Some Room for Hope

For the first time, the President's strategy will be for our forces to protect Iraqi citizens in Baghdad and Anbar province. Prior to this, we had tried to keep a light footprint, clearing out insurgent hotbeds and then relying on Iraqi police and troops to hold the area. This strategy was successful in Afghanistan (Democrats supposedly liked that war), and was worth a chance in Iraq.

Now our troops will clear and then hold, matched with Iraqi troops (with significant US embeds) and police, who will patrol the areas. We will start in Baghdad by securing mixed Sunni and Shia neighborhoods, then move on to other pockets of unrest. We will have sufficient forces for that focused effort. And this time we will not be restricted by the Iraqi government from going into certain enclaves, such as Sadr City, home of the Mahdi Army. Yesterday Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki put the militias on notice:

"This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods," Bush said. "Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."

Before Bush spoke, a senior Shiite legislator and close al-Maliki adviser said the prime minister had warned that no militias would be spared in the crackdown.

"The government has told the Sadrists: 'If we want to build a state we have no other choice but to attack armed groups,'" said the legislator, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the prime minister.

The President also for the first time specifically engaged Syria and Iran, who have been infiltrating foreign fighters into Iraq, and providing them safe haven. (Note to Democrats, this is not a civil war.)

And the Bush Doctrine of building democracy as the best way to combat terrorism has persuaded at least one unlikely ally, and perhaps two.

Sharing oil revenues among the Iraqi people is also a positive step. It will remove oil profits from being used by corrupt politicians to entrench their power, as they were by Saddam Hussein to buy weapons, build palaces, and reward his friends. And reconstruction will go hand in hand with new security in Baghdad, a task at which newly appointed General Petraeus excels. The president has also finally called for a much needed increase in the size of our armed forces, which Sen. John McCain and others have called for for some time. This is the first and most important task of our federal government, to provide for the common defense, and Congress should support this, to keep faith with our troops, and with us. The president also will continue to consult with a bipartisan group of leaders, headed by the independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, another statesman on the need for American commitment at this critical time, in this critical region of the world.

It will not be easy, but there is some room for hope. And it is the right thing to do for the people of Iraq, and for America.

UPDATE: Comment from Big Baby Obama:

"We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Obama, told NBC's "Today" Show. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.

Democrats, if you interfere, it's your war and you will be responsible for the bloodbath that follows. But you haven't cared about this before---the aftermath after our withdrawal was 3 MILLION DEAD in the killing fields of Cambodia. And this time we'll have terrorists with nukes to make things messier. What an asinine remark from our blinkered Senator and presidential wannabe.

Jonah Goldberg, RCP:

Another Democratic dodge is the incessant demand for a "political solution" in Iraq. "What is absolutely clear to me is there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq, that only political solutions are going to bring about some semblance of peace," Sen. Barack Obama declared. This is either childishly naive or reprehensibly dishonest. No serious person thinks that peace can be secured without a political solution. The question is how to get one. And nobody -- and I mean nobody -- has made a credible case that the Iraqis can get from A to B without more bloodshed, with or without American support.

Saying we need a political solution is as helpful as saying "give peace a chance." Peace requires more than such pie-eyed verbiage. In the real world, peace has no chance until the people who want to give death squads another shot have been dispatched from the scene. It reminds me of the liberal obsession in the 1980s with getting inner-city gangs to settle their differences with break-dance competitions. If only Muqtada Sadr would moonwalk to peace!

UPDATE: Tom Bevan, RCP:

One thing that's always bothered me about the Iraq debate is that if Bush has been guilty of not facing the reality of what been happening in Iraq and not leveling with the American public, Democrats have been every bit as guilty of not coming to grips with and being honest with the public about the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq.

We saw it again last night as Presidential hopefuls John Edwards and Barack Obama argued that more U.S. troops in Iraq would make things worse and, conversely, that fewer troops would make things better by forcing the Iraqi government to stand up. This makes precious little sense. If the Iraqi Army and police are already unable to contain violence at the current force levels, how will they possibly be able to do a better job containing violence with less American troops there to support them? The truth is that the most likely consequence of less U.S. troops in Iraq is that sectarian violence and bloodletting would increase and the fragile coalition government would be overwhelmed and collapse.

Ralph Peters:

Encouragingly, the plan the president outlined was developed in cooperation with the Iraqi government and places far more responsibility on the Iraqis than in the past. If they live up to their part of this compact, we should stand by them no matter how long it takes. But if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Iraq's security forces behave as ethnic partisans, we'll need to leave them to their fate.

Ultimately, it's the Iraqis, not the additional American soldiers and Marines, who'll decide Iraq's future. And the acid test will be their government's handling of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Paradoxically, a burst of fighting would be a positive sign, indicating that Maliki meant yesterday's disarmament ultimatum to Muqtada's militia. But if the Mahdi Army just goes to ground and the prime minister claims that - poof! - it's no longer a threat, it will mean that he cut another deal with Muqtada.