Iraq's Soft Surge; Pakistan and the Taliban: Weekend News and History

Just a quick post, about Pakistan's success in swapping the Swat Valley for peace; and Iraq's success in slowing down the surge.

I think it would be nice if disputes could be settled with a cordial chat over a pot of tea. When one group's philosophy is 'death to people we don't approve of,' being nice doesn't always work.

The Pakistani government apparently tried being nice to the Taliban, giving them the Swat Valley to rule. That, judging from what's going on this weekend, worked about as well as handing the Sudetenland over to Germany did, back in 1938.

Don't get me wrong: I love negotiation. I think it was a good idea to reach out to Afghans who may have supported the Taliban more out of ignorance and (quite possibly) fear, more than out of wholehearted solidarity with the Taliban's peculiar version of Islam.

The previous administration tried something like that in Iraq: and it worked then. Something like it could work in Pakistan.

However, there has to be more than "nice" involved. In addition to reaching out to people who aren't all that enthusiastic about Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or some other set of beheading enthusiasts, it looks like armed force has to be used against people who are sincerely, wholeheartedly, devoted to killing people who don't measure up to their standards.

It looks like Iraq is finding that out, now that the new Iraqi government is running things without foreign 'interference.'

'If it Worked Once' - Common Sense and Diplomacy

I think it's reasonable to think that, if something worked once, it might work again. That's why I think that the Obama administration's effort to reach out to Afghans who might not be strongly tied to the Taliban made sense.

On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to think that, if something (spectacularly) failed to work before, it might not work again. Which is why I'm not at all surprised that the Taliban in Pakistan doesn't seem satisfied with the Swat Valley.

Learning from the Past: Hopeless Only for Those Who Won't

Hopelessness has been fashionable for most of my life, so I could 'be sophisticated' and quote:

"Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history."
(George Bernard Shaw)

Looking at this weekend's news shows that "man can never learn anything from history" is true - for some of us.

I'm inclined to see things differently:

"History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity."
(Marcus Tullius Cicero)

Or:

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience."
(George Santayana)

I'm not completely on the same page with either Cicero or Santayana: but they do seem to understand a bit about how the world works.

Related posts:

• "Pakistan; Nawaz Sharif; Multiculturalism; and a Skewed World View"
  (March 15, 2009)
• "Obama Reaches Out to Taliban: This Might Actually Work"
  (March 8, 2009)
• "Taliban Brings Peace, Islamic Law, to Pakistan's Swat Valley"
  (February 21, 2009)
• "Pakistan, the Taliban, and Peace Through Diplomacy"
  (February 17, 2009)
• "Good News: Anbar Province is Just About Ready for Hand-Over"
  (January 11, 2008)
• "No Casualties in Anbar - Violence Down in Iraq"
  (October 26, 2007)
• "Locals Join American Forces, Purge City of Terrorists"
  (September 11, 2007)

In the news:

• "Pakistanis flee offensive, U.S. sees fresh resolve"
  Reuters (May 10, 2009)
• "Toll Rises as Iraq Slows Surge"
  The Wall Street Journal (May 9, 2009)
• "WRAPUP 3-Gunships and planes strike Pakistan Taliban in Swat"
  Reuters, India (May 9, 2009)
• "Taliban says suicide attacks comes from days of Prophet"
  The Hindu (May 8, 2009)
  • My take on this: With friends like the Taliban, Islam doesn't need enemies

Muqtada al-Sadr: Victim of Surge in Iraq

Remember Muqtada al-Sadr? The "Sadr City" Sadr? He made the cover of Newsweek last November (2007), with the magazine calling him the most dangerous man in Iraq.

He declared a cease-fire in Iraq last year, and extended it last month. The standard Associated Press article's lead paragraph had a familiar tone:

"Powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr opted Friday to keep the cease-fire order for his Mahdi Army militia in place for another six months, a step that reinforces al-Sadr's importance while holding the specter of a spike in U.S. and Iraqi casualties at bay." International Herald Tribune (February 22, 2008).

Nothing new here: 'powerful anti-American leader ends violence in country where America started war.' Standard-issue establishment talking points.

Muqtada al-Sadr, Victim of American Success

I'm going to suggest an alternative interpretation of the facts.

Muqtada al-Sadr, defender of the Shiites against America (and Sunnis), had it made while Al Qaeda, and assorted militias and gangs in Iraq, were killing Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims, miscellaneous Muslims, non-Muslims, and anyone else who happened to be around.

Times were good for al-Sadr, as long as the coalition had a relatively light footprint in Iraq. Sure, some of his supporters got killed, but he had plenty. Besides, the survivors were even more convinced that they needed al-Sadr to protect them from Sunnis and Americans.

