Soldiers Hold The Line, Diplos Drop The Ball

News from Iraq on the security front is still looking good, and here's the shift that we were all expecting:

"'We're in a definite period of progress,' Brig. Gen. Ed Cardon, deputy commander for support, Multi-National Division-Central, said Monday."

"'What makes this so important -- this time so important -- this definite period of progress, is that when the violence is down we can do a lot more working with governance and economic development and economic reconstruction,' Cardon said. 'And that's really going to be the focus of our efforts over the next several months without taking our eye off the security advances that we've made.'"

Great news. Unequivocally, for everyone who is seriously engaged. That's the way forward, and it's quite a relief to see that we're on it. The Iraqi street has been on about sanitation, jobs, energy, and medicine for quite a while now, and the sooner they have those things the better we'll be doing.

In other good news, the number of home guards in the American-backed Awakening movement was over-counted by about 17,000. Why's that good news?

"'On the one hand, that kind of cuts into the good news story, but these people have come forward and said they want to work for us,' Stanton said.

He said they weren't taken on only because there was no need for them."

Now, a tick of moderately bad news that may or may not matter much. That Declaration of Principles the US administration foisted on al-Maliki turned out to be pretty clumsy, and wasn't received well:

"The Sadrists, who had been flirting with Maliki for 10 days, immediately cut off contacts, claiming that the agreement "sets the ground for long-term occupation". Muqtada was furious that Maliki never presented the agreement to Parliament before signing it off with the US President."

Aside from the reaction from al-Sadr, the Declaration provoked a number of other political players in Iraqi Parliament, despite the fact that the Declaration was non-binding. Now aside from the negative political impact that this created, it has some instructive power for a lesson that, on further review, probably should have been obvious: a brand new parliament that is expected to exercise sovereignty is going to be angry when you act in what is perceived as a unilateral manner with the country's PM, no matter how well-intentioned or how non-binding the action is. Still, there is some political point-scoring taking place here that should be noted as well.

When the Iraqi Accordance Front calls al-Maliki a sectarian who is going out of his way to marginalize Sunnis, in this case there's no way for al-Maliki to win. By signing the declaration, he managed to alienate al-Sadr's Shi'a bloc, and their lack of communications will be interpreted by the largely Sunni Awakening movement as a weakness in Shi'a solidarity. Had al-Maliki not signed the declaration, there would have been no outrage, al-Sadr would still be courting, and in that case the Sunnis really would be marginalized to the extend that a consolidation of Shi'a power would threaten them.

Clearly, some of the resulting outrage is fake. On the other hand, al-Sadr is a pretty delicate snowflake to be handling so clumsily, although odds are good that he's doing a little political theater of his own that won't amount to much that's serious. In conclusion, it would probably be best if Bush kept his hands out of the pot and let the Generals work from now on. Non-binding resolutions are for Democrats acting tough about the war budget, not people who are actually trying to get work done.

Now for a stretch.

Remember that 17,000-person over-count of Awakening recruits? That has another upside. Al-Maliki and al-Sadr have been awfully spooked by the size and fervor of the Awakening movement, and that was one of the factors drawing them together. So reporting that the Sunnis aren't as big and scary as they were previously thought to be will work to ease some of those tensions and in turn may reduce the perception that al-Maliki is courting Shi'a blocs in order to marginalize the Sunnis. Al-Maliki needs all the good press he can get.

But that's really reaching. For now, it's good to see that our focus has shifted exactly the way it needs to, and moving forward we should start seeing more reports on reconstruction efforts in tandem with the security gains continuing.

Stop Holding Your Breath

There's been relatively little to talk about any serious news lately, and what seems like news really isn't. But as November draws to a close, we all know exactly what's on our minds and we're waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Mainstream sources already have stories written and cued for the end of the month, when news will break that the downward trend in violence has reversed, or it has held. So let's get some of the juvenile stuff out of the way before getting into the useful stuff.

First, the American left will cry, no matter which way things go - if deaths come up, then the trend has broken and it's all getting worse. If deaths are down, well, even one death is too many and it's all for nothing.

Second, the American right will celebrate, no matter which way things go - if deaths are up, the increase probably won't be significant, and if deaths are down, well, of course they're down because we're winning - and I happen to think that we really are beginning to.

Third, Iraq will still be dangerous and will still need a lot of work, no matter which way things go. We will not have won or lost based on the end-of-the-month casualty count.

Now the useful stuff.

First, according to a Pew Research Center poll, Americans are seeing the progress in Iraq but a majority - unchanged since February - "still favor(s) bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible rather than keeping troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized." This is neutral news, as public support hasn't increased or decreased. What it means, short term, is that we can't reasonably expect American political will to shift due to what is largely perceived as marginal-to-moderate progress, judging by how much shift there has been in seeing progress - never mind the reality, for this consideration it's the perception that counts. All this means is that American domestic politics on Iraq will be business as usual without a groundbreaking event or protracted change in one direction or another.

