But then Mickey Kaus wondered about the piece, specifically their assertion that the use of local defense forces will hurt the future Iraq. Kaus asks:
In the meantime, how does "progress at the local level," including "declines in the overall level of violence," actually hurt? Without that argument, the piece looks like positioning.
Indeed. I am shamed into tackling it. This is what Kaus is criticizing:
Proponents of the current path claim that, after four years of failed strategies, the surge was needed to get Iraq on track. They point to recent declines in the overall level of violence and cooperation at the local level between some Sunni insurgents and U.S. forces. But the progress being made at the local level often undermines the stated goal of creating a unified, stable, democratic Iraq.
As Kaus notes, the assertion is unsupported. Having denied that our military can do any good in Iraq by misinterpreting the truism that insurgencies are not primarily a military problem, war critics like Korb are now saying the enemy cannot defect to our side. So we can't defeat them in the field. And we also can't allow anybody fighting us in the field stop fighting us and join us. Huh?
As for Iraq being less united, stable, and democratic because of the surge and the enemies' defection, I don't think so.
Under Saddam, the Shia south was kept under sullen control after mass killings and continuous oppression. Western Anbar was subcontracted to the Sunni Arab tribes and not under control of Saddam. The Kurdish north was de facto independent under American and British protection. And even the center was largely subcontracted out to criminal gangs. The Iraqi state was really Saddam's family and favored Tikriti Sunni Arabs plus the security apparatus and a UN seat. It lived off of the people of Iraq but was not a country at all. No unity and no stability except the quiet calm of a corpse, and surely not even Korb believed Saddam was winning those elections at 99+%.
Today, the Kurds remain part of Iraq despite their autonomy. The Shia south is again part of Iraq--and willingly so. Anbar is at least as much a part of Iraq now as under Saddam, and if oil revenue is shared out to the province it will become solid. And the government is gaining control of the center--including tackling the criminal gangs. And through it all, democracy is being honored. And stability is growing from military and political success, and Iraq will be more stable for the democracy we are helping Iraqis build rather than being the sullen quiet of people too beaten down to raise their voices in protest.
Is ethnic division still significant? Yes. But as long as the resulting competition can be confined to politics and elections, why is this ethnic division any more serious a threat to democracy than the bitter Republican-Democratic divide here? Are all of our ethnic groups evenly divided between the parties?
As long as rule of law and minority rights keep losers from pulling out their guns and keep winners from enforcing victory in perpetuity by their guns, competition is actually normal and healthy. Who says they have to get along or like each other much? They just have to play by democracy's rules for this to work.
But according to Korb and his buddies who don't think we can kill our enemies and don't think we can trust our enemies to switch sides, our only apparent option remaining is to surrender.
Which they go on to advise, saying the surge is only making things worse for the region as evidenced by more refugees heading out of Iraq; asserting that our presence in Iraq gives others the excuse to "meddle" in Iraq; and that if we pulled out, all the neighbors would see the folly of their meddling because instability would harm them and instead work to stabilize Iraq.
First of all, the recent wave of refugees really got going when the Iranian-supported Shias and Syrian-supported jihadis started slaughtering civilians in an effort to spark a civil war. And how soon we forget that Saddam's Iraq was known for the large number of Iraqis who had fled Iraq before we invaded. Millions had fled Saddam's "stability."
Korb's call to run away is folly. Maybe people should look at former Zaire where the country collapsed and the neighbors basically decided to loot the bits nearest them. I have difficulty seeing how all these countries soberly decided that stability in the Democratic Republic of Congo was really in their interests.
Our enemies would meddle in Iraq even more if we weren't there. Our presence keeps them from winning. Indeed, we've seen reductions in Iranian support for Shia death squads, reduced Syrian support for jihadis coming in to Iraq, reduced al Qaeda presence as we chase them down and kill or capture them, and the beginnings of the return of refugees from abroad. And military and civilian casualties continue to drop in Iraq to pre-Samarra (February 2006) levels.
If we left, Iraq would be a battleground as each hostile neighbor and al Qaeda tried to control Iraq or pieces of it close to them to create stability that they define and control. A stable and democratic Iraq that is our friend is not in Iran's interest, Syria's interest, or al Qaeda's interest. If Korb and his clique believe otherwise, they should turn in their "reality-based community" badges and decoder rings.
Their solution is to get out of Iraq:
There is one sure way to stop this drift. The United States must set a firm withdrawal date. It is the only way Iraqis and regional leaders will make the compromises necessary to stabilize Iraq and the entire Middle East. This withdrawal can be completed safely in 12 to 18 months and should be started immediately.
President Bush seems content to let Iraq drift until he leaves office, but America can ill afford this policy or, worse, continuing to drift until 2013.
What unadulterated hogwash. Once again, retreat is dressed up like victory and trotted out to see if anyone will buy it. I expect nothing less from Mr. Korb.
The "drift" these fine gentlemen sense is our steady progress toward victory. I just hope whoever becomes president in 2009 is capable of maintaining that motion until 2013.
