Double Take: War Critics Have Good News In NYT?

What was remarkable about the article was not what it said, but who wrote it and where it was published.

"We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq," wrote Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack after an eight day visit there.

"After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated -- many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

"Today, morale is high. The soldiers and Marines told us that they have now a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."

Other recent visitors have made similar observations. But they have special weight coming from Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack. They are fellows at the Brookings Institution, which is where Democratic policy wonks camp out when Republicans control the White House. Mr. Pollack was on the National Security Council staff during the Clinton administration.

"As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw," they wrote.

Their article was published in the New York Times Monday. It must have pained the editors to run it, since they have declared the war in Iraq irretrievably lost.

The Bush administration has made innumerable mistakes that have prolonged the conflict, increased friendly casualties, and clouded the outcome.

Most insurgencies fail. But all counter insurgencies which have succeeded have succeeded by protecting the civil population from insurgents. Before Gen. Petraeus, this wasn't even on the list of priorities for U.S. troops, a mind-boggling failure, one compounded by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's stubborn refusal to send enough troops to conduct "clear and hold" operations. Trying to do things on the cheap in war almost always results in much greater expense.

It's easier to win when you do smart things instead of stupid things. But even if the president and his subordinates had been flawless in their decision making, it probably would have taken until about now for the situation in Iraq to turn in our favor.

The outlook is brighter because Sunnis have turned decisively against al Qaida. Guerrillas once allied with them have joined the U.S. and the Iraqi government in fighting the terrorists.

This is in part because Gen. Petraeus' new strategy offers protection to civilians. People once intimidated by al Qaida are coming forward with information. But this is the least of three reasons for the shift in Sunni attitudes.
The primary reason is revulsion at harsh al Qaida rule in the territories it controlled, and its suicide bomb tactics, which have killed far more Muslims than infidels. Sunnis had to experience al Qaida's brutality before concluding it was worse than an Iraqi government run by Shia and Kurds.

The other reason is that most Sunnis have now been disabused of the notion Sunnis could reclaim power if U.S. troops left Iraq. A vast improvement in Iraqi security forces -- comprised chiefly of Shia and Kurds -- makes it highly unlikely Sunnis could come out on top on a civil war.

"In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few soldiers to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations," Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack wrote. "Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless -- something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005."

The otherwise disturbing sectarian violence of 2005 and 2006 has had a beneficial impact on Sunni attitudes. Most of the tens of thousands who fled Iraq are Sunnis. Sunnis comprised about 20 percent of Iraq's population when we invaded, but are just a bit more than 10 percent now. Sunnis who once viewed American troops as their enemies now tend to regard them as their protectors against Shia extremists and Iran.

It's still too early to declare the surge a success. But it's becoming clear the war can be lost only in the halls of Congress.

Which is what makes the O'Hanlon-Pollack article so important. When two such prominent Democratic foreign policy experts testify in the New York Times to the progress Gen. Petraeus has made, it is harder for Democrats in Congress to ignore it.