How is the enemy doing in Iraq

Amir Taheri:

AS some politicians and pundits try to prove that America has lost the war in Iraq, a key question remains unasked: How is the enemy doing?

The facts on the ground are that the two chief enemies of the new Iraq - the groups wearing the al Qaeda label and the Iran-backed Shiite militias - are not doing well. Indeed, one might say that both have already lost their bids for power and, the continued killings notwithstanding, are in the process of marginalization. The only way they could make a comeback is if Congress decides to legislate a victory for them.

Al Qaeda's strategy had two parts. One was based on the assumption that, by killing enough Americans, it would enable the party of defeat in the United States to force President Bush to surrender. That failed when Bush decided to increase, rather than reduce, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The other part assumed that, by fomenting a sectarian war, al Qaeda would force Shiites, Iraq's majority, to run away - allowing Salafi Sunnis to seize power in Baghdad. That also failed: Not only did the Shiites not run away,but also many who had fled under Saddam Hussein decided to return to Iraq.

The new wave of refugees from Iraq consisted almost exclusively of Arab Sunnis - the very people that al Qaeda regarded as its potential popular base.

The Iran-sponsored Shiite militias and death squads also pursued a two-part strategy. One was to kill enough Arab Sunnis to force the community out of mainly Shiite areas, notably greater Baghdad. That sinister plan succeeded. But the areas thus "cleansed" of Sunnis did not fall into the hands of the Iran-sponsored militias: They were taken over by either the new Iraqi army and police or the various militias loyal to Prime Minister Nuri al-Mailki's government.

The second part aimed at defeating rival Shiite armed groups that (although maintaining close ties with Tehran) did not wish to serve as mere tools of the Iranian mullahs. In this, too, the Iran-sponsored militias failed.

...

The "surge" was a political signal that the United States did not intend to abandon its allies. That signal persuaded fence-sitters in Iraq - and, beyond it, in the broader Arab world - to take sides. Most chose the side of new Iraq against its internal and external foes.

America and its Iraqi allies can't be defeated in Iraq. But defeat could be manufactured in Washington, where part of the U.S. elite seeks it in order to win in the domestic political war.

Each time an American politician speaks of defeat, he encourages the terrorists, discourages allies, signals to fence sitters to look elsewhere - and thus prolongs the war.

He goes on to itemize enemy defeats in recent weeks and more importantly those who have rallied to our side. All of these movements have resulted from the determination showed by the surge, which Democrats have attacked as stubbornness. It appears that their stubborn resistance to the surge is aiding our enemies and making it more difficult to succeed. That we are doing so anyway has to be disconcerting to the enemy and to the Democrats.