Taking on the security mission

Michael Gordon:

The debate over whether to increase the American military presence in Baghdad is much more than a dispute over troop levels. It reflects a more fundamental dispute over the American mission.

In proposing to send tens of thousands of additional troops, proponents of reinforcing the American military effort argue that the violence in Iraq is increasing at such an alarming rate that Washington can no longer wait for the newly minted Iraqi security forces to take on the main burden of securing the Iraqi capital.

The United States, they assert, needs to expand its mission by making the protection of the Iraqi population its primary objective.

The calculation is that by sending additional troops and taking up positions in mixed Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods, the American military can finally break the escalating cycle of sectarian killings. Only after restoring some semblance of security, the proponents of a troop increase maintain, can the Bush administration reasonably expect Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to rein in the Shiite militias.

...

By most accounts, a decision to substantially increase the American military presence in Baghdad would signal an important strategic shift. For years, the generals have argued that their military strategy could not work unless the Iraqis simultaneously made progress toward political reconciliation, a development that American commanders calculated would reduce the support among Sunnis for the insurgency and ease sectarian tensions.

In effect, the advocates of sending more troops have turned that logic on its head by arguing that the Iraqis cannot make political headway toward overcoming their sectarian differences until military action is taken to blunt the Sunni-led insurgency, and security is improved. That could lessen the increasing dependence on militias by Iraqis who feel the need for protection against sectarian violence.

...

The action of the militias is the results of the failure of the Iraqi police and army to provide security. Until security is provided the chances are remote that the militias will pull back. The media double standard is also responsible for the use of the militias. The enemy in Iraq has a strategy that at its core is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Everyday is a new war crime, but the media never reports these events as a war crime. They instead follow the enemy scrip of blaming the government and the US for not stopping the enemy activity. They have imposed a unilateral contract where US and Iraqi forces are held to Geneva Conventions standards and the enemy is not. The militias come in and then fight the insurgents on the same level. If the enemy attacks were reported as another war crime rather than glorifying them as a government failure, it would defeat the enemy media strategy. Instead the media is in effect encouraging both the enemy and the militias to continue their thrust toward chaos.