by Frank James
The intelligence community's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is mixed enough where both sides of the Iraq debate will find enough fuel for their arguments.
The report essentially tells us what we already knew, that the coalition's military surge has worked to significantly drive down violence from al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shi'a significantly, but that the traction Iraqi politics and governance were supposed to gain through the efforts of the U.S. and Iraqi militaries to provide a protective shield hasn't yet happened.
That's a conclusion that we're likely to hear again when Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker deliver their Iraq progress reports in a matter of weeks. Indeed, what we got today is likely a strong foreshadowing of their hotly anticipated mid-September report.
With President Bush currently campaigning hard to buy more time with Congress and the American people for his approach to Iraq, which is to resist timetables for major troop withdrawals, the dropping of the NIE is timely and, of course, not accidental, since Bush can point to some of the findings as supporting his position.
It's a pattern the White House has settled into; the president argues for his course in Iraq and , lo and behold, it then makes available intelligence that favors its argument.
The report does make some interesting guesses about where things are headed in the short term.
For instance, it says that the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, already criticized as ineffective, is likely to get worse.
The IC (intelligence community) assesses that the Iraqi Government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months because of criticism by other members of the major Shia coalition (the Unified Iraqi Alliance, UIA), Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and other Sunni and Kurdish parties. Divisions between Maliki and the Sadrists have increased, and Shia factions have explored alternative coalitions aimed at constraining Maliki.
• The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decisionmaking, and increased Maliki’s vulnerability to alternative coalitions.
• We judge that Maliki will continue to benefit from recognition among Shia leaders that searching for a replacement could paralyze the government.
So the Iraqi government will be pummeled from all sides but remain standing in the end because the alternative is even worse and Iraqis know that, the intelligence community is saying.
The fact that the Iraqis haven't gotten their governing act together as quickly as Americans would've liked is being seized on by Democratic opponents of President Bush's Iraq strategy as evidence of his failure and a reason to pull the plug.
But as I indicated earlier, there's something here for everybody. The White House and its allies can wave around the intelligence judgment that much of the gains made so far in Iraq in terms of the suppressed violence will quickly evaporate if the U.S. exchanges its current "counterinsurgency" and "stabilization" efforts for the sole mission training Iraqis as most U.S. troops head for the exits.
We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven would erode security gains achieved thus far. The impact of a change in mission on Iraq’s political and security environment and throughout the region probably would vary in intensity and suddenness of onset in relation to the rate and scale of a Coalition redeployment. Developments within the Iraqi communities themselves will be decisive in determining political and security trajectories.
• Recent security improvements in Iraq, including success against AQI, have depended significantly on the close synchronization of conventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. A change of mission that interrupts that synchronization would place security improvements at risk.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
According to Juan Cole at
http://www.juancole.com
"knowledgeable" sources in the middle east now expect a military coup!
Wait, didn't we do that already?
Posted by: athena | August 23, 2007 3:38 PM
Lo and behold democracy is a lot messier than despotism.
Posted by: whatnow | August 23, 2007 3:54 PM
The tamping down of the bloodshed while welcome and commendable isn't the point.
Where is the political reconcilliation that is the foundation of a lasting peace?
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 23, 2007 3:56 PM
For many of the Wingnuts
it's their fear of being seen as weak that keeps them as mere passengers on that pro-war bus, unwilling to either get off or insist that it change direction immediately.
And that's exactly what Bush is now trying to stoke, with his stupid comparisons to the "effects" of our withdrawal from Vietnam. Prez Chimpy is laying the groundwork for the Wingnuts/Neocons to pin all the blame on the Democrats for any deterioration and/or chaos that ensues after our departure (as well as for any significant terrorist attack on U.S. or other Western civilians)....and RNC Bruce and Little Johnny D'Benchwarmer will be on here cheerleading for them.
Posted by: John E | August 23, 2007 3:56 PM
"Recent security improvements in Iraq, including success against AQI, have depended significantly on the close synchronization of conventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations."
read as... "We've made some progress"
"A change of mission that interrupts that synchronization would place security improvements at risk."
Read as "We need more time"
I don't know why we waste all of this time generating new reports. They all say the same thing.
They are all wordier versions of "Stay the course".
