Jack Kelly, writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, makes the following points:
Retired Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the Army, said in a speech July 25 that so far this year, U.S. and Iraqi security forces have killed or captured more than 50,000 insurgents, including a significant portion of the leadership. While the majority of these have to be people who were interviewed and released, that's still an impressive total.All of this is background information, but it definately worth noting just how much success our military is having on the ground in Iraq.
Car bombings, al-Qaida's specialty, have fallen from (a record high of) 170 in April to 151 in May to 133 in June, with less than 100 so far in July. (Journalists describe this as a "worsening" trend.) Al-Qaida could be storing up for an offensive when the new Iraqi constitution is unveiled next month. We'll know soon enough.
The targets have shifted in emphasis from American forces to Iraqi forces to Shiite civilians to, most recently, Sunni Arabs who are cooperating with the government. This does not suggest growing capability or rising support. Nor do the increasing number of gun battles between al-Qaida and its ex-Baathist allies in the insurgency suggest harmony in the resistance.
Suicide attacks have been successful in gaining headlines, but have not slowed enlistment in the Iraqi armed forces, or prevented prominent Sunnis from taking part in the writing of the constitution.
Let's get to the heart of the matter, though, shall we...
American commanders are now talking openly about a major withdrawal of troops after the Iraqi elections scheduled for December. While this may reflect concerns about the strains the massive deployment in Iraq is placing on the Army and Marine Corps as much as an improving situation, it is doubtful these statements would be made publicly if the situation weren't in fact improving.A couple of things we need to note from this excerpt: (1) There are currently 172,000 Iraqi military and police forces on duty today in Iraq and that number is expected to hit 270,000 by the middle of next year. (2) al Qaeda appears to be engaging in tactics that would "turn the tide in a war it has been losing" - which is another way of saying that we are actually winning the war over there and our enemy is desperate to turn things around. And, (3) al Qaeda seems to have used up their best operational assets and we are now seeing that the Islamofascists don't have a very deep bench.
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-D.C.-based think tank, has been pessimistic about Iraq. He returned from a recent visit singing a different tune:
"If current plans are successfully implemented, the total number of Iraqi military and police units that can honestly be described as trained and equipped should rise from 96,000 in September 2004, and 172,000 today to 230,000 by the end of December and 270,000 by mid-2006," he said.
Strategic Forecasting, a private American intelligence service, thinks al-Qaida is engaged in the terrorist equivalent of the Tet Offensive: "launching a series of attacks -- some significant, others mere psyops -- in an effort to turn the tide in a war it has been losing."
Clumsy mistakes made in the London bombings suggest to Strategic Forecasting that al-Qaida has suffered "a rather serious decline in the quality -- though not necessarily the quantity -- of its operational assets." A shortage of skilled labor would explain why al-Qaida is shifting assets from Iraq. But, in effect, conceding defeat in the principal theater rarely is the path to ultimate victory.
If al-Qaida is indeed shifting personnel out of Iraq, expect to hear more about Iraq as an "incubator" for terrorism. But what, pray tell, do the promoters of this theory imagine Zarqawi and his minions would have been doing these past two years if there had been no war in Iraq? Origami?Indeed.
Iraq has indeed proven to be a quagmire. But not for us.
Now, what does Paul Hackett have to with this? Major Hackett has served in Iraq as a Marine Corps reservist. He has made the Congressional race to replace Rob Portman a referendum on the Iraq war. Here are some exerpts from his campaign site:
If elected, I will be the only member of Congress to have served in Iraq. I fought in the Fallujah campaign, took part in reconstruction efforts, and worked side-by-side with Iraqi military and civil personnel. I know what’s really happening in Iraq.Let's deal with the first paragraph first: We applaud Major Hackett's service and we are proud of him and his accomplishments. He has stated that he has worked alongside Iraqi units, and we believe him. I submit that Major Hackett has an understanding of what was going on inside of the part of Iraq that he served in, but doubt whether or not Major Hackett has a feel for the overview of what is going on in the entire country. I don't think he does.
The White House has been painting a rosy picture and people aren’t buying it anymore. We all know the outcome is uncertain and there is no exit date. But even now, too many conservatives just want to applaud whatever the administration does. And too many liberals who opposed the war want to see the president’s Iraq policy fail.
The second paragraph is pure speculation and opinion. He is due those as is every American whether they served or not.
The good news is we can successfully exit Iraq once the roughly 140,000 Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are adequately trained and skilled enough to defend their fledgling government.Major Hackett seems to be discounting the police forces. The Kelly article states that there are currntly 172,000 people currently serving the Iraqi military and police forces. I submit that we are, indeed, well on the way to reaching the goal of 140,000 Iraqi military that can defend their own nation. It seems clear that the 172,000 is already taking on more and more of the responsibilities currently being handled by US and coalition forces.
The bad news is they are nowhere near the level of skill to accomplish that mission and are likely years away from that goal.
I know this from fighting alongside Iraqis, and training them. They are simply not ready to defend their country against the insurgents that threaten to destroy Iraq’s future.
No matter what your position on the war, if we pull out now the entire region will spiral into chaos and present our nation and military with a far more difficult challenge than we currently face. I don’t relish the prospect of my two sons going over there in twenty years. We need to get it right, and we need to do it now.On this, we agree with Major Hackett and Jean Schmidt. Pulling out now would be a disaster. Especially since we are so close to actually achieving our goal of having a peaceful, democratic Iraq. The war on terror is furthered by having such a country in the heart of the Middle East.
The Iraqi people and government are grateful that we eliminated their brutal dictator. They are capable of running their own government and building a democracy. It won’t look like ours; nor should it. But in order for them to succeed, we must not withdraw our troops before the Iraqis are ready to stand on their own.
The very fact that there is discussion of a major withdrawal of forces after the December election is further proof: (Source: MSNBC)
The Pentagon has developed a detailed plan in recent months to scale down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to about 80,000 by mid-2006 and down to 40,000 to 60,000 troops by the end of that year, according to two Pentagon officials involved in the planning who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of their work. Their account squares with a British memo leaked in mid-July. "Emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall [U.S. and Coalition forces] from 176,000 down to 66,000," says the Ministry of Defense memo.This doesn't sound like a quagmire to me. And it doesn't sound like the Pentagon thinks the Iraqis won't be up to snuff when the time comes.
And it looks like Paul Hackett is wrong. Again.
