq it is quite meaningless.
I did not mention two other points: 1) Moqtada al Sadr told his personal army to stand down for 6 months in a cease-fire of his own choice, which accounts for the fall-off of much of the violence in Sadr City, a result NOT attributable to the Surge, no matter how one spins it. 2) The attempts by the Bush Administration to pin roadside bombs on the government of Iran have failed, the evidence says otherwise (if any Iranian munitions are on the street it is likely they are blackmarket, bought through corrupt Iraqi government officials).
How many times in the past have we, for expediency, armed and trained warlords or splinter groups, only to have them use the arms and training for their own purposes, not ours, and eventually turn those arms against us? How many times have we chosen not the democratic leaders but the most relentless and authoritarian group to receive our support? And then we have had to live with the godawful results? Most recently the Taliban in Afghanistan comes to mind, or the death squads in Nicaragua...
Choosing expediency over the more difficult longer-term answer is a common failing of Americans' impatience, of their short-term, bottom line desire for instant gratification, and the classical inability to look more than one step ahead.
By pushing Iraq aside as trivial and unworthy of discussion the Republicans are making room for another emotional issue like immigration to become THE topic on which the election should be decided.
Please, let's not let the Republicans once again set the framing of the debate and the agenda for this election.
But it's too easy to just call it the "surge". The surge is just an increase of about 30,000 troops. What we're seeing is a mixture of the adoption of a new military strategy in Iraq based on the principles set out in the Counterinsurgency (COIN) Field Manual, the Sunni awakening in Anbar Province, leadership that finally gets it (Gen. Petraeus), and an increase in troops, among many other complex factors. The key elements of the new U.S. military strategy include: more judicious use of force, living with the people not in fortresses, empowering the Iraqi forces, rely on intelligence, use information operations to set the stage and respond to insurgent propaganda, and learning and adapting to what the insurgents are doing.
However, on the negative side, the purpose of the surge was to buy time for the political process in Iraq to progress. As has been widely discussed, that has not happened. The COIN Field Manual states that both the U.S. and the insurgents are in a political struggle: to get the people to accept its governance or authority as legitimate. Further, the manual states that the military solution in COIN is to leverage all elements of national power (diplomatic, information, military, economic, etc) available to shape behavior, and that the armed forces cannot succeed in COIN alone! But, were is the surge in other U.S. Government agencies to do their part? There has been little or no push in diplomacy by State to develop a political solution. State can't even get enough diplomats to serve at the Embassy. So there are negatives too.
As for 30,000 troops being extra, well, the 30,000 simply bring the official troop strength back up to past levels, and, if you count the various mercenaries on the ground the military level is really nearer to 625,000, give or take a few, something the Bush Adm. carefully avoids discussing.
The COIN doctrines, here revived and amplified, are, thank heavens, finally being implemented by someone who believes in them and does not resent them. The unfortunate fact is, we waited so long, so much water has passed under the bridge, so many bitter enemies have been created, that one cannot help but feel sympathy for the troops now engaged at the same time one feels disgust with the civilian high command, who still appear to be clueless about the political realities, one example being the recent slap in the face of the elected Iraqi Parliament when the U.S. pushed through the UN Resolution authorizing another year of foreign occupation of Iraq. Remember how we muddled around in Vietnam with Diem?