Courtesy of rocker94, Angelina Jolie's exclusive interview with CNN concerning our moral obligations to the humanitarian needs of the people in Iraq

This post was originally written on Aug. 12, 2007

The Democrats are conducting a tactical retreat

Since Bush announced the Administration’s new plan for Iraq, then after implementing it, but before it had a chance to show any results, promising or not. Democrats have been decrying the plan, and our efforts in Iraq. Faulting the Bush Administration for not changing directions, instead choosing to do “more of the same”. The “Surge” has been labeled an “escalation”, Iraq a “quagmire”. Rhetoric reminiscent of Vietnam, no doubt to pay homage.

Senate majority leader Reid when asked if he would believe progress was being made in Iraq. If that’s what he were to be told by Gen. Petraeus, the new commander now in charge of our efforts in Iraq. Reid said, “No I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts”. Reid went so far as to actually declare, “the war is lost”.

It’s true that we failed to have an adequate plan for what happened in the aftermath of Saddam’s regime’s collapse. In fact it happened so fast everyone was a little shocked. The Iraqi government bureaucracy and infrastructure disintegrated overnight. In short there was no one to hand over the keys, even if that’s what we wanted to do. We never had any intention of being in Iraq in force for an extended period of time. That’s just not something that anyone wanted.

So why are we still there? We underestimated the enemy. In early 2004 we captured a letter from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, to Alman al-Zawahiri the number two man in al Qaeda. In it Zarqawi outlined how he intended to undermine the nascent democracy we were developing in Iraq. Zarqawi’s plan was as simple as it was diabolically effective. It was to exploit sectarian fault lines through violent attacks on the Shi‘a inviting violent reprisals upon the Sunni. Escalating the violence to the point of making the country ungovernable, sapping the will of the American public to sustain the effort. Their strategy isn’t to win, but to put off losing long enough to erode American public support, and the will to win.

In the face of the growing violence in Iraq Rumsfeld sent Gen. Casey to Iraq with the mission of accelerating the training of the Iraqis Security Forces (ISF) then pushing them into the lead in the fight against the insurgence. All the while keeping as small a U.S. military “footprint” as possible. With the idea of drawing down our own forces ASAP. Sounds a lot like what many Democrats in Congress are demanding we do now.

The problem is, those are exactly the tactics that failed so miserably. They’re why Iraq was allowed to fall into sectarian violence, making it next to impossible to govern. The escalating violence began to tear at the very fabric of Iraqi society. Al Qaeda’s bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara in January of 2006, is now seen as a pivotal moment. It’s after the bombing of this Shi’a holy site that the sectarian violence really began to escalate out of control. Iraq didn’t break out into all out civil war, but that was the glide path it was on. By August of 2006 that fact had become clear to just about everyone. In September of 2006 Joint Chief of staff Gen. Pace had the Pentagon do a review of Iraq policy.

Our policy in Iraq had in affect always been to develop a get out of Iraq as soon as possible plan. Ignoring the lessons learned about fighting an insurgency, in fact never really waging a counterinsurgency. Instead our emphasis was on training the ISF, and force protection. The problem with this was the level of violence was allowed to escalate faster than our ability to train the ISF to handle it on their own. While at the same time al Qaeda was able to establish safe havens from which to operate. In response to this threat, Iraqi Shi’a were turning to local militias for protection, many of them associated with Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr played on the governments lack of an ability to protect the Shi’a to garner political support. A vicious cycle had developed that was feeding on it’s self.

The sectarian divisions being exploited by al Qaeda were starting to infect the Iraqis army. Several units were hijacked by sectarian interests. The Iraqis police under the Iraqi ministry of the interior were controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, through a minister loyal to him, and his jaish al mahdi militia (JAM). The police had been thoroughly corrupted, infiltrated by Shi‘a death squads. Al-Anbar province the heart of the Sunni insurgency was declared by a Marine intelligence review to be completely lost.

The original hope that the newly formed Iraqis government and parliament would be able to stem the tide of sectarian violence from the top down. By settling outstanding issues politically, were completely dashed. The violence had the effect of deadlocking competing interests in zero sum thinking. No one was willing or able to compromise. Making concessions in an atmosphere of violent chaos could be suicidal. What we were doing had failed, it wasn’t working, and wasn’t going to work.

We needed to come up with a new plan, and that’s what we got. We are now applying the lessons learned fighting an insurgency, we are now waging a counterinsurgency. This is a fundamental shift in tactics. One that is lost on most Democrats, MSM reporters, and pundits of all stripes. While training the ISF is still a very important element, the focus of our operations have shifted. The emphasis is now on the first rule of any counterinsurgency, provide for the security of the population. The magnitude of change this represents is lost in all the discussions surrounding the increase in troops required to implement the fundamental change in tactics. We have never before tasked our military in Iraq, with the primary mission in any counterinsurgency campaign, protect the population.

