SECURITY PREPARATIONS — Iraqi Armed Forces Chief Gen. Babakir (left) and U.S. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus (center) speak with the commander of the Iraqi 2nd Division at Al Kidni in Mosul, Iraq. Defense Dept. photo by Jim Garamone. From The Washington Post:
Iraq still divides Democrats and Republicans like no other issue, as the campaign rhetoric of both parties makes abundantly clear. Liberals and conservatives can now more or less agree that Iraq is a much, much safer country than it was 18 months ago. But each side is peddling its own story about Iraq's extraordinary turnaround -- and both are wrong.
Many conservatives believe that the 2007 "surge" in U.S. troop levels directly produced the decline in Iraqi violence. Meanwhile, liberals argue that Iraq's warring Shiites and Sunnis spontaneously decided -- for their own internal reasons, unrelated to the surge -- to stop fighting. As is so often true of Washington debates, these arguments bear little relation to the reality of how Iraq actually pulled out of its death spiral, which is far more interesting than either partisan yarn. There was no single silver bullet, but rather a multifaceted strategy crafted and carried out by those in Baghdad -- not, despite recent claims, in Washington.
Read more ....
My Comment: Going to the negotiation table definitely helped in lowering the violence and terror attacks. But equally important was the military engagement that targeted insurgent leaders and terrorists. Their elimination from the table certainly made the political process easier.
No comments:
Post a Comment