Despite worries that Islamists could exploit the Arab Spring revolts, the actual unrest has not been inspired or led by jihadis:
Al Qaeda has been describing the "Arab Spring" rebellions sweeping the versions as an opportunity. But that is mostly to cheer up their followers. It's pretty obvious that most of the Arabs out overthrowing their dictators are doing so without much help from Islamic radicals. Al Qaeda is still hated throughout the Arab world, mainly because of its callous attitude towards the tens of thousands of Moslems it killed in Iraq and elsewhere.
Even if you think that the example of Iraqi democracy being built had no effect on the wider Arab and Moslem world because you refuse to consider giving George W. Bush's Iraq adventure any credit at all (and while I suspect there is linkage, it will take more perspective than I have right now to really judge it), can you doubt that Islamists untainted by murdering tens of thousands of Moslems if the Iraq War had never happened would have the popularity to lead the revolts happening now? This, I think, is much easier to judge right now.
So no matter whether the Arab Spring leads to true reform rather than reshuffling the name plates in the ruling parties, the chances for real reform are surely greater because of the Iraq War and the chances of jihadis exploiting unrest are surely lower. Not bad for a "fiasco."
So let's defend what we achieved in Iraq:
We don't need to keep 50,000 troops there, but a continuing presence of 20,000 military personnel, as argued by military analysts Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, would seem to be the minimum necessary to ensure Iraq's continued progress. It would also make possible an Iraqi-American alliance that could become one of the linchpins of security in this strategically vital region. Having active bases in Iraq would allow us to project power and influence, counter the threat from both Iran and al Qaeda, and possibly even nudge the entire Middle East in a more pro-Western direction.
Before I arrived in Iraq, I had thought there might be behind-the-scenes negotiations going on to extend the Status of Forces Agreement to allow some troops to remain behind. But after spending several days talking with Iraqi and American officials, civilian and military, I came to the conclusion that no talks had started because each side was waiting for the other to go first. Mr. Gates has finally broken through the "After you, Alphonse" syndrome, but his intervention may be too little, too late.
I'd keep 25,000 in Iraq. But the scale of the Kagan proposal is similar. I'd like to see a more detailed description of that 20K figure (5 minutes of searching didn't get me anything). It's possible that I over-estimate the support troops needed inside Iraq, so just seeing how many combat brigades the Kagans want to stay would be a better comparison.
Will we really fail to expend the trivial incremental extra money and effort to defend what we achieved at much higher costs in blood and treasure? Will President Obama let his extremist allies push him to lose Iraq to avoid giving any credit to George W. Bush for the Iraq War victory?
UPDATE: More credit to the Iraq War. Iraq is an island of stability in the Arab world able to hold an Arab League summit!
Believe it or not, by the start of 2011, the only Arab country that appeared safe and stable enough to host the summit was Iraq. Yes, the same Iraq of "quagmire" and "new Vietnam" repute.
But Iraqis weren't keen on hosting the summit, either. Iraq's post-Saddam politicians prefer to emphasize "Iraqiness" (Uruqa) as opposed to "Arabness" (Uruba) -- not surprising in a country where non-Arabs are 30 percent of the population.
Nevertheless, the Iraqis, tickled by being acknowledged as the only stable place in the "Arab World," agreed to host the summit. The man put in charge was Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari -- an ethnic Kurd who speaks literary Arabic with a Kurdish accent.
But that is not the end of the saga. Now the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, seem bent on derailing the Baghdad summit scheduled for May 10-11.
The stated reason is Iraq's support for the Arab uprising, especially in Bahrain. But the real reason fear that Iraq may claim leadership in a new effort to transform the "Arab World" from a club of despots to an alliance of people-based states.
Congratulations, Iraq. The fiascos seem to be everywhere but in Iraq.
We need to stay longer than this year with military forces (and I continue to believe we need 25,000 after this year), but this is amazing progress.
