Better News In Iraq
 |
Alex Knapp | Wednesday, May 21, 2008 |
Kevin Drum comments on yesterday’s Sadr City operation:
And it’s worth saying that the March operation in Basra looks better now than it did at the time too. The conduct of the Iraqi troops was spotty and the Iranian influence in bringing the fighting to an end was obviously problematic, but in the end government forces did take control of most of the city and have restored relative peace.Add to that today’s promising start to the Sadr City operation, the continued cooperation of the Sunni tribes, and the sustained reduction in overall violence, and Iraq’s prospects look better than they have for a while. It’s still true, among other things, that the status of Kirkuk hasn’t been resolved; that arming the Sunnis poses long-term stability problems; that Sadr’s intentions are murky and he may just be biding his time; that the Iranians seem to be calling a lot of the shots; and that Nouri al-Maliki still doesn’t really have a functioning government. Only an ostrich would pretend that prosperity is just around a bend in the Tigris. Still, there’s been some genuine progress over the past few months, enough to make me feel a bit of hope for Iraq’s future for the first time in years.
I have to concur with Kevin that things are looking better in Iraq. They’re a long, long way from good, but they’re better–so far, anyway. I’m going to be wary of declaring any kind of sustained improvement until after this fall’s elections, though. In additional to Kevin’s concerns above, there’s also these: If Maliki’s coalition falls, which remains a possibility, will he step down quietly? Will the elections even be fair? And what about the Sunnis, who are developing their own parallel system along mafia lines? Will the Kurds ever integrate into the Iraqi government?
The fundamental tensions threatening Iraq are still there, and it’s way too early to tell if they will be resolved.
About the Author: Alex has a B.S. in Biochemistry from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a J.D. from the University of Kansas School of Law. He has been published in the Kansas City Star, TCS Daily, and Comic Book Resources. He joined the staff of OTB in June 2006. Additionally, he’s been writing at Heretical Ideas since October, 2001, and also reviews cigars at Cigar Jack's Cigar News and Reviews.
- Major Issues Remain Up in the Air in Iraq
- Iraq Cease-Fire Over
- Maliki Cracks Down on the Sons of Iraq
- Iraqi Militias Disbanding Under Pressure?
- Basra Mess Proves Surge Success!
- Iraqi Troops ‘Switch’ Sides, Fight with Madhi Army
- AQI Leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri Arrested UPDATE: Mistaken Identity
- Iraq Defense Minister: At Least 10 More Years of Occupation
- Democracy at Gunpoint
- Al-Maliki Vows Crackdown in Baghdad
- Caption Contest Winners
- The Political Economy of the U.S. Mortgage Default Crisis
- The Democrats and the Shock Doctrine
- Obama and Europe
- Supreme Court to Decide on Obama Citizenship
- International Implications of the Drop in Oil Prices (Updated)
- Obama’s Bipartisan Cabinet
- More Votes Found - Franken Hurt
- Caption Contest
- OTB Latenight - Paul Simon
- BernardFinel.com linked with Better News in Iraq?
The question now is are they fixing the problems, or just suppressing the symptoms? As long as Al Sadr retains his authority and his militia, there will be a possibility that violence will resume. As enough time passes, that probability approach 1.
Michael, the elimination of all violence as a condition of success is a non-starter. Been to Chicago lately? Or Washington, D.C.?
Do you ever contemplate why you always post on the conspiratorial worst case first?
So either Obama is going to be a liar and not pull out the troops or he is going to reverse the progress and pull out the troops before they should be removed.
Michael, the elimination of all violence as a condition of success is a non-starter.
True enough, but at the same time, suppressing symptoms isn't enough to call it a cure either.
Do you ever contemplate why you always post on the conspiratorial worst case first?
Um, how can saying "Hey, the guy causing the violence still has the same ability to cause violence that he had before" possibly be considered the "conspiratorial worst case"?
That's like saying "Sure Osama bin Laden is still on the lose as head of Al Qaeda, but it's only a conspiratorial worst case scenario to think he'll cause more of the same violence in the future".
So either Obama is going to be a liar and not pull out the troops or he is going to reverse the progress and pull out the troops before they should be removed.
Were US troops involved in this latest operation?
Comments are Closed
