Making friends

Arab journalist Hussain Abdul-Hussain explains in the Huffington Post blog what's actually going on with U.S. policy towards the Mideast: "As Bush went out recruiting allies, and making enemies, Obama lost America's friends while failing to win over enemies."

Abdul-Hussain provides a sad litany of former friends, like the pro-democracy Lebanese, who have decided they'd better make peace with Syria because the United States won't back them up.

As for Iraq: "after losing more than 4,300 troops in battle and spending $700 trillion since 2003, America today cannot find a single politician or group that would express gratitude to Americans for ridding Iraq of its ruthless tyrant Saddam Hussein, and allowing these politicians to speak out freely.

On the contrary, shy of making their excellent backdoor ties with Washington known since they fear Obama will depart Iraq and never look back, Iraqi politicians started expressing dissatisfaction with the United States in public."

Nor has the United States fared better with its enemies: "Apparently, the benevolent Obama failed to impress America's number one enemy, Al-Qaeda.

Between September and December, the group sent a suicide bombers into New York and Michigan. The first was foiled, the second luckily failed."

Unfortunately, there are no signs that our policy toward the Mideast or the Muslim world is likely to change. (Thanks to Barry Rubin.)

A very brave man

This article in the Middle East Quarterly describes how liberal Iraqi parliamentarian Mithal al-Alusi has persisted, in spite of political troubles and the assassination of his two sons, to argue that Iraq should make peace with Israel - as indeed it should with all the states in the region. He is also a prominent defender of the free market, press freedom, and human rights, including women's rights.

Suicide bombers in Iraq

There have been a series of successful suicide bomb attacks in Iraq in recent weeks, but here's one that wasn't. This fellow was attempting to blow up a crowd at a Shiite mosque in Kirkuk when what look like civilians (at least, they're not in uniform) wrestled him to the ground, explosives vest and all.

According to the report, the would-be bomber was Ammar Afif Hamada, close to Al Qaeda in Iraq commander Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who himself was captured last week. I'm no expert, but it seems unusual to me that someone that high in the Al Qaeda command would be trying to blow himself up. Usually, underlings get that job. Either it's a sign of desperation, or he's misidentified. (Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

Turning the corner

According to a recent report, polling data suggests positive trends in Iraq. In a survey conducted by ABC News, the BBC and Japan's NHK, 85% of Iraqis considered their neighborhood security to be good. And, according to a CNS News report, 64% of Iraqis support democracy and 58% consider the situation in Iraq to be very good or quite good. (Thanks to Investor's Business Daily.)

Would it really be that painful to admit that we occasionally succeed? I'm not saying life in Iraq is perfect - but it is apparently safer there than in certain spots in Mexico.

Iraqi elections

Remember how President Bush was ridiculed for trying to bring democracy to Iraq? Well, the recent elections there suggest he may not have been so crazy after all. Charles Krauthammer describes here how secular parties have defeated Islamist ones; and how prime minister Maliki, who pursued close security relations with the United States, has emerged stronger than before. As Amir Taheri puts it, "All the parties that had 'Islamic' or 'Arab' in their names lost. By contrast, all those that had the words 'Iraq' or 'Iraqi' gained."

Two thoughts about this story, beyond the obvious (that these elections are worth celebrating):

-- Primary credit for the largely peaceful, clean elections goes to the Iraqis. However, the lack of media coverage suggests that they perceive the outcome as also due to Bush's policies - and that they don't want to say anything positive about Bush.

-- President Obama has talked about the need to show respect to the Muslim world. I would argue that we showed respect to the Iraqis by taking them seriously and that they responded in kind.

Jihad suicide hotline

For a little humor, try this: an Iraqi suicide hotline for jihadis.

Jihadi view of US elections

The NEFA Foundation has translated a rather unusual analysis of the US elections contained in a communique issued by the media spokesman of the Islamic Army in Iraq. He contrasted the ability of candidates of the same party to overcome their differences to work for a common victory, and of the losing candidate to concede defeat without demonizing his opponent. Those actions, he argued, contrast sharply with what happens in many Muslim countries.

Krauthammer on Iraq

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer writes that the recent military and security agreement with Iraq represents a huge victory not just for the United States, but for Iraq and for democracy in the Middle East.

I don't disagree, but I would note that we made a costly error by allowing both Iraq and Afghanistan to base their constitutions on Islamic law. Iraq's Christian community will probably cease to exist; potentially fatal attacks on it have been launched since the U.S. occupation in 2003.

