But I have no idea if the idea floated that we should remain engaged in day-to-day military operations in Mosul, for example, is prudent or not.
The Iraqis appear to be confident they can handle the situation without our direct help:
But a series of high-profile bombings have cast doubt on the readiness of Iraqi forces to take over security responsibilities. In particular, U.S. commanders have pointed to the volatile northern city of Mosul as a possible exception to the withdrawal plans.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, however, said the deadlines were "non-extendable."
"These dates cannot be extended and this is consistent with the transfer and handover of responsibility to Iraqi security forces," al-Dabbagh said in a statement."
We seem to think that the violence is al Qaeda in a last ditch effort to ignite a civil war. Secretary Gates doesn't think this is a sign of Sunni-Shia divisions:
I actually think that that kind of sectarian violence – I guess I would say I hope not. And I actually think it probably will not grow. I think that they do understand that this is al Qaeda. This is certainly the view of our commanders, that most of this – most of these high-profile bombings are part of a campaign that was started a few weeks ago by al Qaeda, as we begin to draw down our forces, to both demonstrate – to try and make the point to the Iraqi people that it was this kind of terrorist acts that led us to draw down rather than our success, but also to try – for al Qaeda to try and provoke the kind of sectarian violence that you’re talking about.
This is al Qaeda trying to set Shi’a against Sunni. Now, regardless of what he says, Prime Minister Maliki also is reaching out to elements of the Sunni community as potential political allies. And so, you know, the key for us is the Iraqis themselves working these differences out and their problems in a political way. And so far the record of the past year, year and a half, has been pretty encouraging in terms of the progress that they’ve made.
I hope we and the Iraqis are correct that they can endure this on their own without too much additional bloodshed, and defeat an enemy mini-surge as we withdraw from the cities by the end of June. I think this is the right interpretation, but it is hard to be sure.
UPDATE: Interesting. Is Secretary Gates covering for the Iranians?
One wonders which commanders he’s been talking to, since a report just a few days ago from American military sources on the ground in Iraq was equally categorical in claiming that “the US has found evidence of Iranian-backed Mahdi Army leaders conducting attacks that were designed to mimic al Qaeda suicide bombings.” And the intelligence that underlies that claim was convincing enough for American forces to act, which annoyed the Iraqi Government[.]
One, why would we hide Iranian involvement?
Two, this would indicate al Qaeda isn't strong enough to project power to central Iraq from their last efforts in the north.
And three, it doesn't change the assessment that Iraq is not on the verge of retriggering Shia-Sunni Arab warfare since this is still outside influence.