Second, is that portions of the Mahdi Army are being audited (read: "cannibalized") in an effort to bring the army to more closely obey al-Sadr's orders, during a stand-down that is seen by at least one qualified analyst as a good will gesture towards al-Maliki. While perhaps the idea of a highly disciplined Sadrist force is disconcerting to begin with, there is a hidden bonus that American forces undoubtedly are working towards.

Al-Sadr's opportunism is obvious, and he can be expected to do that which will suit himself the best. With a strictly loyal Mahdi Army, al-Sadr betters his chances of not being viewed as the political head of a Hamas-like terrorist organization, i.e. someone who needs to be arrested and have his army annihilated. However, with a strictly loyal army also comes the ability to control that army by controlling al-Sadr through deal-making, which we already know Petraeus is doing with al-Sadr's trustees. If we can keep him in the political realm, we can keep his army out of the military equation - something that has been serving us quite well so far.

Third, is that the political surge we need to see has not yet come to be, but that's understandable. Tensions can be expected to be reasonably high, as the decreases in violence are still fairly fresh and news in Iraq travels much more slowly than it does here, and is also easily counteracted by first-hand experiences. Let's not forget just how slowly political processes move and how long it takes them to be influenced: expecting the political reform to have happened this early after the progress is unreasonable, but it's not unreasonable to expect it to start happening, despite sectarian divides.

Iraqi sectarianism will not necessarily be a deal-breaker for political progress any more than American sectarianism is. It should be expected at this point in history that reasonable people will disagree, but that does not by default cause them to refrain from compromising or passing legislation that isn't volatile - things like energy, water, sanitation, and medical services, which really are the next step forward towards creating legitimacy for the Iraqi Government.

Journalists: Play It Straight Or Don't Play

A fairly large portion of the anti-war crowd - HuffPo among it - has latched onto an NYT story about political progress in Iraq, and the Bush administration's stance adjustment - which isn't really an adjustment at all. While domestic politics is a long way from useful, the obfuscation of this story and the degree to which it has spread deserves a response.

To be blunt, this is not news. And to be diplomatic, the resulting allegations of shifting goalposts don't just approach ridiculous - they careen wildly towards ridiculous, crash through the roadblock and then its on to Mexico and freedom, sweet freedom!

Arianna Huffington had this to say:

"Now the surge was apparently implemented so "American officials" could focus on "pragmatic goals like helping the Iraqi government spend the money in its budget."

"That's right: our new definition of success in Iraq is helping the Iraqi government spend money."

Interesting evaluation, considering that Iraqi budget matters in general have been regarded as a benchmark since January 2007, and originated from al-Maliki's comments, not the Bush Administration. The proof is in the GAO Benchmark report, page 5 in the required reading section (which has been updated to the PDF version). If this is news to Arianna, she's been living in a hole for the past 11 months. And if she really believes that a budget isn't political, that hole must have been abnormally well insulated for her to not hear this:

"Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send Bush a bill this year."

On a more minor note, Arianna also misses this part of the article, but then I'm not sure how she can allege bar-lowering if she acknowledges it:

"Bush administration officials have not abandoned their larger goals and emphasize the importance of reaching them eventually. They say that even modest steps, taken soon, could set the stage for more progress, in the same manner that this year’s troop “surge” opened the way, unexpectedly, for drawing Sunni tribesmen to the American side."

Also at HuffPo is Ilan Goldberg, selectively parroting things that sound bad at a glance but then turn out to be good if considered critically, like this:

"...and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein's era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already."

First, that's not news. Legislation on Baath reconciliation has been a benchmark since June of 2006; this isn't a new focus. This is also on page 5 of the GAO report already mentioned. Second, the fact that these rehirings have been occuring ahead of legislation is evidence of reconciliation efforts happening faster at the ground level than at the political level. This isn't uncommon at all (see the gay rights movement for a domestic reference), and it also happens to be a good thing. Put it this way; in 1954, what would have been better? Legislation forcing schools to integrate, or the people just doing it themselves long before the government got around to telling them to?

Adding to the asininity of the situation is the fact that the GAO report I've cited was championed very loudly by the left back in September when it was announced that only three of the eighteen benchmarks had been completed. Apparently in September, these benchmarks were very important to them and they were angry that only three had been completed. Now, those same benchmarks mean nothing to them. Suddenly, I'm reminded of raquetball again.

Not to get too preachy, but this is exactly this type of journalism that turns people away from intelligent debate and hinders progress as a result. Intentional dishonesty and such transparent game-playing are some of the more major reasons behind the polarization of American society, and part of the reason why self-righteous snark has replaced open discussion.