A Better War

HAPPY NEW YEAR.  Iraq and U.S. politics are two subjects that are being thoroughly covered by other blogs, but I’ve been following both stories very closely (while mostly sparing you my thoughts on either).  Here, however, are some interesting (to me) “miscellaneous” stories about Iraq, terrorism, and politics that might also interest you. 

MY NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION is the same as last year’s:  to make better use of the FOIA.  This new law may make it easier for me to keep that resolution this time.

YEARS BEFORE I HAD MUCH INTEREST IN KOREA, while I was in high school and college, the story I followed obsessively was Afghanistan.  This was an estimable challenge in Rapid City, South Dakota, back  before Al Gore gave us the Internet.  I taught English to and otherwise befriended our small community of Afghan refugees, and tolerated countless hours of scratchy short-wave reports to get news of events in their homeland.  They are my friends to this day.  At one point, I’d also  picked up conversational level Dari from them.  My peers’ heroes were Prince and “Refrigerator” Perry; mine was Charlie Wilson.  If Wilson was the  Afghan covert aid program’s financier, Michael Vickers was its strategist.  Happily, Vickers is still doing what he does best.  Here’s a fascinating profile of him.

[Update:   Something related.]

I AM SUPERSTITIOUS ENOUGH to believe that any optimistic thing I  say about Iraq will  cause terrible things to happen there, so I’ll simply present some charts without comment:

[source:  icasualties.org]

December 2007’s toll of U.S. killed in action, at 21, is just one tragedy above the all-time low figure of 20.  This is notwithstanding the increased number of American targets and the increased tempo of their operations in former enemy sanctuaries.  It’s hard to know how much of this is because of the Anbar Awakening and how much is the direct result of the surge, but my guess is that it’s all the synergy of both.

[source:  Global Security, via MNF-Iraq]

Some other important links suggest gradual improvements in electricity and oil production.  What I’d like to see is an updated chart on unemployment.  I don’t really need to say anything else about those results.  One can still be defeatist in the presence of a  successful strategy, although it does require a certain investment, emotional or political,  in securing  defeat by people who have killed us in our own homeland, and who want nothing more than to do far worse.   It also  requires  one to accept genocide  as another consequence, if consequences are considered at all. 

NO ONE CAN YET SAY  whether Iraq is capable of self-government; that will depend on the Iraqis.  What matters most to us are the extraordinary psychological stakes of defeating, or being defeated by, al Qaeda.  Secondary to this is killing as many of the most skilled and experienced jihadis as possible.  You can’t deny that  recent success at this is good news,  unless you’re rooting for the wrong side.

SINCE THE FAVORABLE SHIFTS IN ANBAR  and the relative pacification  of Baghdad, my worries have  shifted toward  Iranian influence  anong Shia militias  in the South.  After reading this long, deep, must-read piece on the internecine politics of Shiite Iraq, I feel as though I understand the situation there far better than I did before reading this. 

DOMESTIC OPINION IS THE ULTIMATE LAGGING INDICATOR.  Our views about the war have improved only modestly, which is fair given that any improvements are still fragile.  Interestingly, however, Democrats’ much-vaunted advantage in voter affiliations — said to be driven in part by anti-war sentiment —  has nearly disappeared.  Iraq is probably just one of many reasons for this shift.  Pelosi and Reed and both deeply unappealing personally,  and  angry  liberal  Democrats  seem almost as  dissatisfied with them as conservative Republicans.  (Next time you see one of those  generic-Republican-versus-generic-Democrat polls, ignore it.  A candidate’s personal appeal  is essential to any meaningful prediction of voter  behavior, especially  given the intensity with which so many people dislike the Democratic front-runner.)   Finally, the 2006 election has been greatly  over-interpreted.  Viewed in  its historical context,  it was  about an  average loss by  a president’s party during a mid-term election.  Voters tire of incumbent parties when they screw up, get caught behaving reprehensibly, or fail to keep their overstated promises.  Bush was a weak candidate in 2004, facing an even weaker opponent, and Bush fatigue was pretty much  assured as soon as we reelected him.   

JOHN McCAIN’S RECENT RISE in Republican and likely-voter polls may  also reflect better news from Iraq and the perception that he was right all along.  That’s fine with me; McCain, Guiliani, and Romney all strike me as competent,  responsible adults, although McCain is probably  the most electable of the three.  I really  wish that the Democrats has offered some better alternatives this year.  Clinton is the only one  of the Democrats with  the gravitas and spine for the job, but  I have a paralyzing fear of how she would use the power of the presidency.