Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have articles anticipating (thanks to leaks) the content of the unredacted summary of the latest intelligence estimate on Iraq. Here are some of the conclusions from the Post:
...Iraq remains "unable to govern" itself effectively and hobbled by the absence of strong leadership, but removing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as some critics in Baghdad and Washington have advocated "could paralyze the government," warns a new U.S. intelligence report to be released later today.
"...There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq's security situation," the report concludes, according to a source who has read it. If U.S. forces continue their current strategy, security "will continue to improve modestly" over the next six to 12 months but violence will remain high and political reconciliation will remain elusive.
...If U.S. troops were to downscale their mission to supporting Iraqi security forces and hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda, the report contends that move "would erode security gains achieved thus far."
..."The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decision-making, and increased Maliki's vulnerability to alternative coalitions," the report says, according to excerpts provided by the source. "We judge that Maliki will continue to benefit from recognition among Shia leaders that searching for a replacement could paralyze the government."
..."We assess, to the extent that Coalition forces continue to conduct robust counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces, that Iraq's security will continue to improve modestly during the next 6 - 12 months," the report says, "but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance."
In other words, as most of us have come to understand, it's impossible to withdraw immediately if only for purely moral reasons but we aren't going to do much good. Still, having made one helluva mess, we can't walk away. We can agree on that without agreeing on whether we should have been there in the first place.
Here's the bottom line for this progressive:
No further funding for a "surge" or for the use of American troops unless there is a change in administration. That means recognizing something which absolutely must be recognized if about three quarters of Americans aren't going to walk away from this mess disillusioned, angry and bitter: Bush's war was ill-conceived and its "surge" a prolongation of a disaster.
Administrators (civilian and military) who have failed so spectacularly should not be allowed to continue in leadership positions in anything having to do with Iraq policy or management. We're not talking about the removal of Bush from office (though that's long overdue). We are talking about a transfer Iraq management and oversight to some other entity. That -- and a recognition the failures which have brought us to this point -- is essential. Otherwise we are forced to watch as a failed leadership continues to use additional lives and treasure to cover up failure current and past failures. That is not acceptable -- politically or morally.
