Guardian piece on the Baghdad Dream Team

An excellent piece in the Guardian on Iraq, Gen. Petraeus and his dream team. It is a situation in flux, so both the left and right wing blogspheres will spin certain elements of the story (no doubt) to their own ends. Article here. (Hat tip newshog).

The article gets straight to the point, here's the beginning:

An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.

Could is probably too hedge betting a word. If in 6 months it the war is not won, 90% will force a hasty retreat. As always I think the framing of this as winning a war is a recipe itself for defeat because no such 100% victory is achievable in these situations, particularly within 6 months.

Insurgencies are ended by a strongman dictator, a brutal occupying power--and that would mean a la the British suppression of the Mau Mau Revolt in Kenya replete with public hangings, firing squads, burning down people's houses, certainly no push towards a native democracy, something the US military will not do (quite rightly)--or a de-centralization soft partition deal.

Then this:

By improving security, the plan's short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation, American officials say. If that works within the stipulated timeframe, longer term schemes for rebuilding Iraq under the so-called "go long" strategy will be set in motion.

In other words the strategy including the surge has not really changed. This is my major critique and fear. I do not believe any real push towards national reconciliation is forthcoming. It has had 3-4 years to gel and hasn't, the longer the sectarian violence grows, the more their base ethnic populations want revenge, positions harden, and no such reconciliation is possible in my view.

As the article notes the chronic problems facing Petraeus and his team are:

--Insufficient troops on the ground
--A "disintegrating" international coalition
--An anticipated increase in violence in the south as the British leave
--Morale problems as casualties rise
--A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad.

Those opposed to increasing troops will point to 1,2,3,4
Those for (and against the growing anti-war tide) will point to proof as 5

But the biggest problem:

was insufficient troops on the ground despite the increase ordered by President Bush, the former official said. "We don't have the numbers for the counter-insurgency job even with the surge. The word 'surge' is a misnomer. Strategically, tactically, it's not a surge," an American officer said. According to the US military's revised counter-insurgency field manual, FM 3-24, written by Gen Petraeus, the optimum "troop-to-task" ratio for Baghdad requires 120,000 US and allied troops in the city alone. Current totals, even including often unreliable Iraqi units, fall short and the deficit is even greater in conflict areas outside Baghdad.

120,000 in Baghdad alone.

But expect the right wing to pick up on this:

"It's amazing how well morale has held up so far," the former official said. "But the guys know what's being said back home. There is no question morale is gradually being sapped by political debates."

I think however the key issue is the following:

The advisers are also said to be struggling to prevent the "politicisation" of the surge by the Shia-dominated government. The fear is that any security advances may be exploited to further weaken the position of Baghdad's Sunni minority. Despite progress this week on a new law sharing Iraq's oil wealth, the Petraeus team believes the government is failing to work hard enough to meet other national reconciliation "benchmarks" set by Mr Bush.Yet it is accepted that the US is asking the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to do what most politicians in normal circumstances would refuse to contemplate. "What we're doing is asking Maliki to confront his own powerbase," one officer said.

Moreover,

US officials say they also have rising hopes of a breakthrough in Sunni-dominated Anbar province where tribal chiefs are increasingly hostile to al-Qaida and foreign fighters - and are looking to build bridges with moderate Shias. But this week's US decision to join talks on Iraq with Iran and Syria, after previously refusing to do so, is nevertheless seen as an indication of the administration's growing alarm at the possibility of a historic strategic failure.

I would see those are not necessarily opposed but as necessarily related pieces. There is independent verification of the Sunni tribes heading away from al-Qaeda with the recent bombing of a Sunni mosque whose imam opposed AQ in Iraq. The problem is there are no moderate Shias. The Sunni tribal leaders, in fact everybody knows the Americans are on their way out, this is what the regional conference is about. This administration would not come anywhere near Syria and Iran without their being forced into a corner to do so. But strangely America is still the largest power broker. This is the administration's moment to make the best of the worst. The last shot at influence on a longer term settlement to the newly configured Middle East.

The casualties are going to rise, the suicide and truck bombings and death squads can not be stopped but slowed down (a bit one hopes). As Petraeus knows the issue is the political settlement. There are no statesmen in Iraq only partisan politicians. The Sunni tribesman should come to the US, the US should start figuring out what deal can give them their own autonomous region. At this point reversing de-Baathification is not enough. And the regional players can not be overlooked. All of them. They not the US--whose dreams of long term bases in Iraq (other than Kurdistan?) looks less and less likely by the day.

Then this concluding analysis:

A senior Pentagon official said this week that it was too early to gauge the strategy's chances of success - but preliminary reports were encouraging. "There are some promising signs. There is a new overall Iraqi commander in Baghdad. A number of joint operations have just begun. The number of political murders has fallen. Iraqi forces are showing up as promised, admittedly a little bit under strength, and are taking up some of the responsibilities that Maliki said he would,"he said. "We have to be realistic. We're not going to stop the suicide bombers and the roadside explosive devices for some time. And the military alone are certainly not going to solve the problem. Maliki has to meet the benchmarks. A civilian surge is needed, too. The Iraqis have to do it themselves."

My position had been that the surge with the better non-kinetics was a good counter-insurgency tactic but was handicapped by being lodged to a political deal that I felt was unrealistic and perhaps exacerbating the situation. The administration could and must restart the number of state owned factories that Paul Bremer in his infinite Milton Friedman-inspired wisdom decided could be handled by the "free market". He shut more than a hundred down, putting God only knows how many men out of work. Jobless men without money to feed their families, desperate, with easy access to weaponry....hmmm what could that situation bring on?

Also I said the plan would not work without a regional pow wow. We have yet to see how the administration acts in this platform--will it actually be interested in stabilization or in mouthing off platitudes and putting on bluster? If the latter, the thing is useless. Unless they are willing to deal, it ain't gonna make a difference.

I also said that because of the political issue, the Americans would continue to win battles (i.e. positives coming out of the surge so far) but would continue to lose the peace (Maliki does not meet benchmarks). To me the right focuses only on the winning battles and then assumes winning battles means winning the peace. Back when some people on the right were in the blame Iraqis meme for our loss, as cynical as that was, they at least were on to something, namely they were highly suspicious of Maliki and the Sunni politicians. That healthy skepticism has seemed to vanish a bit.

The left conversely (or majority elements thereof) focuses only on the losing the war (peace). The left is setting themselves up for another Vietnam-like move by the right: we were moments away from winning until you pulled the plug. That is why the Dems should have been and be saying we won the war, lost the peace. The hardline right will take any information they can to prove they were moments away from victory to blame the left.