So what have the results been since Gen. Petraeus has taken over command in Iraq this past January, and began implementing counterinsurgency operations? The changes on the ground have been in a word, dramatic. Al-Anbar province written off as lost just last fall, has seen a dramatic turn around. The Sunni population and tribes of the province have turned on al Qaeda. They're now cooperating with both the Iraqi central government, and coalition troops, denying al Qaeda safe haven. While it’s true this change in al-Anbar can not be entirely attributed to our change in tactics. Since the brutality visited upon the people of al-Anbar by al Qaeda’s sick and twisted version of Islam caused them to reach out to us. We were smart enough to exploit this change of heart, then help them throw off al Qaeda.

We have achieved what is known as tactical momentum on the ground against al Qaeda and the Shi‘a extremist militias. After being chased out of their safe heavens in al-Anbar, al Qaeda set up shop in Diyala province. Moving most of its command and control operations to Diyala, declaring the city of Baquba it’s new capital.

On June 16th we kicked off operation Phantom Thunder when coalition forces launched major combat operations against al Qaeda, as well as other extremist terrorists operating throughout Iraq. Operation Phantom Thunder is a corps level operation, including Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Diyala Province, Operation Marne Torch and Operation Commando Eagle in Babil Province, Operation Fardh al-Qanoon in Baghdad, Operation Alljah in Anbar Province, and continuing special forces actions against the JAM in southern Iraq and against Al-Qaeda leadership throughout the country. The operation is the largest combined military operations in Iraq since the original invasion.

The aim is to disrupt terrorist bases and networks, by killing or capturing key terrorist leaders in all of their major bases in Iraq. We are not playing whack-a-mole as some critics have charged. We are disrupting the terrorist networks and militias across the country all at once. Denying them the opportunity to find or set up new safe havens.

Progress is being made training the ISF, and eradicating the sectarian influence that had infected some of their units. Many of them are partnered with our forces, they're being mentored while in the fight. Going on patrols, in some cases in the lead, in some cases alongside our forces, in some cases following. Some units where we have detected a degree of sectarian influence, are being re-vetted, and some are still being cleaned up after having suffered from sectarian pressures. Now that Sunnis are volunteering for the ISF a concerted effort is being made to have a proper mix of ethnicity. Al-Sadr’s minister of interior has been replaced, as have all nine of the brigade commanders of the national police, and about 70 percent of the battalion commanders. Again an effort is being made to get a proper mix of ethnicity.

Comprehensive offensive operations have only been underway for just under two months, in an effort that was designed to last between 12 to 18 months. In just that short a period of time, that progress is being made can not be denied by anyone. So the Democrats are conducting a tactical retreat to a new position. Saying it doesn’t matter if we manage to quell the violence they had all proclaimed impossible to quell. The new refrain is becoming “no political progress“.

Political progress was always going to be a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator of over all progress. That there is no political progress being made is not entirely true either. Since like the initial progress that was made in security, it’s being made underneath the radar of the Democrats, the MSM, and assorted pundits.

Local tribes are in discussions with security forces, provincial authorities, and the central government. Making all sorts of agreements and arrangements, all in the direction of reconciliation. Committing to reconciliation in their own local areas throughout Iraq. Here in America we would call this a grassroots movement. Local communities working to bring about the reality they would like to see, rather than simply following the lead of the central government. It’s still too early to tell if this will translate into political progress on the national level. But there is reason to hope that it will, and something to watch to see how it progresses.

The Democrats may not want to get to comfortable in their new redoubt.

It has become conventional wisdom since the 06 midterm elections that the Democrats have a mandate from the electorate for their policies on the Iraq war.

Just heard an editor from CQ answer a caller on C-span asking how the Democrats can claim to have a mandate when they never took a position on Iraq before the midterm elections. Seems like a fair queston. His answer was, "we know this from the exit polls". We do? I don't think so.

Let's examine this particular bit of conventional wisdom with a bit of reporting from CNN on the midterm elections.

Dems take House as GOP clings to Senate, CNN projects

The exit polls showed that 42 percent of voters called corruption an extremely important issue in their choices at the polls, followed by terrorism at 40 percent, the economy at 39 percent and the war in Iraq at 37 percent.

Iraq was fourth on the list of voters concerns as expressed in the exit polling, behind corruption, terrorism, and the economy. Now also considering the Democratic party refused to take, or articulate a position on the Iraq war before the midterms. From where did this mythical mandate materialize? Republican voters where unhappy with the direction of the war in Iraq before the election. Would anyone suggest those voters are now backing the Democratic plan for surrender?