With fewer stories about Iraq in the media, many Americans are not aware of the great improvements there. Al Qaeda no longer has substantial control of any area of Iraq, normal citizens—Shiite and Sunni—have united to form over 300 neighborhood security groups, the Iraqi Army is increasingly conducting anti-terrorist operations on its own, and violence has dropped to two-thirds of what it was a year before. Not long ago, it seemed as if we were on the verge of defeat; now it is likely that Iraqis and Americans together will subdue al Qaeda and other radicals in Iraq and build a peaceful and tolerant society.
 The Fixer: Under Gen. Petraeus’ (left) watch, more Iraqis have begun cooperating with the U.S., and former enemies are switching over to our side. |
To appreciate the enormity of this accomplishment, and the debt we owe to the man most responsible for it, let us review briefly the tumultuous course of the war.
In 2003, after Saddam’s swift defeat and overthrow, America seemed on the cusp of a full triumph. But America’s lack of preparation and other errors opened an opportunity for radicals to launch a terrorist campaign. These enemies believed that the majority of Americans were not ready for a protracted war, and hoped that a steady trickle of casualties would destroy our will.
For nearly three years, we failed to change our strategy to meet this challenge, and by early 2006, America was clearly losing. The bombing of a holy Shiite mosque had ignited savage strife between Shia and Sunnis, and al Qaeda was steadily expanding its territorial domination. Some American commanders considered whole provinces lost and irrecoverable.
America was also losing on the home front. The newly elected majority in Congress began pushing for retreat in January 2007. President Bush (finally) announced a fundamentally new strategy, but most of the media called it “too little, too late.” By July, it looked as if Congress might force the U.S. to surrender.
Meanwhile in Iraq, General David H. Petraeus was quietly implementing the new strategy. He pushed soldiers off their bases to live among the population. He implemented “clear and hold” operations to ensure that cities once taken would not fall back under enemy control. He arranged for assaults on multiple areas simultaneously so hostile forces could not simply dodge American thrusts.
Remarkably, the enemies in Iraq yielded more quickly than anyone expected. Even before the full implementation of the new strategy in mid-June, U.S. troops began to receive much more cooperation from Iraqis, and former enemies rushed over to the American side. Thousands of volunteers boosted the Iraqi Army to 10 combat divisions (it will reach 13 in 2009). Once the Iraqi people saw that the U.S. was serious about winning, they quickly turned against al Qaeda and other extremists.
Congress could not ignore this progress, and the momentum to retreat eventually died away. Now it is so common for congressmen who once wanted to stop fighting to begin supporting the Iraq strategy that it hardly makes the news. Rep. Baird (D-WA) received national attention for changing his position in August, but Rep. Donnelly (D-IN) received almost none for doing so in December.
This political reversal occurred partly because of the efforts of many steadfast supporters of victory. But Americans could not have been persuaded to persevere in the war if General Petraeus had not started winning it. In less than a year, the Iraq War changed from a probable loss to a likely success.
Victory has not yet arrived, and it may be years before we can mark its arrival with confidence, but we can reasonably hope to see it.
Time magazine was correct not to name Gen. Petraeus “Man of the Year.” He is “Man of the Decade.”
Josh Levy (peacethruvictory@gmail.com) led a pro-victory rally against Cindy Sheehan last July.