Never make predictions,” said the American baseball manager Casey Stengel,
“especially about the future.” Alas, I have never been able to resist an
invitation to emulate Nostradamus, though without developing the flair for
ambiguity and impenetrability that has enabled his enthusiasts to claim that
he foresaw everything.
So when, for the January 1 edition of this newspaper, I was asked to write 100
words of predictions for 2007, I embraced the task with diligence and as
many prophecies as possible were squeezed into the space available.
So imagine my horror when I opened the page of predictions and discovered that
most of my colleagues had deftly managed to offer the fewest possible
hostages to fortune in their contributions or had written elegant homilies
on how mad it was to be straying into this line of business in the first
place.
Daniel Finkelstein noted that “the record of experts making predictions is not
very good” and, hence, the best strategy was “to forecast that what happens
in the coming year will follow very closely what happened last year”.
The first of these rules is undoubtedly robust. My favourite expert insights
include “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers” (Thomas
Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943) — my household, incidentally, has those five
— along with “who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” (H.M.Warner, the
founder of Warner Brothers, defending the silent movie, 1927), and “All
attempts at artificial aviation are not only dangerous to life but doomed to
failure from an engineering standpoint” (the Editor of The Times, 1905).
The second rule works most of the time but is less useful than it might
appear. It is no help if the event involved lacks a precedent. This is
demonstrated by the distinctly mixed record of my own reckless predictions.
These were, on the one hand, that Gordon Brown would be elected Labour
leader unopposed, that Nicolas Sarkozy would become the President of France
and that Steve McClaren would not be in charge of the England football team
by December 31 and, on the other, that Hilary Benn would be elected deputy
leader of the Labour Party (Harriet Harman surely has made the case that he
should have been) that Jack Straw, not Alistair Darling, would be the
Chancellor (Mr Darling seems to be striving to show that Mr Straw was the
smarter bet) and, worst of the lot, that Barack Obama would not run for the
US presidency (I blame Oprah).
And there was one more that defied the notion that “the future is the past”
completely. It was “Iraq is more peaceful in 2007 than at any time since the
2003 invasion”. Not only is this essentially correct but it is the most
important story in the world this year.
By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The
number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage
of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is
above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel
and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today
returning home.
The cheering has, of course, to come accompanied by caveats. Security has
certainly been improved, but it remains fragile. Basra and the surrounding
areas, handed back by Britain yesterday, are not as violent as they were a
few months ago but this comparative peace has been bought at a high price in
terms of tolerating intolerance (particularly towards women).
Also, there is a telling contrast between what has been won by the American
“surge” and lost through the British “slump”. We once boasted about the
virtues of a “softly-softly” style, allegedly honed in Northern Ireland, but
the truth is that the British Forces have been so softly-softly that the
local militias long ago decided that we were not very serious about using
our troops to exercise influence. The Baghdad Government is not impressive
and what progress there has been is despite, not because of it. There is
much hard work to be done if a constitutional settlement is to be completed.
Yet none of this should detract from what has been achieved in Iraq so
unexpectedly this year. First, the country will now have the time to
establish itself. A year ago it seemed as if American forces would have been
withdrawn in ignominious fashion either well before the end of the Bush
Administration or, at best, days after the next president came to office.
This will not now happen. The self-evident success of the surge has obliged
the Democrats to start talking about almost anything else and the calls to
cut and run have abated. If the US Army remains in Iraq in strength,
continuing on its present path, then deals on a constitution and the
division of oil revenues between provinces will be realised.
Secondly, the aspiration that Iraq could be some sort of “beacon” in the
region is no longer ridiculous. It will never be Sweden with beards, but
there has been the development of a vibrant capitalist class and a media of
a diversity that is unique in the region. Were Iraq to emerge with a federal
political structure, regular local and national elections and an economic
dynamism in which the many, not the few, could share, then it would be a
model.
Finally, Iraq in 2007 has illustrated that the words “intelligent American
policy” are not an oxymoron. The tragedy is that the approach of General
David Petraeus could and should have been adopted four years ago in the
aftermath of Saddam Hussein's enforced departure. One prominent American
politician alone has spent that time publicly demanding the extra soldiers
which, in 2007, have been Iraq's salvation. That statesman is John McCain.
