To the Editor:
Peter Wehner surveys the reactions of liberal pundits to the “surge” in Iraq, and finds them to have been both too pessimistic about its potential and too unwilling to acknowledge its ultimate successes in stabilizing Iraq [“Liberals and the Surge,” November 2008]. But he does not examine such naysaying beyond the surface, and in at least one case ends up being unfair. I have followed Peter Galbraith’s analysis of the war almost since the beginning, and contrary to what Mr. Wehner suggests, it has been almost totally consistent throughout, and squarely based on the realities on the ground.
The reason for Galbraith’s dismissal of the importance of the surge is that, independent of American military action, three major internal factors in Iraq helped dramatically reduce violence. First, before the surge began, the Sunnis revolted against al Qaeda. Second, the Shiites got serious about politics and the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr had his militia undertake a unilateral cease fire. Third, the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad by the Shiites had left the city without mixed communities, which made it harder for rival sects to strike randomly at one another.
The surge was indeed a factor in helping the Sunnis root out al Qaeda. The construction of walls around Baghdad neighborhoods, done under the auspices of the surge, certainly helped reduce sectarian violence. But let us not overstate what has been achieved. The American occupation is still overwhelmingly condemned in all parts of Iraq except Kurdistan. Millions of Iraqis cannot return to their homes in areas controlled by rival religious groups. True, liberals were wrong to think the surge would do nothing, but what is of more interest is the fact that conservatives have ignored these larger political factors and continue to assert that the surge alone is what had brought us to the verge of “victory” in Iraq. There is an almost pathological avoidance on the Right of non-military considerations.
Whose interests have been served in the period since the surge was announced? The Iraqi Shiites have control of the government; the Sunnis have some protection from overwhelming Shiite domination; the Kurds have virtual independence and good relations with Iran. And Iran appears to be the biggest winner: a party that it helped create runs the Iraqi government, its arch-enemy Saddam Hussein is dead, its power and prestige in the region is as great as it has ever been—and all this occurred without its having to send a single company of troops outside its borders or spend more than a pittance on arms and training for its clients in Iraq.
The only party whose interests have not been advanced by the “success” of the surge is the United States. It has paid dearly for the Iraq war in blood and treasure, and is by no means assured to leave behind an Iraq that is democratic or friendly to its interests.
Tony Duncan
Brattleboro, Vermont
_____________
To the Editor:
Peter Wehner may be too premature in announcing the surge a great success. It was, to be sure, a necessary response to the insufficient levels of American troops on the ground. But if I have insufficient funds in my checking account, it is no great example of financial prowess to deposit the necessary monies. Violence has indeed gone down, but we have in the meantime suffered an enormous loss of prestige. As for our larger aims in Iraq—political reconciliation and a stable government—well, the jury is still out.
Jules Freedman
Cincinatti, Ohio
_____________
To the Editor:
Peter Wehner’s article is a very important contribution to the understanding of the Iraq war and all the political and psychological forces at play. It should be required reading in all schools throughout the land.
P.T. Sargent
Westlake Village, California
_____________
To the Editor:
Thanks for Peter Wehner’s article. This is the first time I have seen someone assimilate all the critical opinions of the surge and put them in perspective. I was moved by his account of how things have improved in Iraq and how the people there are now free from the tyranny and oppression of Saddam Hussein’s regime. All honor to the administration for staying in the fight, and to the men and women in the military who have served honorably for a cause that is just and right.
Todd Cox
Wilmington, North Carolina
_____________
Peter Wehner writes:
There is a lot to untangle in Tony Duncan’s letter. He thinks I was unfair to Peter Galbraith by not delving into his analysis of the Iraq war. But I was writing a very different essay from the one Mr. Duncan would have had me write. (For one thing, his mandate would have meant a multivolume book.) As for what I did cite—Galbraith’s prediction in 2007 that the surge “has no chance of actually working”—Mr. Duncan’s letter does nothing to convince me that it was anything other than emphatically wrong.
I do not know which conservative writers Mr. Duncan has been reading. The ones I am familiar with betray no “avoidance,” pathological or otherwise, of non-military considerations. I myself have written time and again that the Anbar Awakening pre-dated the surge, and that there is no single cause for the turnabout we have seen in Iraq.
But let us not understate what the surge has done. The sheikhs of Anbar have themselves testified to the crucial, fortifying effect America’s counterinsurgency strategy has had against al Qaeda in Iraq. Peter Mansoor, a retired colonel who served as General David Petraeus’s executive officer in Iraq from February 2007 to May 2008, put it this way: “The surge did not create the first of the tribal ‘awakenings,’ but it was the catalyst for their expansion and eventual success.”
The reason Moqtada al-Sadr agreed to a unilateral cease fire and remade his Mahdi Army into a social-services organization was not that he suddenly decided to turn sword into plowshare; coalition and Iraqi forces had dealt him punishing blows. In addition, the surge of U.S. forces—which by design involved not just more troops but also, and even more important, an effort to win the hearts and minds of local populations—provided security to the Iraqi people. They were then able to put their trust in the lawful security forces rather than the militias.
As for Mr. Duncan’s claim that Iran appears to be the big winner, this may have been the case in 2005 and 2006, but the Islamic Republic has lately been turned back on its heels. Last summer, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confronted the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army and won, shocking the entire Arab world that he was an independent actor. The recent U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was strongly opposed by Iran, yet it passed by an overwhelming margin in the Iraqi parliament. If Iraq continues on its current trajectory, it will become a free, self-governing nation, an enemy of al Qaeda, and an ally of the United States. No one in his right mind would declare this a victory for Iran—and no civilized person, it need hardly be said, should want any less for the U.S. or the Middle East.
Jules Freedman is of course correct that the work in Iraq is far from done. I would point out, though, that we have seen unprecedented political reconciliation during the last year. One might even say that the Iraqi parliament has passed more significant legislation than the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Freedman is also right that the surge corrected previous mistakes of the Bush administration. But it is worth bearing in mind that most wars require such corrections of course. Enormous tactical and strategic errors were made by the Union in the American Civil War. But they were fixed, the war was won, and the slaves were freed.
I thank P.T. Sargent and Todd Cox for their gracious words, and I second Mr. Cox’s praise for our military, which has indeed been fighting “for a cause that is just and right.”
