The re-liberation of Iraq

Ralph Peters:

GEN. David Petraeus' Baghdad office reflects the man: It's spartan. There are no giant flat-screen TVs or I- love-me photos on the walls. There's no spectacular view, just no-nonsense wall maps of the city and the country.

It may be the least ostentatious four-star general's office in history. There's a representational office elsewhere, but this is where the general runs his war - when he's in an office: He often makes two or three grueling "battlefield circulation" trips around the country in a week.

In a session with The Post yesterday, Petraeus stressed that he wasn't going to offer any premature declarations of victory. Far from it. Despite meaningful and measurable progress since he assumed command earlier this year, Iraq remains a brutally difficult place.

But it's a better place than it was a year ago, with violence reduced by half in Baghdad. Long the deadly base of al Qaeda in Iraq, Anbar province has gone from hundreds of daily attempted attacks on our troops to four earlier this week. Iraqis assume ever more responsibility for their own security. And former enemies are rallying to fight beside us, instead of against us.

How did the general and the troops under his command achieve such rapid progress? He lays out a model: "The Re-Liberation of Iraq," this time from a new wave of oppressors, the terrorists, insurgents and militias.

Petraeus acknowledges the errors made in the early occupation years, stressing, above all, the failure to provide security for the population. We cleaned out the violent actors from one city after another, but failed to stay and set the conditions for political and economic progress. When we left, the bad guys came back - and killed anybody who had cooperated with us.

Now, through the efficient use of American troops and a greatly increased employment of Iraqi forces, we're taking an approach that allows for fighting fiercely when necessary, but which looks beyond the gunfights.

As one example, the general points out that, "When we took down Baquba this time, we had a post-operations plan in place."

It's critical to involve the local people immediately and enduringly in shaping long-term outcomes. Petraeus recognizes that there's no one-size-fits-all solution for a country as complex as Iraq, but a series of common emphases have been working well thus far:

* Coalition forces went on the offensive - and sustained the pressure. This time around, al Qaeda and our other enemies didn't get their accustomed break between rounds. And al Qaeda's own arrogance and over-reaching, from targeting popular local sheikhs to destroying commerce all along the Euphrates River Valley, gave the general a timely card to play.

* Taking advantage of Sunni-Arab disillusionment with al Qaeda, Petraeus moved swiftly to present our renewed efforts as a far more attractive option than the terrorists.

* And post-combat operations are now Iraqi-centric, not futile attempts to turn Iraqis into Americans. "Involve the local people," the general states, laying down a non-negotiable rule. "Instead of firing, we're hiring locals" and putting them to work, he stressed. While providing dependable security is fundamental, it's not enough. Economic issues can be fundamental. And the people need the services only a central government can deliver - while the new approach empowers local government, it avoids doing so at the expense of fatally weakening the Baghdad authorities.

Instead of backing mammoth, hyper-expensive construction projects designed in Washington, our new approach prods Iraqis to fix their existing infrastructure. Iraq's utilities won't be state-of-the-art, but they're beginning to work again: Iraqi solutions for Iraqi problems. Sounds like a no-brainer, but it took a profound change of mindset for us to get there.

...

The general recognizes that political progress at the top in Iraq may lag as an indicator, but local initiatives look like the key to national success. He believes that, in this case, the politicians will eventually follow the people - who genuinely want better lives, not more bickering and butchery.

...

Converting Peters to Petraeus' brand of counterinsurgency warfare may be his biggest miracle. Only a few weeks ago Peters was complaining that the new strategy did not include enough butchery of the enemy. Who know, maybe Diana West may even come around.

What Peters and West missed in the new strategy is that being with and protecting the people gave us the intelligence tips we needed to find and destroy the enemy and the people were eager to help us defend them. That is the genius of the Petraeus-Kilcullen strategy that is being implemented in Iraq and that is working brilliantly at this point.

It is a strategy that is also making Democrats look like fools when it comes to the sue of force. their desperation for retreat and defeat looks premature at best at this point and Republicans would be wise to hammer them on their votes to retreat before even listening to the report of the military on the operation. Being faint hearted in a war is a good way to lose it and the Democrats seem very determined to lose this one.