The surge, Iraq & Iran

A couple of really great articles in the NY Times this last Wednesday that I wanted to write about. One article discussed the reduction of violence in Iraq, and cited three reasons for it: Sunni rebels who had decided to fight jihadists rather than American troops; Shiite leader Moktada al-Sadr having declared a cease-fire for his forces for six months (they are three months into it); and more American troops. But none of the underlying political issues have been addressed (forget about resolved). And, the article notes, none of those patterns are realistically sustainable: the Sunni rebels took their action on the promise of government jobs, which have not materialized because there has been no Sunni/Shiite integration or reconciliation; if Sunni forces get restless because of lack of integration into Iraqi society and and having no meaningful voice in governance, they'll hit the Shiites, and then al-Sadr and like Shiite forces will react in kind (hard and violent); and American troop levels are just not sustainable, regardless of who is setting American policy, Democrat or Republican, and extending tours of duties and abusing the National Guard can't continue over the long haul.

So while Iraq may look a lot better on the surface for several months (maybe through the election-ugh), it is still a mess. Plus, when I hear the surge is working, I think what people are saying is that the violence is down. Putting aside that the surge is one of several factors, rather than the sole factor, causing the decreased violence, wasn't the point of the surge to get violence down, and then to foster an atmosphere where political reconciliation could occur? That still has not happened, has it? So I take issue with any assertion that the surge is "working" for all those reasons.

This was reported on the same day that the National Intelligence Estimate showed Iran did not have a secret program to get nukes going, and Mr. Bush still insisted his Iran policy was exactly right. I think there are a lot of people who do what Mr. Bush does, but he takes it to a new level--that is, you have a conclusion, or ultimate worldview, or whatever, and, whatever the facts are, it has to support your worldview, because, heaven knows, you could not be wrong. Rather than taking the view that you are going to take a sober look at the facts, and let the facts take you wherever they lead, no matter how painful it might be to you to realize you may not have been right after all. There are myriad examples of course, but I think back to the massive tax cuts at the beginning of the Bush administration: first, they rationale was that the economy was booming and we had a massive surplus, so we should have a tax cut. Then, as the economy was going down and the surplus was evaporating, we had to have the cuts to stimulate the economy and reverse the situation. Either way, the conclusion was the same: we needed those tax cuts!