Informed Speculation

Hmmm…even I haven’t been THIS optimistic about the war:

Should we declare victory over al Qaeda in the battle of Iraq?

The very question would have seemed proof of dementia only a few months ago, yet now some highly respected military officers, including the commander of Special Forces in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, reportedly feel it is justified by the facts on the ground.

These people are not suggesting that the battle is over. They all insist that there is a lot of fighting ahead, and even those who believe that al Qaeda is crashing and burning in a death spiral on the Iraqi battlefields say that the surviving terrorists will still be able to kill coalition forces and Iraqis. But there is relative tranquility across vast areas of Iraq, even in places that had been all but given up for lost barely more than a year ago. It may well be that those who confidently declared the war definitively lost will have to reconsider.

Almost exactly 13 months ago, the top Marine intelligence officer in Iraq wrote that the grim situation in Anbar province would continue to deteriorate unless an additional division was sent in, along with substantial economic aid. Today, Marine leaders are musing openly about clearing out of Anbar, not because it is a lost cause, but because we have defeated al Qaeda there.

In Fallujah, enlisted marines have complained to an officer of my acquaintance: “There’s nobody to shoot here, sir. If it’s just going to be building schools and hospitals, that’s what the Army is for, isn’t it?” Throughout the area, Sunni sheikhs have joined the Marines to drive out al Qaeda, and this template has spread to Diyala Province, and even to many neighborhoods in Baghdad itself, where Shiites are fighting their erstwhile heroes in the Mahdi Army.

British troops are on their way out of Basra, and it was widely expected that Iranian-backed Shiite militias would impose a brutal domination of the city, That hasn’t happened. Lt. Col. Patrick Sanders, stationed near Basra, confirmed that violence in Basra has dropped precipitously in recent weeks. He gives most of the credit to the work of Iraqi soldiers and police.

As evidence of success mounts, skeptics often say that while military operations have gone well, there is still no sign of political movement to bind up the bloody wounds in the Iraqi body politic. Recent events suggest otherwise. Just a few days ago, Ammar al-Hakim, the son of and presumed successor to the country’s most important Shiite political leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, went to Anbar’s capital, Ramadi, to meet with Sunni sheikhs. The act, and his words, were amazing. “Iraq does not belong to the Sunnis or the Shiites alone; nor does it belong to the Arabs or the Kurds and Turkomen,” he said. “Today, we must stand up and declare that Iraq is for all Iraqis.”

Mr. Hakim’s call for national unity mirrors last month’s pilgrimage to Najaf, the epicenter of Iraqi Shiism, by Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni. There he visited Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shiite cleric. The visit symbolically endorsed Mr. Sistani’s role as the most authoritative religious figure in Iraq. Mr. Hashemi has also been working closely with Mr. Hakim’s people, as well as with the Kurds. Elsewhere, similar efforts at ecumenical healing proceed rapidly. As Robert McFarlane reported in these pages, Baghdad’s Anglican Canon, Andrew White, has organized meetings of leading Iraqi Christian, Sunni and Shiite clerics, all of whom called for nation-wide reconciliation.

The Iraqi people seem to be turning against the terrorists, even against those who have been in cahoots with the terror masters in Tehran. As Col. Sanders puts it, “while we were down in Basra, an awful lot of the violence against us was enabled, sponsored and equipped by. . . Iran. [But] what has united a lot of the militias was a sense of Iraqi nationalism, and they resent interference by Iran.”

Well, whether we are ‘winning’ in Iraq is in the eye of the beholder, and it’s a somewhat fruitless argument to get into.  It’s enough for me that things are improving…

UPDATE 6:34 p.m.: David Ignatius argues that the improvement in Iraq argues for a quicker reduction of troops – support troops, that is:

Let’s assume that the numbers from Iraq are right and that there has been a significant reduction in violence there. Let’s even agree that the Bush administration’s strategy is finally showing some success. Isn’t that an argument for accelerating the transfer of security to the Iraqis — and speeding up the withdrawal of some U.S. support troops?

U.S. military commanders are now discussing precisely these issues. Some argue that the Bush administration should seize the moment — and take advantage of its recent gains — by handing off more responsibility to Iraqis. That’s the definition of success in this mission, after all — to create enough security that we can bring most U.S. troops home.

Adm. William Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command, discussed the security improvements in a conversation last week. He said he focuses on two metrics every day: the number of U.S. combat deaths and the number of violent incidents in the country. As we talked on Tuesday, the total of U.S. combat deaths for October stood at just 15, the lowest in many months. The number of violent incidents was averaging in the low 60s per day, compared with 150 early this year when he assumed command of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

“I look at the numbers, and I say the success that General [David] Petraeus and the guys have made is amazing,” Fallon said. “But how do we leverage that to get the Iraqi government to take decisions that will provide enduring security? How do we help them take advantage of this?”

Fallon cautioned that the schedule “is where it ought to be” for a gradual reduction by next summer of the U.S. combat forces that do the fighting. But he said he is exploring with Petraeus and his other commanders “whether there is a way to take more of the support force out” on a quicker timetable.

…Politically, the Iraq debate has a markedly different tone than it did a few months ago. At the White House, the sense of political free fall is over. Officials feel they are on a stable glide path toward a reduced but still substantial troop presence when President Bush leaves office. It’s not exactly a military victory, with marching bands and flying flags, but it’s not a defeat either.The mood has changed on Capitol Hill as well. Congressional pressure for a quick pullout has eased, in part because Democratic leaders know they don’t have the votes. Meanwhile, the top two Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have both said they expect that U.S. troops will still be in Iraq when the next president takes office, and they have discussed what role this residual U.S. force should play.

The one certainty about Iraq is that a large U.S. troop presence isn’t acceptable over the long run, for Iraqis or Americans. So U.S. military commanders are wise to examine how to use the remarkable success of recent months to create alternatives that rely less on U.S. firepower. That’s really the challenge now in Iraq — how to seize the moment, rather than maintain the status quo.

I’ve got nothing in principle against reducing support troop levels – in fact, I would welcome it, with one proviso: it must come from the commanders and not the politicians…if they want it, and it doesn’t hurt the mission, then by all means, bring home as many folks as possible…