As Iraqis Stop Living In Fear, End Of Iraq War Is At Hand

Iraqi Refugees

From Daily News:

'The war in Iraq is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won."

When I wrote this on my Web site a few days ago, I set off a mini-firestorm. Perhaps because I have spent more time embedded with combat troops in Iraq than any journalist I know - and have interviewed countless Iraqis and members of the coalition military.

But I stand by my words, just as I stood by my assertion of February 2005 that Iraq was in a state of civil war, and later understood that Al Qaeda was its proximate cause. Those statements went against the vested interests of both Bush supporters who didn't want to admit how bad the situation was in Iraq, and war critics, who didn't want to admit that much of it was Al Qaeda's fault.

Back then, both sides brought out their dictionaries and muddied the water by arguing semantics: What exactly do you mean by a civil war? What exactly do you mean by Al Qaeda?

So I will be very clear what I mean when I say we have won the war. A counterinsurgency is won when the government's legitimacy is no longer threatened by the insurgents, the government is able to protect its own people and the people are participating in the government. In Iraq, all three conditions apply.

Read more ....

There is another excellent article in Commentary Magazine. Max Boot examines the politics behind Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's support and then interpretation of a 16 month timetable for combat troops in Iraq, and a discussion of what will be the size of the American presence in Iraq after combat troops have left. the answer will surprise you.

From Commentary Magazine:

What is Prime Minister Maliki up to with his seeming endorsement of Obama's 16 month withdrawal timetable, followed by a quick backtrack by his spokesman? The most persuasive answer I've seen comes in this Associated Press analysis by Robert Reid. In good AP style, his first few paragraphs sum up his thesis:

.....

Robert Novak suggests that the Obama campaign is aware of how extensive the needs are. The candidate has talked about retaining a "residual force" even after pulling out all U.S. combat brigades by 2010. "How big would this more or less permanent "residual" force be?" Novak writes. "Obama did not say, but advisers leaked that it could reach 50,000."

Read more ....

My Comment: The dirty secret that is revealed by Mr. Novak on Democratic candidate Obama's plans for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, is that Obama only talks about U.S. combat forces .... not the other U.S. forces that will still remain behind when the last combat brigades leave.

There are estimates that 50,000 or more U.S. troops will need to be left behind to maintain the peace. This includes those who train Iraqi forces, protect American bases, provide logistics and support for aircraft, UAVs, medical, etc., and intelligence assets. These numbers are rarely talked about in the media, nor made public. But logically, it is easy to visualize a large American presence in Iraq for a long time. Private contractors .... numbering in the tens of thousands .... these individuals are not even talked about at all.

Will Obama's supporters agree with such a policy .... I doubt it. Will most of his supporter's know about this policy .... I doubt that also.