A very interesting editorial could be found in The Times on Saturday (The Petraeus Curve: Serious success in Iraq is not being recognised as it should be – The Times, 3rd November 2007) The Editorial calmly sets out the progress in Iraq that has been seen in the last few months, and gives a reason for it:
“There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time.”
It goes on to explain the encouragement to be found in the statistics of success. The Times is not viewing Iraq through rose-tinted spectacles, it explicitly acknowledges the grave errors made in the initial post-liberation responses from the Coalition of the Willing:
“There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory. But not to recognise that matters have improved vastly in the year since Mr Rumsfeld’s resignation from the Pentagon was announced and General Petraeus was liberated would be ridiculous.”
In addition the newspaper warns that just because the Iraqi government and its allies are currently enjoying success, continued improvement is not inevitable. Indeed it stresses that this very success could be the catalyst which generates great atrocities:
“None of this means that all the past difficulties have become history. A weakened al-Qaeda will be tempted to attempt more spectacular attacks to inflict substantial loss of life in an effort to prove that it remains in business. Although the tally of car bombings and improvised explosive devices has fallen back sharply, it would only take one blast directed at an especially large crowd or a holy site of unusual reverence for the headlines about impending civil war to be allowed another outing.”
So why do we not hear more about these successes? Why is the good being done by the Iraqi government, our armed forces and those of the other constituent parts of the Coalition not being trumpeted? As usual, when you’re not being told the full story, you must ask in whose favour the spin is playing. Cui bono? The Times offers a suggestion:
“The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed.”
So there you have it. Until the Democrats in America and the left-wing media in the UK have got over their wish to see us mired in “another Vietnam” you won’t be told the full story. In the meantime, as ever these days, do some digging outside the mainstream media yourselves and you will find the real news.
Posted by ybfblogger 
