this is one opinion that won’t get as much coverage as john murtha’s statements to the press. senator joe lieberman just returned from iraq, and he has a slightly different perspective on how things are going over there than murtha does.

sen. joe leiberman on iraq:

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country. The leaders of Iraq’s duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America’s commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

that’s how we can lose our political will to stay until iraq is stabilized. both republicans and democrats see the writing on the wall and obsess over the polls, which is why you won’t see many in washington (outside of the bush administration) echoing what lieberman says here.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

i agree with senator leiberman. he goes on to admit that mistakes were made initially, but says that we are making changes to correct some of those mistakes.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan–Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq’s 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the “build” part of the “clear, hold and build” strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future–and why the American people should be, too.

this is good news. we should listen to both sides of the argument and decide for ourselves which strategy makes more sense, keeping in mind the motivations of each side for their position on iraq. i have been critical of senator leiberman in the past for disguising his views while he was al gore’s VP pick, but he has been a strong supporter of the war in iraq from the very beginning, and he has always been consistent on this issue.
former U.S. secretary of state henry kissinger weighs in (courtesy: breitbart.com):

“I think to look at withdrawal from Iraq … could lead to disaster,” said Kissinger, who served as the top US diplomat in the administrations of presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

“We have to keep in mind what our objective should be, and if we leave Iraq under conditions at the end of which there will be a radical government in Baghdad, or part of the country becomes a haven for terrorism, it will have turned into a disaster that will affect the whole world,” Kissinger said in an interview with CNN television.

i will give the last word on this to iraq the model.

on the upcoming elections:

On the other hand, a war of words and speeches is growing among the different parties and candidates and two points issues to be taking more attention here, these are corruption accusations and the recurrence of former Ba’ath members in some lists.

Some candidates, namely Laith Kubba pointed out that he has political bombs regarding the above issues that will be revealed soon. Kubba who leads his own list has also challenged Ahmed Chalabi for an electoral debate.

However, people in the street think that candidates should focus more on their political platforms rather than on exchanging accusations and allegations.

the iraqis get it. i wish american politicians would figure this out.

from the post: The way to the parliament: fighting with posters and sometimes bullets.

I never had doubts in the hidden intentions of those in Iraq who keep saying that multinational troops must leave Iraq soon; they say their demands are essential for national sovereignty coming out of their patriotic feelings for Iraq while I see them as far as they could be from patriotism.

If those people put Iraq’s and Iraqis’ interests first, they wouldn’?t have asked the US to leave Iraq while the troops missions are yet to be accomplished and the Iraqi national forces are still not capable of protecting the country and the citizens.

We all know why some insist that US must leave or keep calling the presence of these troops an occupation. The problem is that the ordinary citizen here cannot talk about this in public for fear of being labeled as an agent or collaborator with the occupation and what can an unarmed citizen do to face such an accusation coming from this or that militia.

What pushes these politicians and militias to take this attitude is their dream of regaining sovereignty but not national sovereignty; it is their sovereignty over Iraq.

What is keeping these liars from making a large scale coup over the democratic change is the presence of coalition troops that are protecting the new Iraq.

Our newfound democracy is suffering a lot from the evil of neighboring dictatorships and the legacy of Saddam’s dictatorship and I see the only guarantee to the growth of our democracy until its institutions are firm enough and well established lies in the presence of coalition troops for a longer time. This requires not only the preparation of Iraqi security forces but goes beyond that to protecting the democracy until it passes the danger zone.

whether we like it or not, we will have to stay in iraq until the country is stabilized. we owe it to the iraqis who have risked their lives to vote in the elections (and to vote for the constitution) to see this through. we owe it to our soldiers who died to give iraq this new hope for a better future. at this point, we need to stop fighting about WMDs and playing political games. there’s more at stake than the political fortunes of the DC elite. what we are talking about is the future of iraq, and both sides need to stop playing games with that future.

“the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory.” –george orwell

i’ve said previously that rep. murtha should not be subject to personal attacks on his reputation and character just because he dared to question the bush administration’s iraq strategy. i still believe that. however, there are some major flaws in his public statements and his suggestion for immediate troop withdrawal from iraq, as bill kristol and robert kagan point out in this weekly standard article.

according to that article:

Murtha, of course, claims that the U.S. occupation is the primary problem in Iraq and that “our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence.” This is nonsense. For many months now, the insurgents have been shifting their attacks away from U.S. and coalition forces and directing them at Iraqis instead. Iraqis now make up the overwhelming majority of casualties resulting from insurgent attacks. This shift is evidence not only of the effectiveness of our protective measures, but also of the growing vitality of the Iraqi political process, which the insurgents, according to their own statements, fear and hate more than the U.S. military presence. As for the rise in the number of “incidents” against U.S. forces to which Murtha points, those numbers do not distinguish between incidents initiated by insurgents and those initiated by Americans. Recent U.S. operations have generated a large number of incidents, indeed–almost all of them supporting the coalition’s goals and harming the insurgents.

there are some areas where our iraq strategy needs to be improved. i don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest such a thing. but as kagan and kristol point out, we can succeed in iraq if we have the patience to see the mission to completion. at this point, i can’t say i believe that the american people are convinced that we can win in iraq. that’s what the polls seem to suggest. it is discouraging to me, as i’m sure it is to many other americans, that complete victory in iraq may take longer than we thought that it would.

an article by james fallows in the current atlantic monthly has a sobering look at post-war iraq strategy. the following quotes are from that article.

Let me suggest a standard for judging endgame strategies in Iraq, given the commitment the United States has already made. It begins with the recognition that even if it were possible to rebuild and fully democratize Iraq, as a matter of political reality the United States will not stay to see it through. (In Japan, Germany, and South Korea we did see it through. But while there were postwar difficulties in all those countries, none had an insurgency aimed at Americans.) But perhaps we could stay long enough to meet a more modest standard.

What is needed for an honorable departure is, at a minimum, a country that will not go to war with itself, and citizens who will not turn to large-scale murder. This requires Iraqi security forces that are working on a couple of levels: a national army strong enough to deter militias from any region and loyal enough to the new Iraq to resist becoming the tool of any faction; policemen who are sufficiently competent, brave, and honest to keep civilians safe. If the United States leaves Iraq knowing that non-American forces are sufficient to keep order, it can leave with a clear conscience—no matter what might happen a year or two later.

the whole article is brilliant. it’s worth getting a trial subscription to read more than the provided excerpt. the idea is that in order to get the iraqi army to the level of readiness it needs to keep the peace in iraq, it will require a longer commitment than the american people will support. unfortunately, i think this analysis is dead-on. the polls are already bruising the president on the iraq war. while i don’t believe any president should navigate by polls, i’m not sure that this war can succeed without the support of the american people. timetables are misguided, as i’ve said before, but the bush administration will continue to lose support for the war unless they can point to successful operations that resonate with the non-politicos in this country.

for the non-political blog post, please scroll down and enjoy the pandas. 🙂