"I think we are winning. Okay? I think we're definitely winning. I think we've been winning for some time." - Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the Iraq War 04/26/05
"I just wonder if they will ever tell us the truth." - Harold Casey, Louisville, KY, October 2004.
The British International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) has just publised their annual Strategic Survey for 2005, which includes an analysis on the state of affairs in the Iraq War. It doesn't seem to be available for viewing at the IISS Web site at this writing. But there have been several news articles reporting on some of its findings:
Peace in Iraq 'will take at least five years to impose' by Richard Norton-Taylor and Michael Howard Guardian (UK) Wednesday 05/25/05. Some of the report focuses on positive results they see:
The report said that, on balance, US policy over the past year had been effective in emboldening regional players in the Middle East and the Gulf to rally against rogue states.
But the picture isn't entirely rosy, to put it mildly:
But it warned that the inspirational effect of the intervention in Iraq on Islamist terrorism was "the proverbial elephant in the living room. From al-Qaida's point of view, [President] Bush's Iraq policies have arguably produced a confluence of propitious circumstances: a strategically bogged down America, hated by much of the Islamic world, and regarded warily even by its allies".
Iraq "could serve as a valuable proving ground for 'blooding' foreign jihadists, and could conceivably form the basis of a second generation of capable al-Qaida leaders ... and middle-management players", the report said.
Iraq remains an inspiration for Qaeda Daily Times (Pakistan) 05/25/05, reprinted at IISS site. This article gives more details on what the IISS sees as positive:
The report said that the improvement in the overall strategic climate was helped by factors such as the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but it added that US President George W Bush’s foreign policies also seemed to be bearing fruit.
"Even though the Bush policy was bold, controversial and sometimes divisive, his aggressive global agenda of promoting freedom, and democracy appeared increasingly effective,” the IISS said in its 384-page “Strategic Survey 2004-05”. Counter-terrorism efforts over the period had also seen an overall net gain, the report argued, despite the seemingly “counterproductive” aspects of some of the United States’s self-declared “war on terror”.
That would be good news if it were true. But with terrorism incidents in the world in general - excluding Iraq - at a 20-year high in 2004, I'm not so convinced about that part. (That's based on the news reports of the State Department terrorism report that the Bush administration decided to discontinue because of that 2004 finding.) But it's notable what they see as the Bush policy victories:
It pointed to progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the promise of multi-party elections in Egypt and popular uprisings against Syria in Lebanon as examples of US policy successes. “On balance, US policy in 2004-2005 appeared fairly effective in emboldening regional actors in the Middle East and Gulf to rally against rogue states and implement gentle political reforms,” the IISS said.
That's actually pretty thin gruel. It's not much more than a recitation of the Bush administration claims, at least as reported here. The elections in Egypt so far seem to be little more than a bad joke. Time will tell on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Lebanon.
"Mideast more secure but Iraq inspires Qaeda-IISS" by Peter Graff Reuters 05/25/05, reprinted at IISS site. This article gives more details on the progress they see in the MiddleEast:
The report said the reopening of dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis after the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat marked a "tipping point" in the peace process.
"Stark changes have been heralded not only by Arafat's death, but by (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon's conversion and Bush's commitment to use American influence to achieve a final status accord," it said. But success depended also on militant groups like Hamas that have rejected the peace process.
Sharon's "conversion"? Wow! I'll swallow this when we see Sharon's government stopping West Bank settlements and preparing to roll back so of the existing ones there. Until then, I'm staying skeptical.
But it blamed the White House for the "shocking" abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody. An "amateurish official legal debate" in the Bush administration "incorrectly suggested that certain prisoners were 'not legally entitled' to humane treatment."
"Such illegal practices made the achievement of any broad international coalition in Iraq even more difficult than it already was, and strengthened the cause of the insurgents."
Arianna Huffington sees the IISS report as encouragement for Democrats to challenge Bush's Iraq policy more aggressively: Next Dem Battlefront: Iraq Arianna Online 05/25/05.
The report was published on Tuesday -- another day of murder and mayhem in Iraq, with "more than 100 Iraqis...killed or injured in a wave of bombings since Monday morning." Fifty-eight Americans and over 500 Iraqis have been killed since April 28, when the new Iraqi government was installed.
Yes, it's great that the Democrats staved off the nuclear option. But the reason the nuclear option was even a possibility in the first place is because they have ceded the foreign policy battlefront to a majority party that doesn't represent the majority on the crucial foreign policy issue of Iraq. When will Democrats realize that they will remain a minority party so long as they only dare to take on Bush and the Republicans on domestic issues?
They certainly cannot count on the media to put Iraq on the front burner. As Mark Halperin, Political Director of ABC News, admitted earlier this month, Iraq "simply isn't going to break through to American news organizations."
No comments:
Post a Comment