| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| American "Surge" to success, British "Slump" to failure - Times of London |
| 2007-12-17 |
| By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today returning home. The cheering has, of course, to come accompanied by caveats. Security has certainly been improved, but it remains fragile. Basra and the surrounding areas, handed back by Britain yesterday, are not as violent as they were a few months ago but this comparative peace has been bought at a high price in terms of tolerating intolerance (particularly towards women). Also, there is a telling contrast between what has been won by the American “surge” and lost through the British “slump”. We once boasted about the virtues of a “softly-softly” style, allegedly honed in Northern Ireland, but the truth is that the British Forces have been so softly-softly that the local militias long ago decided that we were not very serious about using our troops to exercise influence. The Baghdad Government is not impressive and what progress there has been is despite, not because of it. There is much hard work to be done if a constitutional settlement is to be completed. Yet none of this should detract from what has been achieved in Iraq so unexpectedly this year. First, the country will now have the time to establish itself. A year ago it seemed as if American forces would have been withdrawn in ignominious fashion either well before the end of the Bush Administration or, at best, days after the next president came to office. This will not now happen. The self-evident success of the surge has obliged the Democrats to start talking about almost anything else and the calls to cut and run have abated. If the US Army remains in Iraq in strength, continuing on its present path, then deals on a constitution and the division of oil revenues between provinces will be realised. Secondly, the aspiration that Iraq could be some sort of “beacon” in the region is no longer ridiculous. It will never be Sweden with beards, but there has been the development of a vibrant capitalist class and a media of a diversity that is unique in the region. Were Iraq to emerge with a federal political structure, regular local and national elections and an economic dynamism in which the many, not the few, could share, then it would be a model. Finally, Iraq in 2007 has illustrated that the words “intelligent American policy” are not an oxymoron. The tragedy is that the approach of General David Petraeus could and should have been adopted four years ago in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's enforced departure. One prominent American politician alone has spent that time publicly demanding the extra soldiers which, in 2007, have been Iraq's salvation. That statesman is John McCain. Is it too much to hope (let alone predict) that he will reap his reward at the polls in 2008? |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #5 Joe is speaking English, it's just a more fun, and highly filtered version. What better way to protests ones country than to never grant it the honor of a child. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-12-17 20:03 |
| #4 Joe, will you please speak honest to goodness English for a change? |
| Posted by: mom 2007-12-17 19:41 |
| #3 I agree 'moose. The British did what needed to be done. They never would have the numbers of troops for a "surge", but couldn't pull out. So, they maintained the status quo. Not a great mission, but it was the only one they could do. And considering, they did the best with what they had. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-12-17 19:20 |
| #2 Compare wid REDDIT > woman says she'll never get laid = have sex in Britain ever again. Okay, I'll bite, what the ???????. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-12-17 19:16 |
| #1 They get some of it, but are still way off base in other ways. To start off with, from the very beginning, the British assumed that the Americans were "arrogant", but that they, the British "understood Arabs". In truth, the Americans were "objective" about Arabs, had few assumptions about them, so treated them at face value. If they behaved well, they were treated well. If they behaved poorly, then they would be treated with firmness. Americans had no illusions or self-deceptions about who they were dealing with, so believed that "actions speak louder than words." And if you treat everyone with cautious respect, as if they are equal, they will notice that. A well-dressed, charming liar who puts on airs is less appreciated than an honest beggar. However, the British "arrogantly" assumed that they knew "the Arab way", so didn't seek to change the status quo, accepting too much bad behavior and with a willingness to allow might to make right. The British did one thing right, however, in "holding down the fort" in the more peaceful part of the country while the US tended to business elsewhere. Just doing that, with few numbers, was good enough for the time being. Now, with the rest of the country coming under control, the US can move South in great numbers, and "try things the American way". And having seen what the US can do in the rest of the country, the Shiites will be far less inclined to cut up rough. The US and IA will bust up any small efforts down South to create little "Talibanates", and the majority will support that. So the British accomplished what was needed. No real honor or glory, but there never were enough of them to have any of that anyway. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-12-17 19:12 |