I guess I'm impressed that this writer got one out of five myths right.
Here we go with myth 1:
1. The troop surge succeeded.
The surge of 26,000 troops into Baghdad in 2007 had two objectives: tamp down the bloody sectarian civil war and forge a political compromise among the three principal groups in Iraqi society — Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs and ethnic Kurds — that would set the country on a path to stability.
He says that many other factors contributed to the surge success. I agree. That's why I wrote about the timing of the surge when some wondered why we didn't carry out the surge offensive earlier. There were other factors arguably more important than five more American combat brigades. But the idea that the surge failed because former enemies have not learned to love each other and work together is just wrong. The surge did get the three main ethnic/religious groups to largely abandon violence as the means to settle differences. The surge succeeded in its military goals. Politics is the realm of setting the country on the path to stability. But we aren't there to enforce political means as the method of resolving disputes.
The military surge succeeded in its military objective. Demanding it solve post-military objective goals is a bit much to expect of such a blunt instrument. Did military victory at Yorktown (with a large French assist in their own military surge in support of us) solve our post-Revolution political issues? No. That took a new Constitution--that increased the central government's powers--to replace the weak Articles of Confederation. No myth here.
2. Iraq today is relatively peaceful.
Levels of violence are far lower than they were in 2006, at the height of the civil war, when hundreds of people were being killed every week. But Iraq is far from stable.
Saying that Iraq is not stable or at peace is not refuting the idea that Iraq is not relatively peaceful. Sadly, there are still Baathists and al Qaeda types who want to kill. And Iran is still messing with Iraqi stability. But that is a problem caused by our failure to stay engaged in Iraq's security and future.
Iraq is relatively peaceful. No myth here.
3. Iraq is a democracy.
It is — on paper. It has held successive national elections; it has a parliament and a modestly functional court system. In practice, however, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is exercising authority and centralizing power in ways that remind many Iraqis of Hussein. His security agencies have rounded up numerous Sunni leaders in recent months, accusing them of supporting the insurgency. Sunni officials contend that Maliki is using terrorism as a pretext to neutralize political foes.
Both Japan and Mexico have democracies even though one-party rule was a feature for most of their recent history. Iraq does have a long way to go in rule of law--I've harped on this as a necessary component of voting for true democracy--but Iraq does at least have real elections and a parliament with power and a modestly functional court system. Given the damage that Saddam did to Iraqi society, that's a big deal. As for Maliki reminding people of Hussein, if Maliki really was like Hussein, people would be too afraid to protest. Have we forgotten his domestic terror apparatus already? And in practice, many Sunni Arab politicians do support al Qaeda terrorists. Some from fear rather than love, it is true. But there is a reason for Maliki to watch the Sunni Arabs. Many Sunni Arabs believe fervently that they should be running Iraq rather than the dreaded Shias. Heck, many Sunni Arabs don't believe they are a minority in Iraq. And again, helping Iraq develop democracy is the main reason I wanted our troops to stay in Iraq after 2011. But we don't have the 25,000 I wanted to stay.
So yeah, Iraq is a democracy in the making and a major improvement over Saddam's Iraq. No myth here.
4. Iraq is in Iran’s pocket.
Iran is still bigger and more powerful. But Iraq’s collaboration with Tehran is as often driven by its own interests as those of its neighbor.
This is a tough one. I agree with his contention that it is a myth that Iraq is in Iran's pocket. But his analysis to reach this conclusion isn't something I stand with. While Iraq certainly worries about a Sunni government in Syria turning on Shia-dominated Iraq, don't forget that the Alawite (viewed as basically Shia-related) government of Syria supported Iran in its war with Iraq and funneled Sunni Arab suicide bombers into Iraq during the Iraq War. So Iraq's government has plenty of reasons to hate the supposedly natural allies of the Alawite government of Assad. And trying to pretend that Moqtada al-Sadr isn't a tool of Iran--even if not a perfect tool--is folly.
Iraq's government has no love for Iran. But without a sizable American presence, Iraq has to cope with their relative weakness compared to Iran until Iraq is stronger. Our influence is far stronger in Iraq than pre-2003, and I don't assume Iran will win this struggle despite our failure to stay in Iraq.
So yeah, this is a myth. But how the author got the right answer with such flawed reasoning is a mystery.
Let's go to the last myth:
5. The Americans have all left.
There are still about 220 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. They work for the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq, which handles the sale of military equipment to the Iraqi army and coordinates training. Those personnel work in an annex of the U.S. Embassy in central Baghdad, the largest American diplomatic mission in the world.
This is just stupid. Of course we haven't "all left" Iraq. But 220 military personnel is less than 1% of what I wanted to both deter Iran, reassure Iraqis about Iran, and make sure Iraqi factions don't view force rather than politics as a means to resolve differences. And all those Americans still in Iraq contrary to the "myth" are in our huge embassy where they are largely confined to the embassy compound. So yes, we have basically left Iraq. I wish it wasn't so, but there you go. And the other information the writer chooses to prove we haven't all left just proves that we have too few to have high confidence in our ability to help Iraq: "Concerns that the fighting in Syria could spill over into Iraq recently prompted the CIA to increase its support to Iraqi counterterrorism forces[.]"
So yes, we've basically left Iraq. No myth here, either.
Good God, our press corps sucks. After so long, they are clueless about military matters and war. This piece designed to inform the ignorant rubes self-selected five so-called myths and got its conclusion wrong on four while using poor analysis to somehow get the right answer on one.
So I guess in our press corps, this guy is a relative genius. With the ten-year anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom beginning, I can expect to be pounding my head into my desk in bitter, hope-abandoning frustration a lot until the press herd moves on to some other topic.
