PDA

View Full Version : Iraq at the Tipping Point -by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (NYT's)


wacki
11-18-2004, 06:54 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?oref=login

CAMP FALLUJA, Iraq

Every time I visit Iraq, I leave asking myself the same question: If you total up all the positives and negatives, where does the balance come out? I'd say the score is still 4 to 4. We can still emerge with a decent outcome. And the whole thing could still end very badly. There's only one thing one can say for sure today: you won't need to wait much longer for the tipping point. Either the elections for a new governing body happen by the end of January, as scheduled, and the rout of Saddam loyalists in Falluja is consolidated and extended throughout the Sunni triangle, or not. If it's the former, there are still myriad challenges ahead, but you can be somewhat hopeful. If it's the latter, we've got a total fiasco on our hands.

I came out to the Falluja front in a small press pool accompanying the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, who flew in to inspect the toughest problems in Iraq firsthand. Most of the fighting in Falluja was over by the time we arrived at this headquarters compound, although the tom-tom beat of 155-millimeter howitzers, still pumping rounds into the city, was constant. Here are the questions I came with and the answers I took away:

How important is taking Falluja? Huge. Falluja was to the Iraqi insurgency what Afghanistan was to Osama bin Laden. It was the safe haven where militants could, with total impunity, plan operations, stockpile weapons and connect the suicide bombers from abroad with their Iraqi handlers. That's gone. One arms cache alone found here had 49,000 pieces of ordnance, ranging from mortars to ammo rounds. Another arms cache blown up last week kept exploding for 45 minutes after it was hit, a senior U.S. officer said.

What happens next in Falluja? The plan is for Iraqi Army, police and National Guard units to move in, restore order and hold the place so the insurgents can't retake it and voting can be conducted in January. Whether the Iraqi Army can do that is unclear. Don't believe any of the big numbers that people in Washington throw around about how many Iraqi security people we have trained. Those numbers are meaningless.

The reality is this: Where you have individual Iraqi police, National Guard and Army commanders who have bravely stepped forward to serve the new Iraq and are willing to lead - despite intimidation efforts by insurgents - you have effective units. Where you don't have committed Iraqi leaders, all you have are Iraqi men collecting paychecks who will flee at the first sign of danger. The good news: there are pockets of Iraqi leaders emerging throughout the Army and police. The bad news: there are still way too few of them.

Then do we have enough U.S. troops? No way. U.S. commanders are constantly having to make hard choices between deploying troops to quell a firefight in one place or using them to prevent one from breaking out in another. With two months before elections and the campaign about to start, Iraq remains highly insecure. And with most aid workers having pulled out, U.S. forces have to do everything. Units of the First Cavalry in Baghdad might be fighting militants in Sadr City in the morning, dealing with sewage problems in the afternoon and teaching democracy in the evening. Some of these young soldiers already have three Purple Hearts from having survived that many grenade attacks in Baghdad.

What have we learned from the many insurgents captured in Falluja? A vast majority are Iraqi Sunnis, with only a few foreign fighters. This is an Iraqi Sunni rebellion, but a senior Iraqi official told me that they had discovered Saddam loyalists who were using Aleppo, Syria, to regroup and plan operations.

Bottom line? Iraq is a country still on life support, and U.S. troops are the artificial lungs and heart. At the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Babil Province, which I visited, 211 marines have been injured in fighting in the past few months. But 180 of them insisted on returning to duty after being injured. U.S. forces still have a strong will to win.

But another thing remains impressively strong: The insurgents will go to any lengths to intimidate Iraqis away from joining the new government. Too many people, from cleaning women to deputy ministers, are being shot. The insurgents' strategy is intimidation. The U.S. strategy is Iraqification. This is the struggle - and the intimidators are doing way too well. Without a secure environment in which its new leadership can be elected and comfortably operate, Iraq will never be able to breathe on its own, and U.S. troops will have to be here forever.

Utah
11-18-2004, 09:43 PM
Friedman is a hack. His writing style is weak and boring and his analysis is even worse. The only reason he is known is because he covered the middle east early on.

I also met him at 2 social events and he is kinda an ass.

wacki
11-19-2004, 02:28 PM
Really? NPR, and a lot of college professors love his books. Have you read lexus and olive tree?

Why do you think he is a hack?

adios
11-19-2004, 02:31 PM
FWIW I thought the article was decent.

maroondude
11-19-2004, 04:37 PM
I think Friedman's best days were 10 years ago. This article really says nothing. To sum it up:
"Iraq may be good it may be bad some people are good some are bad Iraqi elections may be ok they may cause chaos...."
Make a choice! I know many things are not always clear cut, but this really does not have any new material and goes out of its way to play both sides of fence.
I have read his two most famous books the Lexus and the Olive Tree and From Beruit to Jerusalem (sp?)and I can see why he is popular, but this article was nothing new or creative.

adios
11-20-2004, 12:22 AM
I disagree. I think he's recognizing and pointing out the uncertainties that exist thus the outcome is in doubt and he's analyzing what might affect the outcome. Personally I value this kind of analysis much more than someone who uses their "crystal ball" and gives me another in a long list of opinions on what they think will happen. There are a lot of cracked "crystal balls."

wacki
11-20-2004, 04:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I think he's recognizing and pointing out the uncertainties that exist thus the outcome is in doubt and he's analyzing what might affect the outcome. Personally I value this kind of analysis much more than someone who uses their "crystal ball" and gives me another in a long list of opinions on what they think will happen. There are a lot of cracked "crystal balls."

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. Good post adios.

Chris Alger
11-20-2004, 05:33 AM
I think most college professors view Friedman as a dim bulb. His writing is painfully folksy, shallow and propagandistic. His forte is dispensing top-down (i.e. state-justifying) conventional wisdom for liberals and others seeking a bit more depth and nuance than they get from TV. It's the same thing NPR mostly does.

By "dim bulb," consider Freidman's metaphor about U.S. troops being the "heart and lungs" keeping Iraq alive during an insurgency that wouldn't exist but for the occupation by the, well, "heart and lungs." Trademark Friedman clumsiness.