Posted on 07/26/2008 10:48:10 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
As recently as the first half of 2007, the idea of an American victory in Iraq seemed like a fantasy to just about everyone, including me. General David Petraeus surged additional troops to Iraq, however, and he transformed the joint American-Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy into what nearly all observers now acknowledge is a remarkable and unexpected success. Few bothers to argue otherwise anymore. What remains ambiguous and contested is the definition of an American victory.
It’s slightly tricky for a couple of reasons. Pinpointing the exact date when a counterinsurgency ends – not just in Iraq, but any counterinsurgency – is impossible. There are no final battles. There can’t be. And if we don’t know when the war is over, it can be difficult to figure out what over even means in the first place. So how will we know if we’ve won?
Part of the problem here is that the war in Iraq is usually thought of as a single war in Iraq. But there have been at least three wars in Iraq since 2003 – the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party regime, the civil war between Sunni and Shia militias, and the insurgencies against government and international forces waged by a constellation of guerrilla and terrorist groups. All three wars are distinct from each other, and two of the three are already over.
The war against Saddam Hussein and his government ended when the regime was overthrown and what remained of its army was disbanded. You might say it didn’t officially end until he was captured in December of 2003, but he effectively lost when he was demoted from absolute dictator to fugitive. No matter what else might happen, Saddam Hussein will never be considered victorious.
The civil war between Sunni and Shia militias likewise is over. We know that now because we can look back in hindsight. Not one single person was killed in ethno-sectarian conflict in May or June of this year. That particular conflict had been winding down since December of 2006 when the monthly casualties began freefalling in an almost straight line from a high of more than 2,000 a month down to nothing. Nobody won that war. It’s just over.
Casualties from insurgent warfare haven’t slacked off as completely, but they have almost slacked off as completely. If all violent trends continue in their current downward directions, this war, too, will taper off to non-existence or relative insignificance. We’ll know in hindsight, too, when that war finally is over after no has been killed by insurgents for a few months.
What looks now like the last gasp dying gasp of the various anti-Iraqi insurgencies is all that remains of these various wars in Iraq. If attacks against the Iraqi government and multinational forces drop off to zero or near zero, it ought to go without saying that the insurgent groups will have lost and the counterinsurgents will have won.
Whether these wars were worth fighting or not may be debated forever. Determining the winners and losers, though, is short and obvious work as long as the three conflicts are properly understood to be separate.
We won that one
the civil war between Sunni and Shia militias,
From all accounts that one is over
and the insurgencies against government and international forces waged by a constellation of guerrilla and terrorist groups.
Al-Qaeda is on the run, but not totally beaten. Iran is now in a dormancy. Sadr is greatly suppressed.
Victory?
As is the resst of the Democrat Party.
Omamason will make that wars 2 & 3 disappear if he chooses to withdraw out troops too rapidly.
This quote from a Sunni religious leader sums-up the Sunni mindset after the Shiite death squads went to work in 2006. The Association has been an obstacle in the way of entry of our sons (Sunnis) into the ranks of the Army and the police. ... [In] April 2005 more [than] 60 Iraqi clerics gathered and we published a fatwa (in favor of) joining the ranks of the Army and the police.
The Association's leaders announced on the television screens that the Association disavows this fatwa, and they took into account members of the Association who issued the fatwa with us. Because of this, tens of thousands of our people have been reluctant to volunteer in the ranks of the Army and the police. ... [This decision] upset the balance [and led to a] catastrophe.
I disagree with the term "war" to describe the separate contretemps that took place here after the invasion.
... the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party regime,
Now that was a war and I believe it encompasses all of the events that followed.
the civil war between Sunni and Shia militias,
I have never seen that as a civil war, but more of an attempt by al Qaeda and JAM to start one. The Iraqi people never really bought into that and have also scoffed at the term "civil war."
and the insurgencies against government and international forces waged by a constellation of guerrilla and terrorist groups.
Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda working together which is no longer happening. Again, I believe this was just all part of the one war which began with the invasion in 2003.
Just my two cents. And I suppose it mostly boils down to semantics. ;-)
You are wrong, it isn’t just semantics. You are, however, right about everything else. Finally someone who understands what a “war” is. I could not possibly articulate how angry it made me to hear, constantly, that we were losing the War in Iraq.
The Marxist/Terrorist-loving fifth column, along with Democrats who loved their party in power, more than their country, did everything in their power to define this war as Vietnam and as another embarrassing loss for our brave troops. This time it didn’t work.
When the allies said the war was over and called it Victory Day in WW2; did the press say we were losing the war that we had already won just because the enemy had some remaining insurgents? Would the media have taken that victory away had the Germans or Japanese started blowing themselves up in the midst of innocents? Are we also losing the war in Detroit, Chicago, LA, Atlanta. The media has been contemptible bordering on treasonous during this war and the Democrats have fallen somewhere short of pond scum.
They were all beating the drums of war harder than Bush ever dared before he was elected. As I said, they loved being in power more than their country. It kinda makes me feel good to know someone knows a war when they see one, and when they don’t. Excellent analysis.
"THERE IS NO CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ."
The other was:
"THE MEDIA LIES. WE ARE NOT LOSING THIS WAR. THIS IS GOING TO WORK."
bttt
Well done. If only we could have got those statements the same amount of media play that the defeatist, quagmire rhetoric received. :)
No small feat there.
Thanks Allegra, I read your post during those dark days and they gave me hope that our Iraqi effort would succeed.
Yes, Victory!
BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.