Quote:
|
BAGHDAD - Former Sunni insurgents asked the United States to stay away, and then ambushed members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, killing 18 in a battle that raged for hours north of Baghdad, an ex-insurgent leader and Iraqi police said yesterday.
|
At face value this is good news. But I'm not sure we should take it at face value. There are plenty of groups in Iraq that are rivals for local power and influence. Did this group decide to take out their foes, and had the bright idea to keep the US off their backs by telling them they were going after AQ? Maybe, maybe not.
The surge has peaked, and the drawdown has begun. It certain has bought Iraq some breathing space. But it was crucial that the Iraqis get full value from this opportunity to build political stability. They've done a little but not much that I can see. Will this stability last? I doubt it but time will tell.
Meanwhile here is a less upbeat
analysis via the Australian ABC, citing Professor Hugh White, the head of Canberra's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.
His report is that Afghanistan would take a generation or more to turn into a stable, self-governing country, but that this would make little strategic difference because AQ can simply operate from a different county, such as Pakistan. Regardless, the coalition there now will likely get tired of constant bleeding for the next 30 years.
Iraq is strategically important, but White argues that the country would likewise take a generation or so stabilize, and he doesn't see the public will in the west to stay the course. Summarizing Iraq: keeping the troops in won't make it better, but pulling them out will make it a lot worse.
It seems to me that the best option is to stay there and take the losses. I'd hate to have to explain that to the mother of a fallen soldier.