This is the old MovableType blog. To enter the new blog visit the home page.

July 31, 2007

Middle East > Positive NY Times Op-Ed on the Surge

NY Times Op-ed by Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings:

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Posted by lesjones | TrackBack



Comments

Les, I'm disappointed.

It's not The Brookings Institute, it's The Left-Leaning Brookings Institute, as in, "This editorial would be just 'Wow, the original proponents of the surge think the surge is going great! Gee, what a surprise' if it came from the original proponents of the surge. But it's written by two people from The Left-Leaning Brookings Institution, so it has instant credibility.

Posted by: Steve K. at July 31, 2007

There is that.

I was too lazy to look up the URL last night but this is the second NY Times piece within a couple of weeks to come out against withdrawl.

Posted by: Les Jones at July 31, 2007

Jesus, Les. It's not The New York Times, it's even The Left-Leaning New York Times.

*sigh*

Posted by: Steve K. at July 31, 2007

Redundancy does sound kinda silly when you put it that way, Steve.

Posted by: Tam at July 31, 2007

Terms of Use