Anbar 'Turnaround' Undercuts War Rationale

[TexasLawyer]

August 10, 2007

Anbar 'Turnaround' Undercuts War Rationale
by Gareth Porter

In hailing what he has called an "almost breathtaking" turnaround in Anbar Province that has weakened al-Qaeda as a triumph for his new military strategy in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus has put a favorable spin on a development which actually challenges the central rationale for continued US military occupation of Iraq.

The dramatic change in Anbar, in which Sunnis have replaced US forces and largely Shi'ite troops in providing security against al-Qaeda, is likely to be a primary theme in Petraeus's report on the surge next month. It has also become the favorite theme of war supporters, from right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer to the duo of Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.

But the new situation in Anbar cannot be attributed to US military operations or presence in the province. After five years of unsuccessful US military operations in Anbar, the US military's agreements with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar represents an acknowledgment that it was dependent on the very Sunni insurgents it once considered the enemy in Iraq to reduce al-Qaeda influence in the province.

In an interview with ABC News May 30, Petraeus admitted that the Sunnis "can figure out who al-Qaeda is a heck of a lot better then we can."

<snip>

http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11428

[TacticalPeek]

1. Exactly.

The main improvements come not where the surge is, which is Baghdad mostly, but where there is a 'surge' away from direct US combat toward support your local sheriff.

On average, Marines do it smart.

[wtmusic]

2. Anyone who resists the US occupation is now "al-Qaeda"

Suck up, and you're a "Sunni tribal leader". :eyes: