Iraq Round-Up!

Let's talk "surge." The big story out of the US this week -- and one you should do whatever you can to bring to your friends' and neighbors' attention -- is that the big September report that all the pundits have been waiting for with bated breath will be called the "Petraeus Report" -- after the anti-insurgency guru -- but will in fact be written by the White House. It will be a political document, it will say that things are tough but getting better every day, it will call for US troops to be pulled out of some of the hotter areas -- and probably call for some troop draw-down for appearances' sake -- it will paint a dire picture of a larger withdrawal, and it will all be utter bullshit.

Petraeus told a group of visiting lawmakers that "success" in Iraq -- according to what criteria nobody really knows -- will require a US military presence for the next decade or so.

A couple of seemingly conflicting pieces of polling data this week are noteworthy: According to Gallup, twice as many Americans have a positive view of Petraeus than hold a negative one, and eight in ten say he's at least a "somewhat" accurate source of information about events on the ground. Editor and Publisher says that may make the report with his name on it go down easier, but I wouldn't be too sure. According to a CNN poll released this week, "53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the [September report] will try to make it sound better than it actually is," while "Forty-three percent said they do trust the report."

Anthony Cordesman, a former Defense Undersecretary appointed by Reagan and now an analyst with the Center for American Progress, returned from a recent trip to Iraq and among his conclusions was this:

It would take nine to 12 months or longer to withdraw all U.S. troops, contractors and equipment safely from Iraq and phase out U.S. bases there, says a respected analyst after extensive talks with U.S. commanders and diplomats and Iraqi leaders in Baghdad.

Cordesman doesn't necessarily advocate a withdrawal -- I should make that clear.

Our British friends continue to gradually extract themselves from the mess Blair got them into. This week, a key panel in the House of Commons issued a report predicting that the "surge" would be ineffective. The MPs concluded what should be obvious to everyone:

We believe that the success of this strategy will ultimately ride on whether Iraq's politicians are able to reach agreement on a number of key issues.

Contrary to a lot of reporting -- stenography -- this week, the military situation hasn't improved in Iraq, but even if it had, the ebbs and flows of the multi-faceted civil war are irrelevant as long as there's no political reconciliation between the heavily-armed factions. The political situation in Iraq is as shaky as it has ever been, and that's all one needs to know to understand that the "surge" is and always was nothing more than a delaying tactic.

Speaking of the security environment, the big story out of Iraq this week was violence, specifically a series of four truck bombs that were detonated in an area of Northern Iraq with little to no government or US military control, killing at least 400, with the death toll expected to rise. The bombings targeted the Yazidi, a religious sect combining elements from Judaism, Islam and Christianity. It's likely that Sunni insurgents pushed out of Anbar and Diyala provinces by the presence of the highest number of US troops since the war began were responsible for the attacks. See Sam Dagher's article in our War on Iraq special coverage area for the fascinating and heartbreaking background to this story.

A powerful roadside bomb killed Khalil Jalil Hamza, the governor of Qadisiyah province, this week, along with the provincial police chief and two others. The southern province has been the scene of intense fighting between nationalist and separatist Shiite militias, a story that hasn't received as much attention as it deserves.