Is it too much to hope (let alone predict) that he will reap his reward at
the polls in 2008?
It's sad that so many people have to have the writing on the wall - no, their noses stuck up to the writing on the wall, in order to see what could only happen. The US/UK forces won the Iraqi war years ago and have only been policing it since. With determination and support for a local democratic government (unlike Afghan under USSR), locals will embrace the new government and with time, take command. Once this structure is in place, the foreign police force is removed. And yet, you would think that this is so new and impossible to journalists that you wander if they ever studied any history in their collegiate days.
Feist, Wichita, US
Like so many other reporters this one on ending on a negative note by asking "why didn't we do this (the surge) 4 years ago?".
I'm no military expert, but I question if the strategy would have worked 4 years ago, or even one. Required was a change in attitude & trust by thee locals themselves, and that only came with time. Had the surge been enacted earlier, and out troops dispersed into Iraq forces earlier, it would probably have been followed by death & disaster.
I sure would like to hear informed military comment on this speculation..
Harley, Algona, IA
John D. Froelich, I agree the US succeeds in some ways, but let's not overegg the pudding. By your logic, I presume there is a plan, to give Texas, California etc back to the Mexicans? Don't see what you want all that desert for anyway.
Ben, Brussels,
JP, Frankfort, KY/USA "But better societies/regions emerge after an American victory." ---------------------- Clearly, you are learning history from Hollywood films.
Yeh, among American victories, you forgot to mention liberation of the planet Earth from alien invasion on July the 4-th, making this date an International Independence Day! :))
Elena, Bed's, UK
To Edward McNally of California, Churchill foresaw as early as 1931 the danger from Hitler and the need to rearm to meet the threat from a resurgent Germany. He was a vociferous and passionate advocate of the absolute necessity to confront Hitler during the 8 years prior to the invasion of Poland. It was this that afforded him the moral and political authority to take over the leadership following the discredited appeasement policy of his precedecessors.
As far as a judgement on Iraq is concerned, to paraphrase Chou En Lai on the French Revolution, "its too early to say".
Peter Foster, almaty, kazakhstan
"The Baghdad Government is not impressive and what progress there has been is despite, not because of it."
Take the word Baghdad and replace it with "British" or "US" or any for that matter. Why expect more of the Iraq parliament than any other?
Sigmundur, Reykjavik, Iceland
America's history in support of freedom is shown by many things, here are two:
After extremely extensive conquests during World War II, America annexed or retained NOTHING, and, in fact, gave the Phillipines independence.
It is widely estimated that certain easily-accomplished banking and financial actions would have Canada bankrupt and totally knocked out in a matter of a few weeks, yet America has never used this to bully our nothern neighbor.
John D. Froelich, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, USA
It is possible that something good will come out of all this. It was not possible for anything good to come out of Saddam.
william, nyc usa,
Although some readers may wish for the good old days when Saddam ran the country, I don't. Things are not perfect in Iraq- displaced citizens and car bombs- but things are better than when a murderous, raping, brutal dictator was in charge, committing genocide and threatening all neighbors. To want the US never to have overthrown him is rather wrong. Dan, Bernard, Rachel- what is the cost to fight evil? What is the cost to win? What would your reaction have been to Hitler? Stalin? Lay down? Appeasement? Fighting and winning, with the goal of establishing a prosperous democracy that respects human rights- that is not something to mock or say we shouldn't do. Critize all you want the process, and it is okay to be critical of our policy after, but be careful that you do so for the right motives. To make the world a better place to live in is a good thing.
Kyle, Detroit, MI, USA
You forgot to give the credit to the man who defied the conventional wisdom, didn't give up or give in, and ordered the surge - President George W. Bush.
Todd Hammond, Valtice, Czech Republic
As one learned man said, “Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.†No country will ever succeed in imposing what they consider to be democracy on another nation. The British, Dutch and French learned this to their cost. Let the Iraqi people deal with their own problems.
Unfortunately further bloodshed is inevitable but the Iraqis will, hopefully, realise the futility of internal strife and with some technical/ financial aid return to normality. Only time will tell. Religion is their biggest problem. Those who seek power have used religion to further their evil objectives since the beginning of time and nothing has changed, particularly in the Middle East.
