Wolf Howling: Ryan Crocker

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Iraq & A Needed Change That Will Not Occur

The editors of the Washington Post discuss today the many positive changes in Iraq, concluding that we are winning the war there. On that basis, they suggest that Obama and his fellow Democrats develop a plan to exploit the success, not cling to a vision of defeat and withdraw. It is a call likely to fall upon deaf ears.
_______________________________________________________

This today from the Washington Post:

There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war.

Lull? The WaPo editors can't be that clueless. MSM coverage is down 92% over 2007 and what little coverage there is tends to be incredibly twisted. This is not a lull, its the left-wing MSM waging their own war of agenda journalism on the Iraq war, highlighting the negative and ignoring success. Given the degree of success over the past year, the "lull" is fully understandable.

. . . [Tlhe Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. . . .

Iran is the single greatest threat to Iraq, to America and to the world. This is a zero sum game for the mad mullahs. A democratic Iraq that honors the millenia old Shia tradition of quietism poses a mortal threat to Iran's theocracy, built as it is upon Khomeini's bastardization of the Shia tradition with the velyat e faqi. Iran's imperative to export their revolution and the threat posed by Iraq mean that Iranian efforts to move the U.S. out of Iraq - as they are doing now over the SOFA agreement - and their deadly proxy war to subvert the Iraqi government will not end unless ended by force or the threat of force (see Next Moves in an Existential Chess Match). Iran's proxy war will intensify exponentially if the U.S. fully withdraws from Iraq.

. . . [T]he rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

. . . Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Read the entire post. Perhaps Obama will take the advice of the Washington Post, but I sincerely doubt it. The far left is absolutely wedded to the idea of declaring Iraq a defeat at any cost in order to both take political power and to discredit the right. Further, socialists that now dominate the left are not rational people.

Socialism is founded on the dogma that Western civilization is an oppressing force in the world. Thus, any use of force or continuation of force in order to better the situation of the U.S. - or any nation where socialists hold sway - will rarely, if ever, be tolerated. Interestingly, our modern socialists have no problem arguing that we should weigh in with military force in areas where U.S. strategic interests are not directly implicated, such as Obama's call for the U.S. to intervene in the Sudan. It truly is a logical disconnect that points to a tenuous grasp of reality. Therefore, I expect no one from the "surrender-now" caucus, including Obama, to allow the changing facts of Iraq and Iran to in any way sully their narrative or alter their future plans.

Iran and Lessons In Diplomacy

Although Iran met with the U.S. in Iraq several times in 2007 and gave assurances that they would stop the arming and funding of militias, their promises have proven false. To the contrary, there has been a sharp increase in the operational tempo of their proxy war since the start of 2008. Not surprisingly, Iran has refused to meet again with Ambasador Crocker to discuss security in Iraq. In February, they could not meet because of "scheduling difficulties." Today, they refuse to meet because of "Americans' massive attacks on the Iraqi people in various cities" - i.e., we are attacking their proxies, particularly in Sadr City. There are some clear lessons about the limits and advisability of diplomacy to be gleaned from our attempts to engage Iran.
___________________________________________________

The Washington Post is reporting that Iran is refusing to meet with our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to discuss the security situation in Iraq ostensibly because U.S. forces are attacking defenseless Iraqis in cities throughout the country. Why would they meet with us in 2006 and 2007, but not in 2008?

In 2006, it looked to the world as if the U.S. was going to pack its bags and go home, leaving Iraq to be divided between al Qaeda and Iran - obviously the desired outcome for Iran. The theocrats in Tehran were doing their part, giving money to all sides and executing a low level proxy war against the U.S., just enough to add to the mayhem without crossing the line that would bring the 82nd Airborne in on a night jump into Tehran. They only needed patience. And so they met with the U.S. and Iraq on several occasions to give empty assurances, merely awaiting the inevitable.

But then something happened on way to the mosque. Bush refused to blink, Petraeus executed a brilliant counterinsurgency plan, al Qaeda grossly overplayed its hand in the Sunni tribal regions, and PM Maliki grew into his office. So that when 2007 came to an end, Tehran had a major problem. Al Qaeda was strategically defeated, peace was decending, and the Iraqi government grew stronger each day. It was decision time for the mad mullahs.

Clearly the trajectory was towards the development of a strong, secular Iraqi government and a stable Iraq. That would be the worst possible outcome for Iran's theocracy. Their theocracy is deeply unpopular, their hold on their citizens is maintained by the gun, and their legitimacy is based on a philosphy representing a complete break with a millenium of Shia apolitical traditions. Thus, the decision was easy - step into the breach and increase the operational tempo of their proxy war against U.S. forces and the Iraqi government.

And that is precisely what the theocracy has done in 2008. Rockets were smuggled into Iraq and the Green Zone has been under steady bombardment throughout much of this year from the Sadrists. Sadrist proxies increased their attacks, and attempted to carry out bombings disguised as al Qaeda. According to intelligence, there was a surge of Iranian Qods force members into Iraq in February. And of course, there was the takeover of Basra once the British withdrew. Iran upped the ante considerably in an effort to turn the tide.

Here is where things get interesting. Though the U.S. has been complaining about IED attacks since early 2007 and pointing the finger at Iran, apparently PM Maliki and the Shia's dominating the Iraqi government with a plurality did not consider Iran a major threat. But then came Basra. When the Iraqi forces went into Basra to reestablish government control, they found themselves fighting people armed, funded, trained and quite possibly led by Iran. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have both said that Basra was the wake-up call for the Iraqi government. They now fully understand the extent of Iran's proxy war and its danger to their government.

All of that said, this leads one to suspect that Iran's refusal to meet with Ambassador Crocker and the Iraqi government in February was likely to forestall any complications from having to explain the increase in their operational tempo. With the Iraqi government seemingly not hostile in February, there was nothing to be gained from the meeting - and thus the "scheduling conflict." The same is true today's call for a meeting, though the information is all out in the open now and the Iraqi government is highly annoyed. There are no more scheduling conflicts. Rather Iran's refusal to meet now seems, as best I can assess, a weak attempt at spin aimed at an international audience and our Democrats. In any event, their refusal to meet is a tacit acknowledgment that they do not intend to change course.

Update: As discussed here, Iran did meet with an Iraqi delegation that travelled to Tehran recently carrying with it the evidence of Iran's acts of war inside Iraq. According to a member of the delegation, Iran refused to acknowledge the evidence, claimed it was not training, funding or arming the militias, and gave its assurances that it would respect Iraqi sovereignty. In other words, business as usual.

What are the lessons to be learned here. The first is that any agreement with Tehran isin't worth the paper its printed on. Anyone deeply familiar with the near thirty year history of Iran's mullahocracy knows that, but this is simply one more example. While their diplomats were promising greater security in Iraq, their Qods force was smuggling in rocketry for the Sadrists.

Two, while "we should never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate," we must not be so stupid as to attempt a negotation with a country that has shown no indication that it would do so in good faith. That is merely an invitation to be played and manipulated - and in Chamberlainesque fashion, encourage rather than discourage more aggressive behavior on Iran's part.

Three, and most importantly for our peace at all costs left, diplomacy is not a panacea. It will not cure all ills. It will not solve the problem of Iran's proxy war in Iraq if Iran is bent on turning Iraq into a mirror of Lebanon.