That’s what independent journalist Michael Yon passed on to Glenn Reynolds in a phone call today.
Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad, and reports that things are much better than he had expected, and he had expected things to be good. “There’s nothing going on. I’m with the 10th Mountain Division, and about half of the guys I’m with haven’t fired their weapons on this tour and they’ve been here eight months. And the place we’re at, South Baghdad, used to be one of the worst places in Iraq. And now there’s nothing going on. I’ve been walking my feet off and haven’t seen anything. I’ve been asking Iraqis, ‘do you think the violence will kick up again,’ but even the Iraqi journalists are sounding optimistic now and they’re usually dour.” There’s a little bit of violence here and there, but nothing that’s a threat to the general situation. Plus, not only the Iraqi Army, but even the National Police are well thought of by the populace. Training from U.S. toops has paid off, he says, in building a rapport.
Good news if true. Realistically, I think there will be occasional car bombs and IED’s going off in Iraq for the foreseeable future but, hopefully, the place won’t degenerate into civil war as it looked that it might a year or so ago.
And if it’s true I’d have no problem at all with removing at least some of the troops we have there. Frankly, I’m skeptical that productive use can be made of them in Afghanistan but that seems to be the way the political winds are blowing.
As to what we won in Iraq, I’m open to suggestion. Today, this minute, it’s certainly not the model of democracy that the invasion’s neo-con supporters were hoping for. Might it be in the future? Sure. The future is a long time.
The Shi’a Arabs are certainly significantly better off than they were under Saddam and the Kurds aren’t subject to the same dangers they were under Saddam. The Sunni Arabs not so much. The polls that I’ve seen suggest that quite a few Iraqis are nostalgic about the good old days. Maybe I’ll dive back into the Iraqi blogosphere to see what people are saying. The last time I checked the Iraqi blogosphere was virtually moribund.
Right now it appears to me that today’s Iraq is de facto partitioned into semi-autonomous Kurdish, Shi’a Arab, and Sunni Arab territories which, in the fullness of time, may learn to trust and depend on each other more. Or not.
At least there are fewer people being killed than were a year ago and fewer than might have been killed had things gone on as they were. That’s something we can all be thankful for.
I think what we “won” is a measure of stability. Stability is more in our interest than anything else. Who knows if it will last or how long.
Yeah, that’s why I supported our continued military involvement there although I’d opposed the invasion.
This is not something anyone’s going to want to try again soon.
What stability is that? We traded an impoverished, pariah, Sunni-dominated state that had served as a bulwark against Iranian influence (a bulwark that could be dangerous to the rest of the Arab World, but a bulwark none the less) in exchange for a Shiite-dominated state that will at best be a neutral player between the US and Iran once we leave in 2011* due to various factors including religious and political ties to Iran, and the probable need of the Iraqi government for military hardware. A state that will be right on the doorstep of the Sunni powers in the area, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Was that worth north of half a trillion dollars, if not more? I can see why the King of Saudi Arabia was (and is) pissed about the whole affair.
*If you read Bob Woodward’s latest book, The War Within, there’s a part near the end where Condoleeza Rice talks about Iran – about how we’ve created this environment where the Sunnis and the Israelis are in our camp, and we’ve got soldiers and bases right next door to the Iranians. So much for that order, hmm?
Brett:
I doubt anyone is making the argument that this was all worthwhile. It’s like falling off a bridge and managing to survive: you’re glad you survived, but not in a hurry to fall off another bridge.
That’s true – I misinterpreted Andy’s comment.
Still, you get people who argue that it was good for us to go in because otherwise, when Saddam inevitably died, there would have been a power struggle, and Iraq would be the Balkans of the Middle East. Somehow, I’m less than convinced – and even if it had, then we could have invaded Iraq with a UN mandate or what not.
“The War Is Over and We Wonâ€
I have to admit that I am hard pressed to see that we have won anything. I was against the war from the beginning, and I was against the Surge as well, but not for the same reasons. I was against the war because #1, we already had one going, #2, I saw nothing to indicate that Saddam could not continue to be contained by other means, #3, the laws of unintended consequences. I was against the Surge simply because I didn’t think it would work. So far, I am still more right than wrong (remember the “Benchmarks�).
Still, I am happy to say that I have been proven to be at least partially wrong. The Surge, in conjunction with the An-bar Awakening and the al Sadr ceasefire have provided a measure of security to the Iraqi’s that less than 2 years ago seemed a pipe dream. They have been given an opportunity. Time will tell what they will do with it.
Time will tell, if it was worth it.
As long as the place is no longer a state supporter of terrorism, and likely to remain that way, it’s a win.
The neo-cons didn’t get everything they wanted, whoever the Hell they were in the first place. I’m not sure I saw any in Iraq, perhaps they should wear nametags.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/11/re-war-is-over-and-we-won.html