The angry Iraqi TV journalist whose name-calling and shoe-hurling upstaged President George W. Bush’s surprise visit to Iraq illustrated Iraq’s progress toward democracy, at least for columnist Roger L. Simon. He wrote: Iraq is “turning into a (somewhat) decent place to live. That buffoon-like shoe chucker – his name is Muntadhar al-Zeidi from Al-Baghdadia channel which broadcasts from Cairo – proved it. No matter what happens to al-Zeidi now (and it won’t be much if anything), it will be nothing like what would have happened to him if he had hurled a shoe at the president during the previous Iraqi administration of Saddam Hussein.”
Columnist Eugene Robinson contends that the indictments of five private security guards for allegedly killing 17 unsuspecting Iraqi civilians in 2007 are “a whitewash that absolves the government and corporate officials who should bear ultimate responsibility.” Case documents released Monday claim that the Blackwater Worldwide employees used automatic rifles and grenade launchers to fire on cars, houses, a traffic officer and a girls’ school, the New York Times reported. Robinson wrote: “As with the torture and humiliation of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, our government is deflecting all scrutiny from the corporate higher-ups who employed the guards – to say nothing of the policymakers whose decisions made the shootings possible, if not inevitable.”
Strange as it is to see a silver lining in war casualty totals, there it is: The U.S. military’s 11 combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan in November were the fewest in one month since the Iraq war began 5½ years ago. The most came in November 2004, when 129 died in combat in the two conflicts. Though the improving security in Iraq is key to the decline, the situation is less clear in Afghanistan, where the U.S. military saw one combat death last month but there were 11 other combat deaths among coalition forces.
“The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq,” President Bush told Charles Gibson of ABC News. “A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein.” So if the intelligence had correctly concluded that Iraq didn’t have WMDs, Gibson asked, would there have been a war? “You know, that’s an interesting question,” Bush said. “That is a do-over that I can’t do. It’s hard for me to speculate.”
“Nineteen months after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared the war in Iraq ‘lost’ and just nine months after Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asserted the war has been a ‘failure’ because it had not brought political change leading to reconciliation, it can now be said conclusively that both were wrong,” wrote columnist Cal Thomas. “One of the great military reversals in history is close to achieving victory. That is contributing to stability in Iraq, along with reconciliation between warring factions.”
Still, as Thomas acknowledged, that stability and reconciliation is fragile, as evidenced by more bombings this week.
“BAGHDAD – Iraq wants to eliminate any chance U.S. forces will stay here after 2011 under a proposed security pact, and to expand Iraqi legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops until then, a close ally of the prime minister said Thursday” to Associated Press. So after all the hours spent debating it on the campaign trail, how and when the U.S. military leaves Iraq may not be a matter for the next decider in chief but instead settled by Iraqis.
Recent days have brought excellent news out of Iraq, which should be doing more to help surge-champion John McCain’s presidential campaign:
With the U.S. military’s handoff of the central province of Babil to Iraqi security forces on Thursday, two-thirds of Iraq is now being secured by the Iraqi army and local police, with backup from U.S. troops. That means Iraqis finally have stood up, allowing Americans to stand down, in 12 of 18 provinces. Babil is part of the area once known as the “Triangle of Death,” which averaged 20 sectarian attacks a week last year.
On a somewhat lighter note, less violence and more cell-tower construction has resulted in reliable cell phone coverage, meaning, as U.S. News & World Report put it, “BlackBerries are back in Baghdad.”
Americans and Iraqis owe a debt of gratitude to Gen. David Petraeus for the fact that Iraq has gone from bad to far better over the past year and a half. Petraeus, who is becoming commander of U.S. Central Command based in Florida, put the brilliant counterinsurgency strategy he’d helped author during his command of Fort Leavenworth into practice in Iraq. And with the key assistance of Iraqis, he oversaw a dramatic reduction in violence and tremendous weakening of terrorists and extremist militias. It was largely because of Petraeus’ own leadership that he was able to thank troops Tuesday for having “turned ‘hard but not hopeless’ into still hard but hopeful.” Now the task of further securing Iraq belongs to Gen. Ray Odierno.
Iraq and the United States reportedly have finalized an agreement that would withdraw most U.S. troops by the end of 2011. President Bush is expected to approve the agreement.
This is a very encouraging sign that the Iraq war debacle and its mounting costs might finally be coming to an end — at least there’s some light at the end of the tunnel.