Something to be thankful for

The Iraqi parliament today agreed to the security pact with the United States that has been the subject of long negotiations. The agreement must still be ratified by the Iraqi president and two vice-presidents, but that is expected to be a formality. Today's action is a big step forward, no matter how you measure it.

Last summer, Obama wanted the Iraqis to postpone any agreement until he was in the White House; on balance, he should be very, very pleased that the Iraqis did not follow his advice. Obama will have plenty of foreign crises to deal with; no need to keep this issue open and festering. Using the Iraq war as a weapon to attack Bush was fine as a campaign tactic, but when you're sitting in the Oval Office, it's nice to have victories to celebrate.

Advice for Obama

President-elect Obama is getting lots of advice; here are two different proposals from Middle Eastern sources:

-- Abd al-Bari 'Atwan, editor of the London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, calls Arabs 'the epitome of racism,' saying Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States would never have allowed a black man to become president. He urges Obama to 'impose the American model of equality, rights and opportunities on all Arab countries.' (Thanks to MEMRI.)

-- The Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance issued an open letter to Obama, urging him to withdraw from Iraq. They told him not to make security agreements with other countries in the region, and called on him to release all prisoners in Iraq. These steps, they argue, will constitute the change from Bush's policies that Obama has been saying he wanted. (Thanks to the NEFA Foundation.)

I guess we'll have to wait and see which advice Obama takes.

Iraq, Pakistan, and Islamic radicals

There's no doubt that the Taliban is getting stronger, threatening Pakistan as well as Afghanistan. Yesterday's New York Times describes a vigilante attack by a posse from the village of Buner to avenge the murder of police officers killed by the Taliban.

I can't help thinking, when I read accounts like this one, that the difference between Pakistan and Iraq is that, in Iraq, the tribes that wanted to oust Al Qaeda have the benefit of support from the U.S. and Iraqi military. External governmental support is not apparently an attractive option for the villagers of Buner. They claim that the Pakistani military would create even greater havoc if it intervened.

Taheri II

Obama's spokesperson angrily denounced as a smear journalist Amir Taheri's charge that Obama had urged the Iraqis to delay any agreement on U.S. forces in Iraq until the new U.S. administration was in place. Then, however, the spokesperson immediately confirmed what Taheri had written. This attack has led to a follow-up article (thanks to Joe) in which Taheri provides more background. Two points of particular interest:

-- Here's the Iraqi Foreign Minister's version of his meeting with Obama, as told to an Arabic-language newspaper: "I told Obama, as an Iraqi, I believe that even if there is a Democratic administration in the White House, it had better continue the present policy instead of wasting a lot of time thinking what to do."

-- Taheri is now receiving death threats as a consequence of his first article. Sounds like he struck a nerve.

It's bad enough to have a presidential candidate seek to undercut a sitting president. But a U.S. presidential candidate with supporters making death threats?

Obama's objectives in Iraq

According to journalist Amir Taheri (here, thanks to Josie), during Obama's July visit to Iraq, his main theme was that the Iraqis should delay conclusion of the agreement governing the status of U.S. forces in Iraq until a new U.S. administration is in place. Obama argued that the Congress should be involved in the negotiations, and that the Iraqis should not negotiate with a weakened, lame-duck administration. He made the pitch both to Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari and to General David Petraeus, but neither supported it.

This proposal had been reported at the time, but not as Obama's main interest. In and of itself, the story is very disturbing (U.S. presidential candidate directly undermines key objective of sitting president). But beyond that, as Taheri notes, it contradicts Obama's oft-stated key objective: getting U.S. troops out of Iraq. Delaying signature of the agreement could postpone any subsequent agreements on troop withdrawals significantly. So why did Obama propose it? I think someone should ask him.

Petraeus Interview

Austin Bays conducted a radio interview with General David Petraeus on August 7. You can listen to it or read the transcript here on Pajamas Media. (There's also a short version of excerpts.) The interview includes some very interesting background on:

-- the surge of Iraqi troops. There are an additional 140,000 police and soldiers from the level in early 2007, at the start of the U.S. surge, and continuing to grow, in terms of numbers and of professional capabilities;

-- reform of the Iraqi national police. This included replacing every division commander, every brigade commander, and 75% of the battalion commanders, as well as extensive retraining of the police units;

-- nuts and bolts of successful civil-military cooperation.

Petraeus notes the progress to date, but cautions that the enemy remains 'lethal, resilient and very dangerous.'

