Wednesday, April 06, 2005

 

The Iraqi Insurgency

Wretchard comments on the recent change in insurgent tactics:
It definitely shows to what great a depth the enemy resistance was prepared and how much they had invested in the Iraqi campaign in the long months while US diplomats tortuously attempted to obtain permission to topple Saddam Hussein. I believe that historians in retrospect will understand the Iraqi insurgency was not something spontaneously ignited by outbreaks of looting in Baghdad in the aftermath of OIF, but a meeting engagement between two prepared forces. Iraq, as Princeton's Michael Doran observed, was intended to be the graveyard of America's counteroffensive against terror. Instead the enemy dug the grave for themselves. What we are seeing now is not simply the rout of a few armed men, but terror's greatest defeat in modern times.
I'm reasonably optomistic about democracy's chances in Iraq and the likelihood that the US will score a strategic victory against the terrorists. Though the fighting isn't over and we haven't really won anything yet, it is obvious that Islamic terrorists have suffered a strategic setback in Iraq.

Also, Austin Bay posts a description of what would constitute victory in the GWOT from "a senior military officer now serving in the Middle East." Bay's own thoughts on what would constitute an acceptable end state in Iraq are here.

UPDATE:

Bill Roggio offers his thoughts on the situation:
Critics of the Iraq War often cite the polarizing effect the American occupation will have on the Muslim world. But as Fatma, Abdullah and a host of other Iraqis who are turning in the jihadis they used to admire demonstrate, it is al Qaeda and the Islamofascists who are being marginalized in the Muslim world. Because of this Iraq is serving as a graveyard of radical Islam.

|

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?