Secretary Gates seems to share my failure to see what the next armed threat inside Iraq could be given our success in defeating Baathists, jihadis, tribal resistance, and Iranian-backed Shia thugs. The fighting is still going on, but the end game is taking shape:
"We are now seeing what the end game in Iraq looks like -- with our forces drawing down over time, in a series of very complex battlefield rearrangements that slowly cede more responsibility for day-to-day security operations to the Iraqis," the prepared remarks said.
"It is a slow process -- slower than most would wish, myself included," he said. "But it is necessary if we are to get the endgame right."
Right now, it seems as if the only armed threat to success in Iraq must come from Iran itself. Is Iran likely to directly intervene overtly in Iraq? I find that hard to imagine, but I don't believe Allah guarantees my success. Who knows what Ahamadinejad believes and is willing to do?
Barring such a direct attack, Gates seems to see only our government as a threat to victory:
"I fear that frustration over slow progress and dismay over sacrifices already made may result in decisions that are gratifying in the short term but very costly to us in the long term," he said.
I think Gates is correct. But I still have that nagging feeling that Iran will not just stand by while armed resistance inside Iraq crumbles, freeing up a hundred thousand US forces for other actions.
