http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121270725304950289.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Along with the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal argues that the U.S. is on the verge of victory in Iraq. Seems like the ruling class is trying to shift the debate in the general election from "out when" to "how to achieve complete victory". I think we can expect to see a shift to the right in Obama's foreign policy rhetoric soon, specifically around Iraq. (See his speech to AIPAC). The main arguments being made for why the U.S. is winning in Iraq are the following:
1) The building and "political maturation" of the Iraqi Army, which has won key battles in Basra and Sadr City.
2) Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has broad support from different ethnic groups.
3) The support and collaboration of the Awakening Councils (Sunni militias) with the U.S. military on the ground.
4) Finally, the political and military weakness of Al-Sadr and his militia, which after the Sadr City attack has retreated back to Iran, under a misnamed "truce".
The main problem that the U.S. rulers face is that ordinary Iraqis do not like to be occupied. Which destabilizes all of the four points mentioned above. But I will try to take on the four points below:
1) Iraqi Army: It is true that the Iraqi army has been able to build itself almost to the point where it can begin fighting "it's own battles". After all, Maliki's push to take the port city, Basra, away from small militias and Sadr's forces was a political gamble, that tested the competence of his army. But it is also true, that the stability and strength of the Iraqi army is directly tied to the U.S. military, who financially and military supports the army. This is where the importance of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq falls in.
2) Broad Support for Maliki: The broad ethnic support for Maliki is very complicated to understand. Both Washington Post and Wall Street Journal assert this. First thing that can be said, is that it is true that Sunni militias have began to engage in activity in the Iraqi parliament, in which they had boycotted nine months ago. But does this mean that they support Maliki? Or that they support his latest offensive against the Mahdi Army led by the radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr? I think not!
3) Sunni-U.S. army alliance: The U.S. has been adding Sunni militias to its payroll, to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq, in what amounts to a united front against a common enemy. Nonetheless, this unity is built on false foundations. There is only so much money the U.S. can give to these militias. Secondly, these same Sunni militias still have an opposition to Prime Minister Maliki and to an ongoing occupation by the U.S. military, albeit in principle not strategy.
4) Weakening of Mahdi Army: It is true that the political strategy opted by Muqtada has been very difficult to understand. At times he is denouncing U.S. imperialism and the puppet government in Iraq, at other times he argues for a peaceful coexistence with the U.S. army and working with the Maliki government. But we should also remember that Muqtada is not just a politician but a commander and chief of the Mahdi Army. So what might look like a political retreat can really end up being a military retreat in which consolidating, planning, and building moral is crucial to any army. As the Time's magazine argued recently: "Sadr-Maliki conflict may cast Iraq into a deeper and more lasting crisis." http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1735034,00.html
P.S. Goodbye Hillary!