Charles, Beverley, UK
Forget the surge which is little more than a form of military rule in Baghdad, ask yourself why the US wants another round of peace talks (the fourth) with Iran? They've realised that the cannot deliver peace in Iraq without Iran's invovlment. Of course when the US pulls out most its forces Iran will take on more and more responsibility.
Alfonso Parelli, London, UK
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things... The decayed and degraded state or moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill
Drew, Kansas City, United States, Missouri
History will show that Bush and Blair were of the best leaders in our tmie and generations to come will be grateful for what they achieved in Iraq.
Alwyn, Johannesburg, South Africa
Saddam killed over 200,000 over his thirty year reign of terror. It is likely that there are more people alive in Iraq now than there would have been without the invasion, and it is certainly true of the future. "Illegal invasion of sovereign nation"? Get real. The UN did not have the courage to enforce its own ten year string of resolutions. Not a SINGLE blogger on this page could witness a SINGLE DAY of the dark torture machinery of Saddam and not demand his removal. You people need to get serious. You would be living in the Third Reich if your grandparents exercised the same wimpering self-righteousness and disconnect to reality exhibited by most of those responding to this article.
Luke Liberty, Colorado, USA
Mike, Plymouth ,UK
I was in no way comparing the atrocities of Hussein to Hitler. I was simply making the point that violence is many times an unfortunate but necessary price for freedom. With regard to the morality of the war you are completely wrong. The Kuwait war was ended by a truce, with a UN implemented 'no-fly' zone. Hussein broke 17 UN resolutions, including constant attacks on our (and your) pilots within this zone. And since when is aiding a majority (Shia) being oppressed by a minority (Sunni) considered immoral? That's a very strange judgement. As to others who are evil in the world, fights are always chosen based on the stakes and interests involved. The world's economy and the livelihood and health of billions depend (sadly) on oil. To protect this supply is humane, not selfish.
Also, If it was so easy to see the evil in Hitler, why was Churchill opposed until roughly the invasion of Poland? Bush may well turn out to be the visionary here, like Reagan.
Edward McNally, Studio City, California
So many of you have forgotten Sadam's genocide on his own people (MILLIONS of dead Kurds). War always takes unfortunate and innocent victims- significant change (for better or worse) in a country will always produce a period of unrest. Was WWII worth it -or would it be better to have spared all those victims for the German language in various European countries?
Are some of you actually worried it might be changing for the better? It would certainly make your last four years of whining a moot point.
Ask a troop returning home - or even a Iraqi about how it feels in Iraq and not some blogger cozied up in a posh condo that has only "coddled" world experience and make up your own mind.
Will, Austin, TX
I would not have wanted to live in Europe during WWI or WWII in Vietnam during the War, in the US during the Civil War, etc etc etc.
Wars are difficult for the people/generations that live through them. But better societies/regions emerge after an American victory. See Europe/Japan/Pacific post World War II, Eastern Europe post Cold War. The same thing will occur for Iraq and the Middle East after the victory there.
Destabilize the region? The region wasn't that stable to begin with. This is possibly the last, best chance for the middle east to move forward and join the developed/modern world.
To Alan and Bernard: Iran was a thorn in the side of America since 1990 and we could not let that threat continue in a 9-11 world. Who is responsible for the deaths of so many Iraqi civilians? Al-qaeda and various insurgent groups. The US did not choose cities as the battleground. Perhaps you just favor American soldiers being deployed to save England and Australia?
JP, Frankfort, KY/USA
"Don't you think it was up to Iraqis to decide how they want to live? ..."
So you think that the Iraqis were ABLE to decide how they wanted to live under the Hussein dictatorship?
From MEMRI:
"First, the tyrants don't leave until bombs fall. The peoples alone are not capable of struggling with dictatorial regimes except with powerful external help…"
"We the Iraqis have already proven our helplessness. With all our ideological forces, our leaders, our masses and the weapons we possessed, we have proven our inability to move even a single hair in Saddam Hussein's mustache… and since only the Americans are able to change Iraq, and since they are the only arm capable of reaching the thief in his den, the terrorist in his cave and the despot in his hiding stronghold… there is no escaping from American help…"
Sarah, Richmond, USA
More on Mike from Huntsville idea that the US has the urge to dominate.