“We have to let go, and we’re not reluctant to do that,” said Gen. David Petraeus. “And the Iraqis are not reluctant to take control.”
How will this development affect the presidential race? Both John McCain and Barack Obama are claiming vindication from the remarkable turn of events in Iraq, which seem to buttress both Obama’s call for a withdrawal timetable and McCain’s claims about the success of the surge.
“If we’re going to get serious about putting our nation’s fiscal house in order, let’s talk about putting an end to billions in no-bid contract awards to unaccountable contractors,” Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary critical of the Bush administration. “Let’s talk about the number of lucrative contracts and bonuses being paid for duties never performed, promises never fulfilled, and contracts falsely described as complete. And let’s talk about reforming the federal contracting system so that we can take on the real waste, fraud and abuse in our federal government.”
What great news that July’s 13 U.S. troop deaths in Iraq were the fewest in any month since the war began in March 2003, and that President Bush is talking about more troop withdrawals. But how disappointing that a political deadlock is preventing Iraqi leaders from settling a power-sharing dispute and proceeding with provincial elections. There is more disagreement between the Kurds and the central Iraqi government over a new oil law. The surge was meant to promote political progress as well as quell violence.
“I think it’s a pretty good timetable,” John McCain said Friday about the 16-month timeline for pulling out of Iraq. So is he now backing Barack Obama’s proposal, too? And isn’t this a policy change, given how McCain has said for months that he didn’t support a timetable for withdrawal? No, McCain said Sunday. He contends that the difference is that he would base his decisions on “the conditions on the ground.” But this looks like a shift based on the conditions of the election.
There has been a lot of focus on Barack Obama’s movement toward the political center. But lately it’s been the Bush administration doing the moving – toward Obama. Administration officials met last week with Iranian officials about Iran’s nuclear program (just a couple of months after President Bush labeled as “appeasement” Obama’s willingness to meet with Iran). The administration also agreed last week to a “time horizon” for reducing troops in Iraq (after years of opposing any sort of withdrawal deadline, even a vague “horizon”). And the administration has been acknowledging the problems in Afghanistan, which Obama has long said should be a main focus in the war on terror.
Obama’s position on withdrawing from Iraq also appears to have the support of the Iraqi government, though that has been difficult to keep straight. Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki appeared to endorse it, then the next day indicated he had been “mistranslated.” But today his government issued a statement saying that it hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq by the end of 2010, which almost matches Obama’s timetable.
The death of nine U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan Sunday in a Taliban attack underscored the deteriorating security situation there, and the collateral costs of the Bush administration’s ongoing distraction in Iraq.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said recently that the United States faced a “very complex problem” in Afghanistan that required a buildup of U.S. forces — but a surge in Afghanistan couldn’t happen as long as U.S. troops were tied down in Iraq.
Barack Obama called Monday for sending an additional two combat brigades to Afghanistan as part of a refocused war-on-terror strategy. “Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaida has a safe haven,” Obama wrote in a New York Times commentary. “Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.”
John McCain said that the “status quo is not acceptable” in Afghanistan and has pledged three more combat brigades of about 3,500 troops each.
In a big policy reversal, President Bush this week authorized a top State Department diplomat to attend upcoming nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European Union.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the United States would be there “to listen, not to negotiate,” but it’s still a major change from the administration’s position that it wouldn’t participate in even preliminary meetings until Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program.
Just a few months ago, Bush was calling Barack Obama’s willingness to meet with Iran “appeasement.”
A photo of a U.S. medic carrying a wounded Iraqi child was published throughout the world in 2003. But now the soldier from the photo has died from a substance overdose apparently connected to his struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder. Joseph Dwyer couldn’t “get over the war,” his mother said. It’s a reminder of how difficult life can be for some returning soldiers — and the need to provide support services.
An Eagle reader asked whether the natural uranium removed recently from Iraq was evidence that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, developing weapons of mass destruction. No, it wasn’t. The United States has long known about the uranium, and it wasn’t part of an active WMDs program. Rather, it was left over from the Tuwaitha nuclear complex near Baghdad, which was dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War. The material — which would have to be enriched before it could be used for a nuclear bomb or even a dirty bomb — had been kept since that time under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Ironically, after the U.S. invasion in 2003, Tuwaitha was left unguarded, and the barrels used to store the yellowcake were stolen and sold to local people, which created potential health risks.
Barack Obama is catching heat for seeming to waffle on his pledge to remove U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months. He now says there’s a chance he could have a longer timetable for the pullout, depending on conditions on the ground.
