Given their history, maybe a reasoned commentary on the Iraq war would be too much to expect from the Tribune's editorial board. But here they go again, echoing President Bush's calls for more time to execute an impossible mission:
And they [Army Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker] probably didn't change many minds in Congress in their two days of testimony this week. But that's a symptom of a politics that has hardened on the issue of Iraq. Petraeus and Crocker had a compelling story to tell this week. The U.S. troop surge has been successful. Violence has declined significantly. Political progress is happening. That has created conditions that allow the U.S. to reduce troop strength from the surge level.
Let's recap. Less than one month ago, Petraeus himself told The Washington Post that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services. And the goal of the "surge," according to our Commander in Chief?
Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
If it's actual political reconciliation we're after, the episode in Basra last month should prove that our military efforts are actually disrupting potential improvements.
(More after the jump ...)
Ian Moss at the Center for American Progress explains:
U.S. military intervention in these political power plays undermines national political reconciliation by conveniently strengthening particular groups at the expense of promoting national reconciliation through inclusive democratic processes. Sadr is not going away, nor is his power waning. The same holds true for the Sunni Awakening groups empowered and paid for by the U.S. government.
The constant maneuver for power, which is at the heart of Iraq’s violence and instability, has only one solution, and it is political. The surge hasn’t worked, nor will more extended military efforts by the United States, which will only result in short-term, even fleeting gains in security. The long-term security situation will not improve until Iraq’s leaders begin to compromise and share power without resorting to force or political craftiness to marginalize opponents.
Nonetheless, the Tribune editorial concludes:
There is a way forward—and out of Iraq. This is a war where almost nothing since the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statute has gone as planned. And it's a war where military progress has been far easier to measure—and believe—than political progress. This is a country where Shiite, Sunni and Kurd still grapple for power, where tribal alliances could unravel, where Iran's malign influence is growing, where Al Qaeda is staggered but not defeated.
But Petraeus and Crocker gave a more confident assessment that the U.S. is making progress toward a withdrawal based not on retreat, but on success.
Despite the Tribune's assertions to the contrary, withdrawal would not be retreating and success in an occupation is not achievable. And the hearings over the last two days were nothing more than P.R. stunts, and should be understood as such.
Post new comment