Disaster for al-Sadr : Outbreak of Peace

Then the current American administration started the 'troop surge,' and Iraqis in general caught on to the fact that it was Al Qaeda, not America, that was bombing and beheading their neighbors.

Violence went down. And al-Sadr's support (apparently) went down with it.

Hence the cease-fire.

Sounds paradoxical, but it makes sense: when you can't launch an effective attack, declare a cease-fire, use the lull to re-group, and hope for the best. It's worked for groups like Hamas, and there's no reason why al-Sadr shouldn't try the same tactic.

The idea that American efforts, particularly military efforts, can have positive results, goes against conventional wisdom. But conventional wisdom isn't always right.

I think this is one of those times.

Hope for Failure

There's still hope for the post-Vietnam 'America is always wrong' point of view, though.

The surge is ending.

There's even a chance that the coalition will pull out, quickly, from Iraq. If that happens, the odds are that the Iraqi military won't be able to keep the peace. Then, al-Sadr and all the other people who depend on death and destruction to stay in power will have a field day.

And, it will be 'the fault of America:' not because of the pullout, but because of the military actions that brought comparative peace to Iraq. Illogical, but that's the way we've been conditioned to associate. Not "think," "associate."

Post-Surge Iraq: Another View

Finally, a more conventional view of post-surge Iraq is in "What Happens After the Surge?" FOXNews (March 12, 2008). The op-ed writer points out that Iraq is making deals with Iran and China, and that Turkey has invaded Iraq.

That last item refers to what's going on up in Kurdistan. And it's a real issue.

I'm not as upset about those developments, though. America is making deals with China, when it comes to that. Iran and Iraq share a common border. It would be a little odd if the two nations didn't make economic deals.

No, I don't approve of China's policies: for one thing, I think of "Xizang" as "Tibet," even though China conquered their neighbor back in 1951. And I certainly don't approve of Iran's foreign or domestic policies.

But Iraq lives in a world where those countries exist. So do we. Like it or not, all nations have to deal with unpleasant and sometimes dangerous neighbors. Iraq is an independent nation. Their government doesn't need American permission to make deals.

I just hope that Iraqi leaders use good sense, running their country.

Locals Join American Forces, Purge City of Terrorists

You probably hadn't read that in the news.

But it happened.

Michael Totten, an independent journalist, has had quite a bit to say about the situation in Iraq.

I strongly suggest reading his "Middle East Journal." It's on-the-ground information from the Middle East that you're not likely to find in your paper or on the evening news.

(Excerpts from " Front-line lessons from the Iraq surge")

"In some places, the surge is working remarkably well. In others, it is not. And the only way we will know for sure whether the tide can be turned is to continue the policy and wait.

"I know that's not what many Americans and politicians want to hear, but it's the truth."

"IProgress in Baghdad is real, but it is not, or not yet anyway, the kind of peace that can last.

"It's worse in Mushadah just north of Baghdad, where I also went with American soldiers who are training Iraqi police forces - which have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda. The area is so dangerous that the police refused to leave their station until an American woman, Capt. Maryanne Naro from upstate Fort Drum, showed up and shamed them by going out herself."

"... Elsewhere in Iraq, though, progress is extraordinary and unambiguous. I spent a week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province, which just four months ago was the most violent place in Iraq. Al Qaeda had taken over and ruled the city through a massive murder and intimidation campaign. Even the Marine Corps, arguably the least defeatist institution in America, wrote off Ramadi as irretrievably lost last August.

"Then, local tribal leaders and civilians joined the Americans - and helped purge the city of every last terrorist cell. Violence has dropped to near zero. I have photographs of Iraqis hugging American soldiers and of children greeting us with ecstatic joy, as though they had been rescued from Nazis. The Marines are even considering going on patrols without body armor."

No, I suppose that many politicians would be horrified if news like this leaked out. The masses in America might start thinking that our efforts in Iraq could succeed.

Ten Really Good Questions About Iraq and the States

Another blog's post, Let the surge run its course (July 11, 2007), started with ten excellent questions.

Eleven questions, counting the one that led the list of ten: "If we withdrew from Iraq this week..." - by grim coincidence, the House of Representatives voted to withdraw from Iraq on the next day.

I'm one of the people who don't think that abandoning Iraq to the gentle mercies of the likes of al Qaeda is a good idea. I'm also one of the people who think that 'America has problems, but America isn't the problem.'

Maybe that's why I thought americasinterests.blogspot.com made good reading.

Iraq, Congress, and the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report

Or, Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
Or, There's Nothing so Lovely as Surrender in April.

