Last week I wrote that many Americans and Iraqis I spoke to in Baghdad recently expect a surge of violence after American troops withdraw from Iraqi cities as stipulated by the recently signed Status of Forces Agreement. Many readers seemed surprised by that pessimistic forecast and wondered, after two years of good news, if it could even be true. “Your report and that of Michael Yon,” Richard Everett wrote in the comments section, “published on the same day on the same subject are at so great variance that one has to ask; 'are you two in the same country?' He is positive, you are not. Why the extreme difference?”
Michael Yon did, indeed, publish an upbeat report on the same day called The Art of the End of the War. I encourage everyone to read it. Yon's work is always accurate and informative, and this time is no exception. Richard Everett is right to point out that my piece was gloomy while Yon's piece was not, but Iraq is complex. Iraq produces good news and bad at the same time.
“Al Qaeda was handed a vicious defeat in Iraq,” Yon wrote, “and it can be said with great certainty that most Iraqis hate al Qaeda even more than Americans do. Al Qaeda can continue to murder Iraqis for now, but al Qaeda will be hard pressed to ever plant their flag in another Iraqi city. The Iraqi army and police have become far too strong and organized, and the Iraqis will eventually strangle al Qaeda to death.”
I have no doubt this is true. In some Iraqi cities – Fallujah, Ramadi, Bacouba, and some parts of Baghdad – every day was September 11. Al Qaeda fanatics car-bombed and mass murdered their way into power. Some Iraqis, unlike Americans, have actually had to live under the rule of Al Qaeda. They hate Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi like no one else. After Anbar Awakening leader Sheikh Sattar Abu Risha was assasinated by a car bomb in front of his house in Ramadi, his brother Ahmed Abu Risha said “All the tribes agreed to fight al Qaeda until the last child in Anbar.” How many Americans talk about Al Qaeda like that?
Al Qaeda has been by far the most vicious and sadistic terrorist group in Iraq, but there are many other groups still skulking about in reduced numbers – the Mahdi Army “Special Groups,” Hezbollah, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haqq, and some others have been seriously bloodied and weakened, but they still exist. It's a near certainty that there will be spike in terrorist and insurgent activity when Americans clear the streets because Iraq's most effective counterinsurgents will have cleared out of the way. That doesn't mean the terrorists and insurgents will win. It means there will be a partial security vacuum, and they will try.
I doubt any of the weakened terrorist and insurgent groups will be able to defeat the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police. A retired Iraqi Army general told me not to worry because when they are in charge they will rule the country with much greater force and less concern for human rights than Americans. I wouldn't decribe that as encouraging, exactly, considering what Iraq looked like when it was ruled that way in the past. But at least we no longer have to worry overly much about Al Qaeda seizing power as Hamas did in Gaza after the Israel Defense Forces left. Al Qaeda doesn't have even a fraction of Hamas' popularity, and the Iraqi Army, unlike the Palestinian security forces, have been trained for years by American soldiers.
"about Al Qaeda seizing power as Hamas did in Gaza"
I seem to remember Hamas won a farly democratic election.
[JK: Fair point, Mark, but i'm removing this whole sub-thread]
Only Israeli military personnel are allowed in the streets of Palestine, Mark?
Err, the Palestinian National Authority? Those guys we've been giving money to to build up a police and military force all these years?
Does this mean that we can now leave Iraq?
Just FYI, Mark, "parsnip" is the previously-banned commenter "alphie." (He tried to get around his ban by changing his name at Patterico's, too.)
You're wasting your time responding to his twaddle.
Shad: If you'd care to email any of the principals/active Marshals here at WoC and provide corroborative details regarding your claim, that'd be great. I don't have a working email address for you.
Absent such an email, presenting something resembling evidence, I think the matter needs to remain at rest for the nonce. See the WoC comments policy, particularly Rule 4a.
Nortius - Each time in the past I've emailed any of the sysops about anything, it's been ignored/unacknowledged.
Your (collective) choice to allow banned trolls back onto the board under different names, of course. I apologize for pointing out the fact that you've done so.
[NM rejoins: In fact, banned trolls with new nicks are rebanned here at Winds only once we have conclusive evidence they are the same people. Absent same, we give people enough rope to hang themselves.
Your apology is received as sincerely as it was offered.]
Shad,
Nort is right re: what the process need to be, but no, we don;t want to ignore that information.
Who, exactly have you emailed? It should be nortius.maximus at our domain, or joe...
Shad: I appreciate your bringing the matter up.
It appears you have been disappointed by someone here, so that you can't countenance the possibility that you might be treated with respect. If so, I offer sincere regrets.
I've requested off-list substantiation. You've made yourself impossible to reach by email. That is your choice, not mine.
I promise I will not ignore an email on this matter from you -- particularly after making an explicit request for it.
Beyond that, I don't know what to do.
We'll keep an eye on parsnip, and thanks for the heads-up.
In any event, this matter is off topic to the thread; further off-topic posts here will be deleted.
I suspect that Parsnip's point, though he merely hinted at it, is that since Hamas was democratically elected by the people of Palestine, that Hamas has been given the mandate to harass, threaten, murder, and expel from Gaza any of those Palestinians it wishes to (for example, Christians, Fatah members, etc.).
In addition, he seems to be saying that since Hamas was elected democratically, and that since Hamas's platform is the destruction of Israel, and that since Hamas is responsible for the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel---all of which are purportedly supported by those who elected Hamas into power in the first place---that Israel therefore has the right to respond to these acts of aggression of war by the democratically elected government of its neighbor.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me....
[JK: Deleted. Not germane. Threadjack somewhere else]
[Deleting this whole sub-thread includes my own post.]
[JK: Sorry, Mark. We need to keep the conversations on topic, same remedy I applied to my own writings.]
[JK: Deleted. Stick to the topic of Iraq, and be germane, or be gone.]
Alchemist (#5). Yes, it does mean we can leave, in accordance with the agreement(s) now in place with the elected Iraqi government.
[JK: mark, sorry, but per all past marshal comments re: cleaning up this sub-thread, we're not going to continue with this. comments need to be relevant to Totten's post re: Iraq.]
[JK: Welcome to the banned list, parsnip. All future comments will be deleted. And yes, people under suspicion of being sock-puppets for past trolls do get a shorter behavioural leash.]