The lead story in the current (12/29/03) Business Week on the Iraq War is available only to subscribers online. But it seems to be a sober, if somewhat misguided, look at the current situation in Iraq.
The capture of [Saddam Hussein] and the sudden success of big counter-insurgency sweeps in central Iraq represent major breakthroughs.
The White House, as the article notes, will try to get maximum PR mileage out of these events in both Iraq and the US. But I'm not sure "counter-insurgency" is even the right description for the recent Army actions. The 4th Infantry Division has been busting down doors and shooting up people who they typically describe as enemy hostiles, though reporters on the scene have raised serious questions about that identification in some cases. Whether that is enough to suppress the insurgency remains highly doubtful.
Giving Bush perhaps more credit for restraining White House enthusiasm than is warranted, the article notes:
Yet Bush is working hard to dampen euphoria. By resisting the temptation to rejoice, he is steeling the country for the possibility of years of turmoil in Iraq. Given the challenges ahead, the stance was prudent.
Yes, that's years of turmoil, it said. As much as Bush and his political guru Karl Rove might want to bring large numbers of US troops home by Election Day 2004, it's too early for anyone to count on that.
In the Post-Baath Party vacuum, jockeying among Shiites, Sunnis, and tribes of all stripes is intensifying. ... With a decentralized insurgency that doesn't rely on Saddam for orders, anti-U.S. attacks could actually get worse before they moderate. Confronted by the humiliation of Saddam's meek surrender, radical Islamists could redouble efforts to recruit suicide bombers.
We've come a long way very quickly from "Mission Accomplished!" on the Abraham Lincoln on May 1 to hoping for the attacks on US troops to eventually "moderate."
(Cont. in Part 2)
No comments:
Post a Comment