Female suicide bombers

Al Qaeda may be on the run, but it is having success in Iraq with female suicide bombers: 27 attacks since the start of the year, according to CBS. Dhimmi Watch describes some of the ways the women are recruited: their husbands or sons may have been killed or detained by coalition or Iraqi forces; Al Qaeda members may have married, then dishonored them (perhaps having them raped by another man), so that their only remaining option is to kill themselves; or they have been told that if they didn't become suicide bombers, their husbands or children would be killed. Another article suggests that women who are illiterate, poor and whose religious fervor can be manipulated are at most risk.

Female bombers have an advantage, in that they can easily conceal the bombs under their clothing and males should not conduct body searches of them. So the Iraqis are hiring female police officers in Kirkuk and elsewhere to perform the necessary searches - apparently many of them widows of men killed by Al Qaeda. The BBC further reports that 150 female police graduates have been hired in Diyala to approach women thought to be vulnerable and attempt to persuade them not to become suicide bombers.

Surges and surges

I confess to being a little confused. Obama says he would still oppose the surge in Iraq, and that the surge did not contribute significantly to recent improvements there. But he wants to do a surge in Afghanistan. Why will that surge improve things? If the economic, political and security situation in Afghanistan is that much worse than in Iraq, isn't a surge even more likely to be a perilous and risky endeavor? And if the situation is that much better, isn't it even more superfluous?

Islam is the solution

This May 2008 article by Egyptian sociologist Sa'ad Eddin Ibrahim refutes the Islamist slogan that "Islam is the solution," listing all the countries where radical Muslims rallied behind it have ended up primarily killing other Muslims. Islamists in Iraq, he says, have killed ten times as many Muslims as have U.S. forces.

In condemning terrorist attacks in Iraq, Ibrahim is signalling a change of heart since his last article in December 2007, a change that came after strong criticism from three Iraqi intellectuals. Indeed, if we succeed in Iraq, the mark of that success will be Iraqis themselves telling the rest of the world about it. (Thanks to MEMRI.)

Winning in Iraq

Michael Yon, formerly of Special Forces, has been reporting independently from Iraq for some time, one of the few U.S. civilian sources outside the Green Zone. (His book, Moment of Truth in Iraq, is considered to be one of the most accurate depictions of the war.)

Yon's latest assessment is that, barring some major setback, the Iraqis are winning. The Iraqi military should be able to handle most challenges on their own by year's end, although we will be need to be there in some capacity to backstop them. The war in Afghanistan is looking much bleaker, although his sources tell him that, with the right strategy, it too can be turned around. See his blog for a chart showing the decrease in levels of violence.

Give Obama a map, someone!

I admit to being very confused. Obama says that we shouldn't be wasting our time in Iraq, since that country is not a 'central front in the war on terror', despite the fact that Osama Bin Laden said it was. But OK, let's assume Obama's right. Obama says that we should instead focus on Afghanistan, whence came the attack of 9/11, and on Osama Bin Laden himself.

The war in Afghanistan obviously requires more, serious attention than it has received thus far. But even if you accept Obama's analysis of the war on terror, his approach makes no sense. Osama Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan anymore, he's most likely hiding out in the wilds of Pakistan. Obama once volunteered to attack Pakistan; does he still advocate that? If so, shouldn't he let us know? His choice of Afghanistan doesn't even make sense if what he means is the danger to U.S. forces from a resurgent Taliban. That danger is real, but the Taliban weren't the ones who attacked us.

Aside from these difficulties (which I'm sure Obama would dismiss as 'distractions'), Obama is making a very serious political blunder. Afghanistan is way harder to fix than Iraq: it's much more remote, had a more primitive culture, suffered much more destruction, has a huge safe haven for the enemy just across the border in Pakistan - and, on top of all that, has a huge illegal drug trade. Making victory here the sine qua non of your anti-terrorist strategy is quite a reach.

Standing fast

Political commentator Michael Barone, in a July 12 article at National Review Online, compares President Bush's decision to proceed with the surge in Iraq with President Truman's one to start the Berlin airlift in 1948. Each acted against the advice of prominent experts and advisors. (For the link, click here and scroll down. Thanks to Paul.)

Both Secretary of State George Marshall and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Omar Bradley urged Truman to abandon Berlin. Instead, he insisted on staying and drew on the expertise and experience of General William Turner, who had organized the Burma airlift to China during World War II. Prominent former officials like Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton argued against the surge; Bush had only the support of a few experts like retired General Jack Keane and scholar Frederick Kagan, and the expertise of General Petraeus.