After jumping in the fight for Sadr City in April, US casualties in Iraq for the month of May declined to their lowest level since February 2004. Iraqi civilian casualties were also down by 54% from the previous month. In the crucial Iraqi port city of Basra, civil society peeks out cautiously from behind their physical and psychic barricades. The sound of music is once again heard, which only sounds trite to those who have never had to suffer under an imposed silence.
In Baghdad, coalition forces and the Iraqi Army have turned from rooting out Sadrist militias – and dodging rocket and mortar fire – to rebuilding the slum from which the “sayid” Moqtada drew his political power and which only recently seethed with armed insurrection. In the north, the IA is on the brink of restoring order to Mosul, meaning that all three of Iraq’s major cities may soon be under the security blanket of the national army. The major Sunni cities of Fallujah and Ramadi remain quiescent.
The Iraqi Army is conducting major, independent operations on three fronts, a thing unthinkable only a year ago. In cities large and small, the Sunni nationalists who once fought against the occupation and government forces are now laying down arms or turning them on the al Qaeda butchers who once swam among them as fish swim in the sea.
The terrorists still lash out spasmodically and they will continue to do so until the last mentally deficient, wild-eyed, spittle flecked loser has been rooted out. But the Iraqi people have glimpsed the austere vision of public life they offer and the lengths they will go to impose it. Tips are coming in. The tide has shifted. Momentum builds.
You can tell because the Washington Post has noticed the change in the air, and what it should mean for US policymakers:
If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq’s 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.
You can tell because the New York Times wants to talk about something else.
Critics will say that it has taken too long, or cost too much, or was never worth having done at any price. But the battle for Iraq’s future was one that al Qaeda #2 Ayman al Zawahiri declared a “must win” in order for the terrorists to realize their treasured vision of a new Islamic caliphate – a shelter from whence to strike out at enemies near and far employing the mass of a Sunni Arab street mobilized by a toxic brew of new victories and ancient resentments and backed by all the resources of a modern, industrial state.
He has lost, lost utterly and his vision revealed to be a dead end. And the forces that finally brought that defeat home – while they may have been trained and supported by US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen – walks the streets of Iraq wearing an Arab face and answers to a democratically elected Arab government that itself will face the judgment of an Arab people in 2009.
This is new.
My paper (Tampa Trib) had a page-one, above the fold article on how the local security guys at Tampa Bay Ray’s baseball games are so much happier now that the team is winning. Better work atmosphere and all that.
The three paragraph article on the low numbers of casualties in Iraq was on the very back page of that section of the paper, pretty much looking like an afterthought. I probably don’t need to point out that had the casualties been high the location of the article would likely have been front page.
Ken, it’s so frustrating to see how much ignorance there is out there about conditions in Iraq. And it’s beyond frustrating to talk to someone who just flat-out tells you that what you are hearing from people in the know is not true.
But it has been so wonderful to watch this all building. In theory, everything could still go wrong. But the odds are sharply tipped in the direction of things going right. I could hear it starting in January in the voices of the officers I interviewed–they would carefully point out that everything was tenuous and that nothing was assured, but their excitement would carry them off into exulting in the signs they were seeing and then they’d pull themselves up short again and remind me that it was all uncertain. But it’s so much less uncertain now. So hopeful and exciting to see…
N.B.: Said article was on page B-6 of the dead tree edition…
Serious question… when do you think the MSM and the Dems will admit that they were wrong and this whole thing worked? When will they admit that an unconditional surrender and pull out regardless of conditions on the ground is a BAD idea?
Jim C
About the time an American government holds treason & sedition trials.
Which we should, but probably won’t.
To this day, the Dems just deny, deny, deny. BO refuses to go there and see for himself. It’s as if the truth is too good, so for heaven’s sake don’t go because you’d have to admit it.
Their agenda for the U.S. is so extreme that if they see what’s happening, it would be a hindrance to their purpose. So… what can we do with people whose objectives are ruined by the truth?
We must shine the light of truth on them, illuminating their poor purpose.
The Dems are learning that they are now hoping to inhabit the Whitehouse under the new rules that they have spent the last eight years putting in place. Primary amongst those rules is that you can never, ever admit to a mistake.
Just watch the hilarity that ensues when they try to use the Executive authority that they’ve also spent the last eight years eroding with their hysterical ranting.
Can we consider this a “road to Damascus” moment on behalf of the press?
Incremental progress and definite change in the security situation. No time to let up now as you hammer home, however al Sadr and his movement haven’t been buried yet. Until that happens we still have a lot of hard work ahead…Serious work. Why that guy still breathes is a mystery to me.
Hard work, BTW, that BOH, Hillary, marionette head from San Fran and about 60% of the American people don’t have the fortitiude to finish decisively…We still have those who would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Hence, my apprehension.
b2
Why can’t the dems grasp the simple concept of PROGRESS. If they could maintain an ounce of sense inside their heads they could realize that the only thing stopping more attacks on America and the west is taking the fight to them.
Instead they hide behind their liberal agendas about enviromental concerns and socialist reform when they should get their butts in motion and start doing the PATRIOTIC thing and help our brave men and women out there in the thick of fighting to pull out. IN VICTORY and nothing less than that
A key failing of the Bush Administration, from top down, has been the failure to sternly take on the mainstream media and the naysaying Democrats on the issue of Iraq and the importance of Iraq to our “regional strategy” (and I fervently hope we have a regional strategy beyond making nice to the G**d*** Saudi’s) and to take the issue to the public by regular, high visibility statements / press conferences. That the mainstreamers now generally downplay or ignore the positive story that Iraq is becoming is no surprise, but they should have their collective feet held to the fire. And, had the administration done a better job of communicating, they could be crowing very loudly and the public might give them some more respect than Bush’s “approval ratings” indicate.
I’ve been reading the news of late. Washington is concerned about the environment. About Iraq. We just had a vote on a carbon credit bill.
I’ve a pair of 150-gallon diesel tanks. They’re on a Chevy straight truck. I’m not concerned about the environment or Iraq so much, I’ve people smarter than me who will advise Congress on that. I’m worried about getting a product to market. Because when it costs me $1500 to fill those tanks to take corn or beans or sunflower seeds to market, you can bet I’m passing those costs on to the consumer or I’m not driving.
Just for a mental exercise, you remember the media that claimed all the corn was going to ethanol and poor Mexicans couldn’t make taco’s because the corn was too expensive, never mind there are fifty different kinds of corn?
Look for the word “soy” whenever you buy oil, bread, salad dressing, peanut butter, mixed nuts or even hamburger. Soy is everywhere. Some goes to biodiesel. So if ethanol were really taking all the corn don’t you think you’d see less corn in stuff and more soy? Corn nuts, corn flakes, corn chips, corn on the cob, corn kernels, corn syrup…
The cost increase isn’t because there’s less product or much more demand, it’s because it can’t be shipped economically because diesel is so expensive. Diesel takes sweet crude to refine.
There are seven different laws that prevent us from drilling for oil in our interior, or on our own coasts. China is drilling off our coasts right now. Our energy plan is to delay refineries, tie them up in legal injunctions, and hope the Canadians keep refining oil sands. The answer of Congress to $5/gallon diesel is to ask about the salary of an oil company CEO, who runs a company that produces billions of gallons of diesel. He’s at least providing a product. What’s the last thing Congress produced, other than new taxes?
Demand is up, supply is only steady, do they not teach economics in law school so that our leaders may understand? Oh, wait — I almost forgot these are the same people who wrote the tax code.
Sorry. We’re doomed.
– Max