Where does that idea come from? We had troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for years. Did we dominate that govt?
We have had troops in Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, for decades. Have we dominated those countries?
What other country, besides the US does the US dominate? Yes, the US does have its own foreign policy goals, like all nations. And it does its best to advance its interests. Just like all nations do. But where has the US gone in and controlled another govt?
The soviets did. I just don't see where the US has done that.
David Ging, London,
As an African American, all I can say is that I'm so grateful the likes of BRUCE NORTHWOOD didn't get their way around the time of Gettysburg. Bruce, you're only partly right -- Lefties such as yourself who are blinded by your egocentric self-righteousness are the real "dismal failures".
Alex J., New York, NY
The Soldiers have done terrific work in Iraq, but saying that the approach that GEN Petraeus took should have been done 4 years ago isn't quite on the money. It's taken this long for the Iraqis fighting the US presence to figure out who's really the bad guys--and for the Iraqi people to decide they don't and won't tolerate violent oppression at the grass roots level. Even though the Iraqi political system is still dysfunctional, it's the combination of the Iraqi citizen that has decided to act against self-destruction and oppression by AQI, and the efforts with US and coalition soldiers, and the large US cash infusion that's finally made huge improvements.
Katherine, Washington, DC,
General Petraeus may be a fine warrior, but he's no T.E. Lawrence.
Complacency in the Iraq mess is not an option, despite apparent success.
Get ready to duck in 2008.
Roger, Brisbane, Australia
The purpose of the"surge" was to allow the non functioning,basket case Iraqi government to get its act together. That has not happened and is not likely to happen. The entire Iraqi adventure is a dismal failure,
Bruce Northwood, Washington, D.C. , USA
Yes, there maybe some improvement in the amount of violence in Iraq due to more troops on the ground and a change in tactics. From reports today it looks as if we Brits have left southern part of Iraq in the hands of gangsters and corrupt officialdom. However I predict that within 6 months after the last foreign 'peacekeepers' leaving Iraq there will be a new Saddam in power. It's the nature of the beast.
david, London,
What's all this leftist talk of slaughter? Who slaughtered whom? These people were "slaughtering" one another before Saddam, during Saddam and after Saddam. Britain and the U.S. have given the Iraqis a chance for a decent future. It's now their responsibility to take this chance and do something good with it. You left-wing defeatists make me sick.
Andrew, Oshawa, Canada
I agree on all but one point. The reason more troops early would have made no difference, is because US troops don't speak Iraq's language. Since Viet Nam, the US military has had as priority #1 the protection of innocent bystanders--ie, minimum collateral damage. And if you can't speak the language, you can't sort the bad guys from the innocent. Interpreters don't help at all. US troops had to wait until enough Iraqi troops were vetted and trained so they could team with them---Iraqi troops could sort out the bad guys and US troops could help finish them off. The only missions our troops could do early were limited to getting reliable intelligence on concentrationsof al Queda where they could use massive firepower to take them out. How effective would the famed Brirish police be in London, if they only spoke Farsi? Long term, the Iraqi families will take stock and realize how few of their clan were killed by Americans.
Mr. Vester--Maryland
Mr. Vester, Howard County, MD
The major conflict in Iraq is not against Al Qaeda, but rather Sunni vs Shia. Now that we have armed the Sunnis, how long will it be before those same arms are used against their real enemy, the Shia?
Dennis Donaghey, Bedford, Tx
Edward McNally, your comparison of the current Guf conflict and the Second World War is at best misjudged and at worst a disgrace. Saddam Hussein had not for ten years sought to expand, had no apparent plans to rule the world, and had not the means nor the know-how to accomplish even the smallest of military goals. His murders were largely racially motivated, and that is the only similarity. The war was declared on false pretenses and is therefore almost conclusively immoral and wrong. There are several more dangerous men in the world, but shockingly none of them is sitting on a great barrel of oil. Your support of your President, admirable as it would be in times of a just war, are mislead and do yourself and your country no favours.
Mike, Plymouth, UK,
God bless General David Patreaus' skill and leadership in Iraq.