It does look like Obama the campaigner is acknowledging some of the practical realities of governing in his recent moves to the center. But some flexibility on the timetable is a good sign that Obama recognizes the complexities and potential dangers of the Iraq endgame.
And Obama’s shift probably reassures some voters who want out of Iraq but also want, in Obama’s words, to do so “responsibly,” in a way that doesn’t endanger our troops.
It’s ironic, though, that Obama’s move comes at a time when the improved security situation in Iraq is leading to optimism from military analysts about the prospects for major U.S. troop withdrawals in 2009.
“I do not believe nation-building in Iraq is going to be the issue come November – whether things get better there or worse. I think nation-building in America is going to be the issue,” wrote columnist Thomas Friedman. “It’s the state of America now that is the most gripping source of anxiety for Americans, not al-Qaida or Iraq. Anyone who thinks they are going to win this election playing the Iraq or the terrorism card – one way or another – is, in my view, seriously deluded.”
Friedman’s advice to voters: “We need nation-building at home, and we cannot wait another year to get started. Vote for the candidate who you think will do that best. Nothing else matters.”
Per a New York Times article: “According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been ‘massively scaled back this year.’ Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007.”
A pro/con on Wednesday’s Opinion pages debated why this is happening. Cal Thomas blamed the decline in coverage on the liberal media not wanting to report good news. But Frank Rich noted that there isn’t much reporting on the bad news either, and he argued that the public has made up its mind on Iraq and is more interested in “Cindy versus Michelle, not Shiites versus Sunnis.”
This week’s McClatchy investigative series in The Eagle about prisoner abuse and wrongful detention at Guantanamo and other facilities should shock and outrage Americans, we argued in Wednesday’s editorial.
As the articles amply document, many of these supposed “terrorists†and “worst of the worst†were nothing of the sort. They were low-level criminals, or Taliban foot soldiers, or innocent villagers swept up in the fog of war.
The beatings and harsh treatment many detainees faced in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and other sites produced little of intelligence value, say former intelligence officials, but they did succeed in turning many prisoners and their families into avowed enemies of America.
The series and editorial have sparked some predictable cries of “Why should we care about these people?â€
But if you care about the Constitution and living in a nation of laws — if you think this nation is better than its enemies — then you should care about the Bush administration’s cynical and secretive torture policies and end runs around the law.
Those responsible for these abusive policies, from the White House on down, should be held accountable.
There’s no doubt that U.S. and Iraqi forces have made real progress against the insurgency in recent months. “Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets,” Associated Press reported, calling it a possible “turning point.”
After hearing countless Bush declarations of “turning points” in Iraq, there’s reason for skepticism about this latest defining moment. It could be a calm in the storm – a massive truck bomb killed 63 people and wounded scores in Baghdad Tuesday, the deadliest bombing in three months. But the reduction in violence is a good sign that the insurgency is on the defensive, if not in its last throes.
“Let me tell you something. If I invade IHOP, pancakes are going to be cheaper in my house.†— Chris Rock, on the high cost of gas, despite the Iraq war
“The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions,†columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote. “Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their ‘narrative of defeat and retreat’ (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed.
“It is a position so utterly untenable that John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign.â€
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., drew the eye of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” Monday night for Roberts’ long-ago promises, when he chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, to fast-track the “Phase II” reports examining the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence on Iraq. “I’ve got tennis shoes and track shoes on, on Phase II,” Roberts was shown saying in a clip from November 2005. Stewart saved his ire, though, for the media’s neglect of the Phase II report’s eventual release last week — in favor of stories about kissing lesbians, Web gossip and a French daredevil who climbs buildings. “Yes, he was climbing the New York Times building, perhaps looking to read the story about the administration misleading us into a war that you didn’t cover at all,” Stewart responded to one ABC News clip.
The angry Iraqi TV journalist whose name-calling and shoe-hurling upstaged President George W. Bush’s surprise visit to Iraq illustrated Iraq’s progress toward democracy, at least for columnist Roger L. Simon. He wrote: Iraq is “turning into a (somewhat) decent place to live. That buffoon-like shoe chucker – his name is Muntadhar al-Zeidi from Al-Baghdadia channel which broadcasts from Cairo – proved it. No matter what happens to al-Zeidi now (and it won’t be much if anything), it will be nothing like what would have happened to him if he had hurled a shoe at the president during the previous Iraqi administration of Saddam Hussein.”