Posted by: Carl L | August 23, 2007 5:10 PM
Isn't it kind of rediculous to keep calling this a coalition action? What % of boots on the ground in theatre are non-US?
Posted by: Carl L | August 23, 2007 5:17 PM
Now that the democRATS are getting a whiff of a positive Petraeus (surge is working) report,they seem to have found another reason to cut and run...it's called blame everything on al-Maliki and get pull our troops out while their winning!
The democRAT party owns defeat...look what they did in Viet Nam...they're masters of letting millions of people get massacred and IT DOESN'T BOTHER THEM ONE BIT!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | August 23, 2007 5:40 PM
Paulo, you amaze. Wasn't Nixon President when Nam ended?
As for Juan Cole's sources, its sad when a military coup actually seems palatable. But it is at this point. We could have kept the Iraqi Army intact in 2003 and just cut to that chase.
Posted by: kb | August 23, 2007 5:54 PM
Paulo-the-traitor,
Nice try, Benedict Arnold. You, like Bush, are trying to re-write history, but the nation isn't buying. Why don't you go an out another undercover operative, or is it you just don't care about the millions of Iraqi's who have already been killed or dislocated. SHUT UP OR ENLIST!
Posted by: Neal | August 23, 2007 6:25 PM
kb,
Ummmmm...the democrat controlled congress stopped funding the war and 1.8 million people were slaughtered in VietNam after we left.
democRATS own defeat and the death of millions...now they want to do the same thing to Iraq!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | August 23, 2007 7:07 PM
Now that the democRATS are getting a whiff of a positive Petraeus (surge is working) report,they seem to have found another reason to cut and run...it's called blame everything on al-Maliki and get pull our troops out while their winning!
The democRAT party owns defeat...look what they did in Viet Nam...they're masters of letting millions of people get massacred and IT DOESN'T BOTHER THEM ONE BIT!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | August 23, 2007 5:40 PM
Paula get bent!
Posted by: N379P | August 23, 2007 7:08 PM
Perhaps those of you who think the nation
can prosper with only one philosophy and one political group should remember that a bird with only a left wing cannot fly. Nor can it do so with just a right wing. It's time to can the radical rhetoric on both sides and support a two-party system of government with proper checks and balances. A one-party system sure didn't work for the Soviet Union.
Posted by: Archer | August 23, 2007 9:18 PM
N3779P or JohnE.
Where did you learn to debate so well?
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | August 23, 2007 10:28 PM
"Ummmmm...the democrat controlled congress stopped funding the war "
Ummm...no Paulo. Nixon cut and ran in 1973. The Democratically controlled Congress suspended funding for restarting US participation in the war when North Vietnam attacked again in 1975.
Posted by: Tony | August 24, 2007 8:41 AM
[quote]
It's a pattern the White House has settled into; the president argues for his course in Iraq and , lo and behold, it then makes available intelligence that favors its argument.
[/quote]
Well, that pretty much sums up the pResident Doogie Howser administration, doesn't it? When the facts do not support your claims, twist the facts until they do.
Posted by: BC | August 24, 2007 10:50 AM
[quote]
Now that the democRATS are getting a whiff of a positive Petraeus (surge is working) report
Posted by: Paulo | August 23, 2007 5:40 PM
[/quote]
Paulo, now that it's been made public that the White House is going to WRITE THE REPORT that Petraeus will read before Congress next month, one that will "validate" the plan that Petraeus came up with in the first place, why would you expect it to say anything other than what Dubya wants it to say?
Posted by: BC | August 24, 2007 10:54 AM
Paula- you're a quacky clueless fool. You need to go away. Go to Iraq or something and fight those terrorists. OR, maybe head off to the Afghan/ Pakistan border to search for bin Laden.
Posted by: Doug R. | August 24, 2007 11:15 AM
N3779P
Where did you learn to debate so well?
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | August 23, 2007 10:28 PM
Clearly not from you. Your comments are tedious rants. They lack any intelligent discourse. If I tell you to get bent it's because I GROW WEARY OF YOU! What you should really ask yourself is what is N379P? Not N3779P. N379P. Why does this person post as N379P? I say again your so called comments are tiresome.
Posted by: N379P | August 25, 2007 1:30 AM