Iraq: Can anyone be honest?

As President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki now discuss a "time horizon" (aka a goal time frame) that will in fact be conditioned based and both parties are open to now, unlike in the past, the typical skewed talking points are coming from everywhere. Allow some facts in regards to Iraq to be pointed out as opposed to political rhetoric/stances/spin/etc.

1. 15 of the 18 political benchmarks have been reached by the Iraqi government.


2. Al-Qaeda is relatively gone from Iraq. (This post recognizes the debate as to whether they were there before we invaded or not but is not taking part in it.)


3. Sunni's and Shiites are working together more and more as seen by the amount of Sunni's agreeing to re-enter into the Iraqi parliament after boycotting it and some Sunni's are even being brought back into Prime Minister Maliki's cabinet.


4. Not all Sunni's nor all Shiite's are on board, there are still many who aren't happy with the current Iraqi government and/or our continued involvement with it, specifically us simply being there. This is is for many various reasons, some or many of which involve Iran.


5. The surge in military personnel was not the only reason we have seen the improvements we have. Political progress started before the surge was implemented as Gen. Petreus has mentioned many times. The surge allowed it to continue more quickly. Political progress through reconciliation as well as paying people played an equal role, arguably a bigger role in things turning around. (Whether one wants to look at paying them as giving them a job as some joined the Iraqi military and security forces or simply paying them off as some just took the money and stayed home is a matter of great debate, both opinions are easily supported by facts.) The surge would not have worked if a great deal of Sunni's had never agreed to work with us (for the various reasons they did) and/or reject Al-Qaeda.


6. To say the current progress in Iraq happened simply because of more troops is naive. To think it could have happened without the extra troops is equally naive.
7. Not only did we send in more troops but the Iraqi people increased its security forces by roughly 100,000.

• In regards to point number one: When Obama says that the political goal of the surge was not met by the Iraqi government he is factually correct. His biggest problem is that instead of making a specific, fact based statement as to the political "benchmarks" (what a horrible phrase to use during the re-building of a country) that have and haven't been reached, he simply says that the political goal wasn't achieved. In other words, as a typical politician, he makes a factual but misleading statement when he says the political goals haven't been met.
• In regards to number two: While Al-Qaeda has been relatively removed from Iraq they have grown in numbers as well as the amount of safe havens they now maintain. This is where we're seeing far too much politicizing on both sides. Republicans continually want to focus solely on the success in Iraq and the amount of Al-Qaeda killed/removed there while the Democrats want to solely focus on the strength of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. As is usually the case, they're both right but choose to only talk about which truth about Al-Qaeda helps their political cause.
• In regards to number three and five: Why this doesn't get more reporting, more specifically why both campaigns can't recognize this as the biggest reason progress continues despite the troop levels coming down, let alone as a key reason troop levels are even able to be brought down is curious at best.
• In regards to number four: The fact not all Iraqi's are happy with the current situation isn't surprising. Not everyone is always going to be happy. Some say those that aren't happy but are maintaining cease fires are because they know they can't win the battles anymore. Some say it is because they're simply laying low until US troops leave. Some say Iran is keeping control of the main militia's until they see how the elections pan out. Some say they're waiting to see if Prime Minister Maliki sticks to his recent talk of time tables for 100% US/allied troop withdrawal, even if it takes longer than they (the militias) wish. Some have pointed to Maliki attacking rogue Shiite militia's as well as Sunni's, showing that he isn't simply playing politics with his attacks but genuinely just wants to see a peaceful and united Iraq. These many reasons, because they vary and are numerous, are why Sen. Obama has said that he would leave a residual force behind to conduct counter terrorism/training of Iraqi military/security forces. These same reasons are why Sen. McCain has consistently said no time tables but will bring troops home depending upon conditions. He's also said that he'd abide by any wish from the Iraqi people. In other words both campaigns recognize these things but differ on how best to handle them, worry about them. Neither is talking about allowing defeat or an Iraq lost to Iran.
• Number six speaks for itself and both parties, specifically both campaigns should be able to admit such simple things. Oddly, or rather typically, both campaigns aren't willing to be so frank. Interestingly, Sen. McCain used to be the type to be such a straight shooter, so has Sen. Obama at times.
• It is the height of bad reporting that the amount of Iraqi's who have stepped up to fight for there country is rarely mentioned, let alone ignored when people talk about Iraqi's needing to take more responsibility and step up.