Having more troops and a new mission to secure whole neighborhoods is a good idea, but the crucial question is, will military progress lead to political progress?
American forces have won every battle they have fought in Iraq. Having more troops and a new mission to secure whole neighborhoods is a good idea.
NEWSWEEK's Michael Hastings, embedded with an American advisory team that took part in the fighting against Sunni insurgents in and around Baghdad's Haifa Street last week, reports that no more than 24 hours after the battle began on Jan. 6, the brigade's Sunni commander, Gen. Razzak Hamza, was relieved of his command. Directly from the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki - a Shiite.
Lt. Col. Steven Duke, commander of a U.S. advisory team working with the Iraqis describes Hamza as "a true patriot [who] would go after the bad guys on either side." Hamza was replaced by a Shiite. Groups like Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army don't generally start fire fights with the Americans or attack Iraqi forces.
Maj. Mark Brady, confirms reports that the Mahdi Army has been continuing to systematically take over Sunni neighborhoods, killing, terrorizing and forcing people out of their homes. "They're slowly moving across the river," he told Hastings, from predominantly Shiite eastern Baghdad into the predominantly Sunni west. If the 20,000 additional American troops being sent to the Iraqi capital focus primarily on Sunni insurgents, there's a chance the Shiite militias might get bolder.
So what will happen if Bush's new plan "succeeds" militarily over the next six months? Sunnis will become more insecure as their militias are dismantled. Shiite militias will lower their profile on the streets and remain as they are now, ensconced within the Iraqi Army and police. That will surely make Sunnis less likely to support the new Iraq. Shiite political leaders, on the other hand, will be emboldened. Remain uncompromising, as they traditionally have been.
The Maliki government, and the Shiite leadership more generally, understand that they must crack down on militias and compromise with the Sunnis. Why? In the words of one anonymous senior U.S. official because Shiite political leaders understand they no longer have "unquestioning American support anymore, especially from Capitol Hill." This suggests that the administration finally understands that Bush's blank-check policy for the Iraqi government has proved totally counterproductive. The one action that might be forcing the Iraqi leadership to make some compromises has been the threat that Congress would force a withdrawal of American support.
the dominant flaw in the Bush administration's handling of Iraq is that it has, both intentionally and inadvertently, driven the country's several communities apart. Every seemingly neutral action—holding elections, firing Baathists from the bureaucracy, building up an Iraqi military and police force—has had seismic sectarian consequences. The greatest danger of Bush's new strategy, then, isn't that it won't work but that it will—and thereby push the country one step further along the road to all-out civil war. Only a sustained strategy of pressure on the Maliki government has any chance of averting this outcome.
Otherwise Al-Queda will gain Sunni support, US ideals will be tarnished. The US will be aiding in ethnic cleansing.
