The "War Room" is meant to foster discussion about the world and US foreign policy. The editors believe that everyone has a right and a duty to be heard about what gets done in our name. So we invite you to argue, blame, bloviate, criticize, discuss, praise, rant, read, and write right here. Please have at least some evidence to back up what you've got to say.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Another Report from the U.S. Military in Iraq

Here's another report from my colleague who has two sons who have served in the military in Iraq and also civilian jobs in Iraq. Is this an optimistic picture?

"Both [of our correspondent's sons] have been in Iraq in both their military and civilian jobs. They tell me that the combination of the "surge" and the agreement of the Sunni leaders in Anbar Province to cooperate against the insurgents (probably a misnomer because so many of the terrorists/insurgents are from places other than Iraq) has allowed for significant progress, but that we can not expect a 100% solution. The best we can expect is what they call a 75% solution within the next 24 months, which is Obama's time frame for withdrawal anyway.

They define a 75% solution as a country that is a functioning democracy but still with conflicts and occasional violence between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds; and, unfortunately, continued, but declining, corruption. Oil production is now higher than it was under Saddam Hussein and most of the systems (schools, medical, civil service) are functioning at least as well as they did under Hussein. However, they are not functioning as well as we, as Americans would expect, and there is still corruption within those systems.

Both were there within the last 6 months so probably have a pretty good handle on the situation on the ground. The Iraqis do not want us there. . . but do not want us to leave either. They do not yet have faith in their own police and military institutions to provide security for the country, although they admit that the military and police are improving."

Monday, October 26, 2009

Why?




The two horrific suicide bombings on Sunday in Baghdad may have killed 150 or more people. What I don't get is the motive. What is accomplished by such acts? Can they really be meant simply to demonstrate the Iraqi government's weakness? Surely they can't be meant to attract any kind of popular support - and it seems to me they only serve to slow down the U.S. disengagement from the country. What possible ends do such atrocities serve?

Photo by Joao Silva for New York Times; at http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/10/25/world/20091025-BAGHDAD_index.html