As usual, Iraq is in the news.

According to what I read in the news, the Malachi government in Iraq got a "satisfactory" rating on only 8 of 18 "benchmarks", mixed reviews for 2 more, and for the 8 remaining, in an interim report: the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report.

The report I read had a different count:

• 9 benchmarks met: (i), (iv), (viii), (ix), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xvi), (xvii)
• 7 benchmarks not met: (ii),(iii), (vii), (x), (xi), (xv), (xviii)
• 2 benchmarks with a mixture of achieved and unachieved goals: (v), (vi).)

Here's the report, in pdf and html format, from the White House.

The current administration, trying to help leaders in Iraq set up a working government after over 30 years of a selfish tyrant's mismanagement, decided to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. These soldiers were going to wage war on al Qaeda in Iraq, and anyone else who wanted to overthrow or disrupt the Iraqi government.

This has been called a "troop surge." Actually, the current strategy is called "the New Way Forward."

The last deployment of the U.S. troops involved in the "surge" arrived in Iraq just a few weeks ago.

According to the White House report, this "strategy -- the New Way Forward -- recognizes that the fulfillment of commitments by both the U.S. and Iraqi Governments will be necessary to achieving our common goal: a democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror."

There's already progress. Limited progress, but progress.

The report says, "Tough fighting should be expected through the summer as Coalition and Iraqi Forces seek to seize the initiative from early gains and shape conditions for longer-term stabilization. These combined operations -- named Operation Phantom Thunder -- were launched on June 15, 2007, after the total complement of surge forces arrived in Iraq. The full surge in this respect has only just begun."

With a three-week-old major offensive showing limited progress, together with efforts at political reconciliation at the national, provincial, and local level, Iraq has a chance at getting a working government. A good chance, according to the White House.

Faced with the imminent threat of military and political success in Iraq, the United States House of Representatives acted with a decisiveness seldom seen on Capitol Hill.

A headline in the Washington Post says it well: House passes bill to withdraw troops from Iraq.

The measure, which passed a few hours ago, would have the Pentagon start withdrawing troops within four months, with all but a token force of 10,000 out of Iraq by April 1 of next year. The skeleton crew left behind would "train Iraqi soldiers, conduct counter-terrorism operations and protect U.S. diplomats."

al Qaeda and all the others who don't like U.S. efforts to help Iraq have been reassured by the House of Representatives. If they hunker down and survive until April of next year, they can enjoy a victory that will make the evacuation of Saigon, back in 1975, look like a tea party. Come to think of it, Saigon fell in late April, 1975, roughly April 27-30.

About the slow political progress in Iraq, the report says that there is "increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq."

In other words, the Iraqis who are trying to put their country back together were worried that U.S. political leaders would do exactly what they did do.

The House of Representatives' notion of peacemaking goes to the Senate next. What they'll do, with 2008 elections coming up, is anyone's guess.

I sincerely hope that this nation's leaders are not putting polls and their own campaign plans above the good of the people who live in this country.

Whatever Congress decides, and whatever their motives, the odds are that they'll get to have their elections in 2008. November is only 7 months after April.

*-*-*-*-*

My academic and business experience has taught me that it's best to read original documents: not what someone says the original documents say. The only place, aside from the White House website, that I found a link to the White House report was the Fox Newsarticle.

Here's my summary of what the "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report" of July 12, 2007, says about the benchmarks.

The report itself is useful, if somewhat tedious, reading. (Available at the White House site, in pdf and html format).

• (i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.
  * satisfactory progress


• (ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.
  * unsatisfactory


• (iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.
  * unsatisfactory, but it is too early to tell whether the Government of Iraq will enact and implement legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to all Iraqis.


• (iv) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.
  * satisfactory progress


• (v) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.
  * Multiple components to this benchmark, each deserving its own assessment:


• Establishing the IHEC Commission:
  * satisfactory progress


• Elections Law:
  * unsatisfactory progress


• Provincial Council Authorities:
  * unsatisfactory progress


• Provincial Elections Date:
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (vi) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.
  * hard to say -- prerequisites for a successful general amnesty are not present; however, in the current security environment, it is not clear that such action should be a near-term Iraqi goal


• (vii) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq.
  * prerequisites ... are not present.


• (viii) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.
  * satisfactory progress


• (ix) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.
  * satisfactory progress


• (x) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. Commanders without political intervention to include the authority to pursue all extremists including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (xi) Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (xii) Ensuring that, as Prime Minister Maliki was quoted by President Bush as saying, "the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."
  * satisfactory progress


• (xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xiv) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xv) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (xvi) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xvii) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xviii) Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF.
  * unsatisfactory progress