Sustaining the military gains in Iraq

Reuters:

With an intensifying White House race drawing attention to his legacy, President George W. Bush could leave office without the baggage of complete failure in Iraq thanks to new U.S. military gains, some analysts say.

American success at quelling sectarian and insurgent violence has raised hopes that the relatively calmer conditions of the past few months in Iraq might last into early 2009, when the next U.S. president takes over.

"The overall prediction has to be that George Bush will escape this without an obviously visible abject failure. It may become that again over time. But right now, it looks like Bush will escape by the skin of his teeth," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.

O'Hanlon, who drew attention last July when he expressed optimism about the U.S. mission in Iraq in a New York Times column, estimates the odds of a major deterioration during Bush's remaining 14 months in office at less than 50 percent.

Bush's so-called surge strategy, which placed an extra 30,000 troops in Iraq this year to stabilize Baghdad and its environs, has contributed to a steep decline in violence the past two months, statistics released in recent weeks show.

Violence has fluctuated widely since the 2003 U.S. invasion. But analysts say recent improvements may continue because of more effective U.S. tactics and a rebellion against al Qaeda in Iraq by Sunni leaders in Anbar province.

Roadside bombing incidents have fallen by more than half since March. U.S. military deaths in October were at their lowest level since March 2006, and Iraqi civilian deaths were down about two-thirds from a 2007 high in January.

O'Hanlon said he believed the less violent conditions are likely to endure until Bush leaves office, despite the planned withdrawal of 20,000 U.S. combat troops by next July.

...

Sometimes Reuters plays word games that make no sense. "Bush's so-called surge strategy," is a case in point. What is "so-called" about it? Surge is a term that the military uses to identify an increase of force in an area. It is absurd to suggest that Bush is misusing the term when he is merely adopting the description the military gave him when they suggested the new strategy.

The article also misses one of the big differences in this lull in enemy activity from previous ones. In the past the enemy would surge its forces and when they were beaten back it would have to rebuild for its next surge. This time the Iraqis have bought into the American effort and have turned on the insurgents in a big way that they have never done before. In the past they have been bystanders in the battle with the bad guys. This time they are invested in defeating the enemy and have been disclosing his locations and his weapons caches in a big way that has put the enemy either on the run or in deep hiding.