Iraq upon closer inspection

Ralph Peters:

THERE is no substitute for being on the ground if you want a sense of where Iraq may be headed. The reality is almost always different when you smell it up close.

Back in the United States, I receive updates from a wide range of military friends and acquaintances - yet, no matter how much progress they report, the constant negativity in the media starts to wear me down, too.

Then I return to Iraq. And each time I board a military aircraft to leave Baghdad, I find my confidence heightened that persistence will yield advantageous results.

Given the complexity of the situation in Iraq - problems that date back not just to 2003, but to biblical days - no one can guarantee success, however humbly we measure it. But quitting will guarantee failure, with gruesome long-term costs.

Let's go back to a few fundamental questions, before considering what the future may hold:

Is Iraq worth it? Yes. Whether or not it was worth it in 2003 (and I still believe it was), it's certainly worth the fight now. By our enemies' choice, Iraq became the central battleground between civilization and terror, between good and evil - despite the left's denial that the latter exists.

Can Iraq become the model democracy of which we dreamed? No. But it can evolve as a state that treats its citizens with reasonable fairness, hears their voices - and rejects both terror and aggression. In the context of the Middle East, that's still a big win.

What really happens if we leave sooner, rather than later? None of us knows with certainty. Nor do the Iraqis. But they believe that sectarian violence would explode and that a largely defeated al Qaeda in Iraq would gain a new lease on life.

What happens to the region if we quit Iraq? Iran wins.

...

The critical variant now isn't our military's performance - since Gen. David Petraeus took command, we've made remarkable progress (although Petraeus is quick to credit others - not least, Col. Sean McFarlane, who pioneered reconcilation with the Sunni tribes).

The 2,000-pound camel is the Iraqi government. If it doesn't find its way to a truly national agenda that deals justly with all Iraqis, and if it doesn't do so quickly, the choices before us - short of just leaving - will be to engineer the government's replacement, or to let it rot and concentrate on local alliances and completing the destruction of al Qaeda in Iraq.

That would mean swinging our support from the Shia, who increasingly obstruct us (and their own country's progress), to the Sunnis who are now fighting beside us against our mutual enemies - a startling role reversal. C'est la guerre.

BUT if Iraqi politics expose humanity's genius for self-torment, the military situation has improved beyond all reasonable expectations.

...

He goes on to itemize key evidence to support his conclusion that things have indeed gotten better. To see his reports and compare them to the terrible reporting coming out of the Washington Post right now is a stunning contrast between a knowledgeable writer who goes out and mixes with the troops and one who is looking to reinforce his prejudices. On its editorial page the NY Post recognizes the substantial contribution of Peters reporting to our knowledge about what is really happening in Iraq. He is in a select group that includes NY Times reporters Michael Gordon and John Burns who bring clarity to the fog of war and cut through the political agenda of much of the media.