I'll believe that there has been real progress in Iraq when the President's arrival doesn't have to be a complete secret beforehand.
For a refutation of the administration's publicity campaign, see Paul Krugman today.
Last month, I suggested that the movement of Sunnis toward the Americans in al Anbar province is not a sign of success in the war, but preparation for all-out war with the Shia once we leave Iraq. While I still think that is the case, my comment did not discuss the significance, if any, of the Sunni rejection of al Qaeda. Is this a real denial of the extremist Sunni position that bin Laden and his people represent? Is it a sign that there is an Iraqi identity--that Iraqi Sunnis might feel more kinship with Iraqi Shia than with al Qaeda? Those possibilities must be considered.
Still, we do not know how extensive this change--if it is a change--has been. Are foreign fighters still entering Iraq? Are they finding safe havens outside of Fallluja, which has been the poster for alleged American progress? These questions need to be answered before we can say if there has been more than ephemeral progress.
Finally, let's remember that in the best case put forth by administration apologists, we are back to square one: an Iraq without al Qaeda. Which is where we came in. Which is just one of the reasons why the war was a dumb idea from the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment