Friday, June 13, 2008

Glick declares "strategic victory"


Peace with friends -Caroline Glick

There's one thing you have to admire about the Iranians - they always tell you just what they think of you.

[T]he day after Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki completed his three-day visit to Iran, his envoy to the Islamic Republic received a care package - delivered to his front door. When [the] Iraqi Ambassador's driver opened the package, he discovered it was a bomb. In their best Farsi imitation of the Godfather, Iranian police spokesmen claimed that the package was not a bomb - but aquarium equipment.

Media reports of the visit included no details of what Maliki told his Iranian hosts. But given their attempt to assassinate his ambassador the day after he left, it can be assumed that the Iranians were uninterested in a rational settlement of any differences. And indeed, it can be assumed that Maliki didn't mince any words as he discussed the war Iran is waging against his people.

The Iranians were absolutely clear that from their perspective, if the Iraqis sign an accord on the long-term deployment of US forces in Iraq, there will be hell to pay.

While in its coverage of the negotiations, the Western media has concentrated on statements by Iranian-backed Iraqi lawmakers voicing their staunch opposition to the agreement, most Iraqis support it. They simply want to ensure that the agreement that is eventually signed protects their interests as a country. [T]his is why the Iraqi government has sent delegations to Germany, Japan and South Korea to listen to what they have to say about their experience with long-term US troop presence on their soil.

The strategic agreement now being negotiated between the US and the Iraqi government is a watershed event. Five years after Saddam Hussein's regime was brought down by the US-led coalition, a democratically elected Iraqi government has emerged that views its strategic interests as aligned with the US's. Its forces are fighting side by side with US forces toward the shared goal of routing al-Qaida and Iranian-backed terror militias in Iraq. Indeed Maliki himself led the Iraqi assault on the Iranian controlled militias in Basra. Two months later, Iran had been routed not only in Basra, but in Sadr City in Baghdad where Iraqi and American forces fought side-by-side in street after street.

So five years after the fall of Saddam, a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional democracy in Iraq has emerged that views the US as its primary ally.

This is what a strategic victory looks like.

[T]he meaning of developments in Iraq, the most significant in our neighborhood since the Six Day War, has escaped the notice of most Americans.
[Jerusalem Post]

2 comments:

LHwrites said...

Sadly, only 3 people can call anything having to do with Iraq a victory...Glick, John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Even W. Bush and Cheney no longer bother. Actually, this sentence, if examined, said it all: "Its forces are fighting side by side with US forces toward the shared goal of routing al-Qaida and Iranian-backed terror militias in Iraq." Their forces fight side by side with Americans because, very sadly, after 5 years, they are barely closer to fighting on their own. We should not still be dying for this. Although maybe a case could be made for our continued presence. After all, as further stated, al-Qaida and Iranian backed militias need to be routed. Of course, they did not exist in Iraq until our invasion gave them the entrance. Some say our soldier "surge" worked and violence is way down. But it is only "way down" comparatively speaking, from the disaster we created when our leaders were all congratulating "mission accomplished". Unfortunately, we are years away from a peaceful and stable Iraq, if ever. And it is far from certain that a stable Iraq will have any interest in embracing the United States. There is a fantasy-land that some people seem to be living in. Most people don't have that luxury.

Bruce said...

Hi LHWrites. Nice to have you back...i hoped this provocative Glick piece would woo you into commenting.

I was originally going to edit it more succinctly so as to feature only her comments about Iran's assasination attempt. But her "strategic victory" proposal struck me as a unique analysis. Yes, as you noted, even Bush doesn't bother to make such claims.

Her victory call does sound a bit premature. I'd be thrilled if she turned out to be right, but I suspect [as you do] that she may be overly optimistic.

I always find Glick's column compelling, even when I disagree with her.