History will be kind to General Patreaus and President Bush for liberating Iraq from the bloodthirsty, ruthless regime of Saddam Hussein.
Also, I am very proud of the U.S. military and the military of our allies (such as Great Britian and Australia) who have stood by America when so many other nations failed to do so.
Thomas, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Dear Americans, stop listening to your propaganda and get one thing straight: the world is sick of your militant interfereing foreign policies.
STOP SAVING THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Elena, Bed's, UK
Mr. Ging cogently points to an aspect of this affair that few people seem to mention any longer -- no matter how brutal and barbaric Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people (and the world) were in for a real treat when his two sons took over.
Because of the invasion, the world (thankfully) will never know for certain what an Uday-led Iraq would have brought to our door. I, for one, believe the world will be much better in the long term for not having to deal with those two sadists and their daddy's chemical and biological arsenals. (Please, please, please don't tell me he never had them. He'd used them several times in the past.)
Tim Darcy, Washington DC, USA
Over the course of history, four years is a flash.
Rome was not built in a day.
Rick, Windsor, CO, USA
Rick Stelzer, Windsor, CO, USA/CO
David Ging, London; Mike, Huntsville, Alamama USA
Don't you think it was up to Iraqis to decide how they want to live? I can understand Bush, his poodle and Co, they want to control the world with all it's natural resources...
But you, what are you talking about? Who said that you have a better understanding of what is good for others? Have you already created idyllic societies in your own countries that you see it fit to lay the rules and run the rest of the world? Is it ignorance or arrogance talking in you? Or have you been brainwashed to such a degree that you can't see the obvious: US surge for dominance has plunged the world into a bloody mess.
Elena, Bed's, UK
if you think you can, you can, and if you think you can't.........well you're probably right. Thank God for some Americans with balls who worked Iraq out the hard way....and I apologise in advance to You Yanks for all the mealy mouther cringing whingin' limeys who post on this site. Yours is the Victory, enjoy it.
A (chastened) Brit
democritus, aylesbury,
There is a major point omitted re: Saddam's regime. Yes, it's true he killed his own citizens, but the majority of these killings occurred in the 80s and his killings in the 90s were largely carried out against oppositionists who depended on US support in the post Gulf War period (when the US left those opposition forces were slaughtered).
I'm not apologizing for Saddam's crimes against humanity; he should've been brought to justice and, that justice, if fair, would have delivered the same fate he met. But the idea that we HAD to go in and get Saddam nearly 10 yrs after the vast majority of his heinous crimes had been committed is ludicrous, and the $1 trillion (to be) spent has been a colossal waste of money on top of the tragic human losses. Saddam was contained, he wasn't an international risk.
Oh, and if you think Al-Sadr instituting a six-month ceasefire hasn't had a bigger effect on the decrease in violence, I've got a contract for a bridge to be built in Baghdad to sell u.
Geoff, Chicago,
I would disagree with Tim Hames in only one respect. I saw this change coming over a year ago when I first read about the Anbar Awakening (on an obscure website). Between that and the leadership changes to Petreaus and Gates it was obvious to me we only needed time. Petraeus has since put more time on the Washington clock. There's still a long way to go (decades) but it's in everyone's interest to make this work. I moved to Belgium a week before the Munich Olympics. Mideast fueled terrorism has been going on for a long time. It has become acceptable. It isn't. Bush may be a lousy planner and he hired some lousy characters that he took too long to fire. But he also had the conviction that all people have unalienable rights and sometimes they are worth fighting for.
Matt, Fort Collins, Colorado
It's amazing to me that so many are willing (eager?) to call a failure that which of necessity was won by blood. Would one standing in Europe in 1945 have said the victory was not worth the cost? The Iraqi people have suffered, and American strategy and tactics were far from perfect (in what war have they been?). But the Iraqis were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands under the Butcher of Baghdad, with no hope of a better future. Now they have hope, as does the entire Middle East.
As an American and supporter of President Bush, I am proud of what we and our allies have accomplished.
