The Sunday (London) Times: Serious success in Iraq is not being recognised as it should be

Is no news good news or bad news? In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time.

Indeed, on every relevant measure, the shape of the Petraeus curve is profoundly encouraging. It is not only the number of coalition deaths and injuries that has fallen sharply (October was the best month for 18 months and the second-best in almost four years), but the number of fatalities among Iraqi civilians has also tumbled similarly. This process started outside Baghdad but now even the capital itself has a sense of being much less violent and more viable. As we report today, something akin to a normal nightlife is beginning to re-emerge in the city. As the pace of reconstruction quickens, the prospects for economic recovery will be enhanced yet further. With oil at record high prices, Iraq should be an extremely prosperous nation and in a position to start planning for its future with confidence.

Read it all.

Posted in * Economics, Politics, Iraq War

10 comments on “The Sunday (London) Times: Serious success in Iraq is not being recognised as it should be

  1. Br. Michael says:

    Not surprising. A lot of people in this country seem to have a vested interest in a US defeat.

  2. Katherine says:

    It sounds to me like Iraq is well on the way to being as safe as India, which is a functioning country in spite of almost daily terrorist events of some kind.

  3. AnglicanFirst says:

    Good news from Iraq is bad news for the Democrats running for nomination to run for president.

    What is bad news for our servicemen in Iraq is good news for them.

    And by the way, I haven’t seen much leadership from the Republican candidates on how to cope over the long run, i.e. the next 15 to 20 years, with the existing and the foreseeable world problems.

  4. Sherri says:

    I haven’t seen much from anyone on how to cope, what the future will look like for us in Iraq. And I’m afraid the candidates are all going to campaign on sound bytes without any of them coming up with a clear and possible plan of action. It’s scary.

  5. yohanelejos says:

    Is this a comment from their editorial staff? If so, it’s interesting that someone outside of the US intelligentsia is sensing real improvement. And yet, what would it take to bring a stability to Iraq that is no longer dependent on major deployment of US forces??

  6. Betty See says:

    It seems to me that many activists, who were involved in the Viet Nam war wish to deny that people in Viet Nam and Cambodia suffered when the U.S. retreated so hastily from Viet Nam and left them at the mercy of the Viet Cong and other Communists such as the Kymer Rouge. Those of us who read newspapers instead of activating remember things differently and we know that people in those countries did suffer when the U.S. pulled out.
    If the U.S. succeeds in IRAQ, activists might have to accept that our Government is not as bad as they preach it is and they may even feel guilty (the unacceptable G word) about their activities opposing the liberation of IRAQ so in order to save themselves from feelings of guilt they continue to activate. It is a vicious circle of guilt which can only be broken by accepting guilt and acknowledging that only Jesus Christ can save us from our guilt.

  7. rob k says:

    I am a Democrat who opposed the war in Iraq on rather narrow, prudential grounds. Even if Saddam had had some weapons of mass destruction (I, like most, assumed that he probably did), I did not think that he was an imminant threat to the U.S. or our allies, and that therefore the war did not meet the threshold of Just War Theory. But in we went, and some good things came of it, such as the downfall of a murderous dictator. I think Rumsfeld and Bush had an ahistorical and insouciant attitude towards control of the situation after military victory over the Iraqui army, which in part led to the mishandling of the following occupation. Nevertheless any patriotic American should hope that we now can win, and acheive a good outcome for ourselves and the people of the Middle East. It’s not unpatriotic to think that we can’t win, but it is unpatriotic to hope that we don’t. The Democratic Party needs to repudiate those on the fringe who want America to be defeated and humiliated, so that serious discussion and decisions can be made for the future, since it is likely that they will win in 2008.

  8. CharlesB says:

    We must really be doing very well indeed, as I even heard CNN say that things had improved a little. To paraphrase, approximately, Ann Coulter: the Democrats haven’t been this unhappy since Saddam Hussein was caught.

  9. Christopher Hathaway says:

    rob k, I really appreciate and respect your position. One can have doubts about the justification for the war, not just about the evidence (which thought was compelling, despite being false) but also about the preparations for it, without investing oneself in defeat in order to justify initial opposition.

    Patriotic opposition to a war should manifest in fighting like hell to stay out of it but, once in, fighting like hell to win it. I don’t think most democrats want America to be humiliated or Iraq to suffer chaos from our retreat but I do think many of them are so fcussed on using the war to oppose their political enemies that they won’t look at the consequences. They are like a married couple who use their children as weapons in fighting each other. They don’t want to ruin their childrens’ lives. It’s just that their spousal animosity takes priority over their parental concerns.

  10. Harvey says:

    “..if there must be war let it begin here..” Said by a clergyman as he fired his musket and the Revolutionary war began. Something wonderful came from this “..shot heard round the worl..” By the looks of things something wonderful may be starting to happen in Iraq.