Edward McNally, Studio City, California
To Alan in Cologne; How about this scenario; Germany is ruled by a dictator who ruthlessly murders its own people because they are of a different "class" to the ruling dictator. The dictator is left in power by the international community too long and the dictator till becomes a threat to those people in countries which borders his own. He decides to invade the other countries (because they belong to HIS country) killing hundreds of thousands. Mass graves lay all throughout the region, and he gases his own communities. Oh,,,,,,,, wait,,,,,,,,,, sorry,,,,,,,, that also happened in Germany (as in Iraq). ............ Never mind. The option to leave Saddham in place was and continues to be an unreasonable line of arguement.
Mr. King, manchester,
And the most amazing thing of all is that those who were so spectacularly wrong about Iraq still expect to be taken seriously.
Mike, Huntsville, Alamama USA
Rachel,
You say "The US invasion legacy is still a disaster for Iraqi civilians.". I suppose that is opposed to the blissful life the Iraqi people had under one of the most brutal and sadistic regimes of the 20th century. Yes, it's horrible what al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgents, the Shia insurgents, and the influence of Syria, Iran and the Arab foreigners have done to Iraqi civilians. But all the polls I have seen say the Iraqi people think they are better off now than under Hussein.
Your solution seems to be that it was better to let the Iraqi people suffer under SH and then his sons for probably decades to come rather than to give them a chance to elect their own government and run their own lives. Is that really what you are saying?
David Ging, London,
History shows us that Guerrillas seldom win.
It wasn't the extra troops that defeated the Jihadists, but the change in tactics. The extra troops added speed to the process. Without the change in tactics, they would have just increased the boy counts.
As far as why not in '04, '05 or '06, you can blame the previous command structure. Both Franks and Garner wanted the 'ink blot' tactics that are being used today from the beginning. They were 'out politiced' by the JCS and State in the Summer of '03. So both generals are now enjoying their retirement.
The internet played a critical part also. It was due to the internet that the MSM was unable to hand victory to AQ, as they did to the Viet Cong in'75.
The biggest share of the credit goes to the Iraqi's themselves. They refused to lose, so they didn't. Quiters never win, winners never quit.
As far as the local politics, Iraq will NEVER look like the USA, or the UK. That is the best part of the whole deal.
john Samford, Memphis, CSA
Itis a triumph when compared to all other wars that the UNited States and its allies have fought.
No other war in history has been won so fast at the loss of so few lives.
100,000 Iraqis have not died in this war, and it would be surprising if the number topped 35,000 - 40,000.
Of course none of you were counting up when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering people, and he was *well* into the hundreds of thousands--no "maybe more" here.
George Bush was right, and the Grauniad (and its ilk) were wrong.
JOHN, Peoria, Illinois,
Yes Iraq is beset with problems, but many posters are taking a decidedly short term view.
Sadat wonders what will happen when the Americans leave. I have news for you Sadat, the Americans aren't leaving.
The economy was largely destroyed during the Hussein era. It will take time to develop but for some indicators check out the exchange rate on the dinar and the liquidity of Iraqi government bonds. And there is a vibrant free press and an elected government. Nice to see the UN taking some tentative steps toward a larger role in the reconstruction also.
As far as the bombings go, let's start blaming the people who are doing the exploding.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, the Iraqis have been given a republic, if they can keep it. It's in their hands.
b, boston, USA
indeed, alan. uk and us occupied by iraqi killers would not be a triumph. well, unless we had been under the rule of an evil dictator and the country was full of, say, scots doing their best to destroy it from within.
I realise that last bit is rather close to the truth.
jem, london, uk
Uh? Then how come this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2228690,00.html
Jeremy Poynton, Fromeville, 51st State
Trading insults and yah-boos doesn't help. What needs to be done is to learn the lessons of this affair (I do not say "triumph" or "disaster" which are emotive terms).
1 - Have a completely clear aim both in the direct combat phase and the aftermath.
2 - Ensure that there are sufficient foot soldiers on the ground to dominate and secure all contentious areas. Presence by day and absence at night is just not good enough.
3 - Ensure that technical personnel and equipment are made available to get all utilities functioning efficiently as soon as humanly possible.
4 - Repair and rebuild schools and hospitals as a priority.
5 - Get the message across by all means that objectives 2,3
&4 are your aims and that anyone who opposes them will be dealt with promptly and effectively.
Not exactly rocket science is it ?
Lewis Thompson, High Wycombe, UK
"By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again".
In your dreams. I refer you to the Last of Iraqis blogger, for instance. The US invasion legacy is still a disaster for Iraqi civilians. Last Thursday there were at least four car bombs in Baghdad, and dozens of ordinary blameless Iraqis killed while out shopping for essentials at lunch-time. Two million Iraqis are still displaced, and the international relief agencies cannot operate safely in Iraq.
Rachel Mawhood, London, UK
Way to go Alan, Cologne. Kinda of thing I was planning to write but never got around to it, or perhaps never quite had the nerve. The fact that so few realise the enormity of the disaster and the crime committed in their name, means the world has taken a turn for the surreal.
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan
Ah. Yet another Labour supporter living in Denial
Mike, Berlin,
'Major General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander, said the occupation had left him with a situation close to mayhem. "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world"'
If this is a triumph, give me disaster.
Peter Day, Doncaster, UK/ Yorkshire
I would have to agree with Sadat from Pakistan.
The real test will come when all forces are out of the region. I have got an extreamly uneasy feeling about what will happen at that stage. Probably and upturn in violence and a return to chaos.
This whole episode has not been a triumph at all. Just a complete mess that has destabalised the region and split communities at home in the UK.
Tim Hames what on earth are you banging on about !!??
Gareth, UK,
Hey you Amis and Brits who think Iraq is a "triumph" - imagine the following:
The USA (or Britain, if you wish) - four years of military conflict caused by an occupying (Iraqi?) force with a different religion, hundreds of thousands of Brits or Americans dead, including many thousands of mothers and children, hundreds of thousands of maimed, hundreds of thousands of bereaved, millions having fled the country as refugees - and much of your country with a devastated infra-structure, intermittent electricity and water supply and hospitals unable to cope with the demand.
A hated occupying force of 150 000 or more foreign troops, rampant, uncontrolled security guards roaming the US (or Britain), with their leaders stating that they won't leave until the "job" is done.
Plus a torture camp for British and US "terrorists".
Hey, you Amis and Brits - look at your devastated country, and tell me what you think when the occupying powers claim it's a "triumph"
alan, cologne,
Paul Francis, Brisbane, Australia
"I call on all leftie defeatists to issue a public apology about Iraq, because they all got it SO wrong"
I am not left wing but opposed an illegal invasion of a sovereign country.
That said, exactly what have those who opposed the invasion got to apologise for?
There are some 100,000 Iraqi dead (possibly more, who knows?), 4, 000 American troops dead, 175 British troops dead and Iraq ruled by the whoever has the most guns in the vicinity, an economy in ruins and essential services, power and water, only regularly available to the invaders.
Which bit are we supposed to applaud?
Bernard Mahan, Edinburgh, Scotland
I believe what Allied forces have been mentioning as "progress in iraq" is actually the strategy of iraqi militias to avoid conflict for a time being before the drop of number of Allied forces.
As soon as number of forces will be decreased we can will see even more blood shed then before.
"Progress in Iraq" is just a wishful thinking of Bush &co.
Sadat, Karachi, Pakistan
" The tragedy is that the approach of General David Patreaus could and should have been adopted four ago in the aftermath of Saddam Husseins enforced departure."
Dan, IOWA,
Anyone who assumes that we haven't made huge changes there for the better and act as the world is nigh no matter how much the truth says otherwise are beyond understanding of human beings.
<--Volunteered for 3 tours to Iraq and another one on the way.
Anon, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina
A belated bit of good news maybe, but a triumph? After four years of slaughter, Mr. Hames' high spirits seem a little misplaced. And tasteless too.
Peter Barker, Gander, Canada
"By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph."
Yes indeed! We're killing them and they're killing women and children in only double digits per day. Hurrah!
Anyone - anyone - who would associate the word 'triumph' with any period of the occupation of Iraq is beyond my understanding of human beings.
John Blackley, Austin, TX, USA
I call on all leftie defeatists to issue a public apology about Iraq, because they all got it SO wrong. But I won't hold my breath - they will probably just find something else to be miserable about. Gee, they really had the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart, didn't they?
Paul Francis, Brisbane, Australia
It'd be nice.
Dan, IOWA,