What I Saw in Iraq.

Iran remains a
problem, but Anbar has joined the fight against terror.

BY JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

I recently returned from Iraq and four
other countries in the Middle East, my first trip to the region since December.
In the intervening five months, almost everything about the American war effort
in Baghdad has changed, with a new coalition military commander, Gen. David
Petraeus; a new U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker; the introduction, at last, of new
troops; and most important of all, a bold, new counterinsurgency strategy.

This is the most important point. The surge is not merely an increase in troop numbers but a change in strategy designed to take the fight, much more aggressively to our enemy.

The question of course is--is it working?

Of course it is. Why do you think the left wingers are so depressed?

Here in Washington, advocates of
retreat insist with absolute certainty that it is not, seizing upon every
suicide bombing and American casualty as proof positive that the U.S. has failed
in Iraq, and that it is time to get out.
In Baghdad, however, discussions
with the talented Americans responsible for leading this fight are more
balanced, more hopeful and, above all, more strategic in their focus--fixated
not just on the headline or loss of the day, but on the larger stakes in this
struggle, beginning with who our enemies are in Iraq. The officials I met in
Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of
non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said
that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is
nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the
war against al Qaeda--and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an
epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.
Some of my colleagues in Washington claim we can fight al Qaeda in Iraq while
disengaging from the sectarian violence there. Not so, say our commanders in
Baghdad, who point out that the crux of al Qaeda's strategy is to spark Iraqi
civil war.
Al Qaeda is launching spectacular terrorist bombings in Iraq,
such as the despicable attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra this week, to try
to provoke sectarian violence. Its obvious aim is to use Sunni-Shia bloodshed to
collapse the Iraqi government and create a failed state in the heart of the
Middle East, radicalizing the region and providing a base from which to launch
terrorist attacks against the West.
Facts on the ground also compel us to
recognize that Iran is doing everything in its power to drive us out of Iraq,

That is why I support a massive missile and aerial bombardment of Iran right now. There is noting that will get your attention faster than MOAB bombs and Tomahawk Cruise missiles.

including providing substantive support, training and sophisticated explosive
devices to insurgents who are murdering American soldiers. Iran has initiated a
deadly military confrontation with us, from bases in Iran, which we ignore at
our peril, and at the peril of our allies throughout the Middle East.

Don't try to tell that to Harry and Nancy....

The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces would not only throw open large parts of
Iraq to domination by the radical regime in Tehran, it would also send an
unmistakable message to the entire Middle East--from Lebanon to Gaza to the
Persian Gulf where Iranian agents are threatening our allies--that Iran is
ascendant there, and America is in retreat. One Arab leader told me during my
trip that he is extremely concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but that
he doubted America's staying power in the region and our political will to
protect his country from Iranian retaliation over the long term.

His fears are unwarranted. As long as King George XLIII is in charge, we are staying. THE END.

Abandoning Iraq
now would substantiate precisely these gathering fears across the Middle East
that the U.S. is becoming an unreliable ally.
That is why--

---

as terrible as
the continuing human cost of fighting this war in Iraq is--the human cost of
losing it would be even greater.

---

Gen. Petraeus and other U.S. officials in
Iraq emphasize that it is still too soon to draw hard judgments about the
success of our new security strategy--but during my visit I saw hopeful signs of
progress. Consider Anbar province, Iraq's heart of darkness for most of the past
four years. When I last visited Anbar in December, the U.S. military would not
allow me to visit the provincial capital, Ramadi, because it was too dangerous.
Anbar was one of al Qaeda's major strongholds in Iraq and the region where the
majority of American casualties were occurring. A few months earlier, the Marine
Corps chief of intelligence in Iraq had written off the entire province as
"lost," while the Iraq Study Group described the situation there as
"deteriorating."
When I returned to Anbar on this trip, however, the security
environment had undergone a dramatic reversal. Attacks on U.S. troops there have
dropped from an average of 30 to 35 a day a few months ago to less than one a
day now, according to Col. John Charlton, commander of the 1st Brigade of the
3rd Infantry Division, headquartered in Ramadi. Whereas six months ago only half
of Ramadi's 23 tribes were cooperating with the coalition, all have now been
persuaded to join an anti-al Qaeda alliance. One of Ramadi's leading sheikhs
told me: "A rifle pointed at an American soldier is a rifle pointed at an
Iraqi."
The recent U.S. experience in Anbar also rebuts the bromide that the
new security plan is doomed to fail because there is no "military" solution for
Iraq. In fact, no one believes there is a purely "military" solution for Iraq.
But the presence of U.S. forces is critical not just to ensuring basic security,
but to a much broader spectrum of diplomatic, political and economic
missions--which are being carried out today in Iraq under Gen. Petraeus's
counterinsurgency strategy.

In Anbar, for example, the U.S. military has
been essential to the formation and survival of the tribal alliance against al
Qaeda, simultaneously holding together an otherwise fractious group of Sunni
Arab leaders through deft diplomacy, while establishing a political bridge
between them and the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad. "This is a continuous
effort," Col. Charlton said. "We meet with the sheikhs every single day and at
every single level."
In Baghdad, U.S. forces have cut in half the number of
Iraqi deaths from sectarian violence since the surge began in February. They
have also been making critical improvements in governance, basic services and
commercial activity at the grassroots level.
On Haifa Street, for instance,
where there was bloody fighting not so long ago, the 2nd "Black Jack" Brigade of
our First Cavalry Division, under the command of a typically impressive American
colonel, Bryan Roberts, has not only retaken the neighborhood from insurgents,
but is working with the local population to revamp the electrical grid and sewer
system, renovate schools and clinics, and create an "economic safe zone" where
businesses can reopen. Indeed, of the brigade's five "lines of operations," only
one is strictly military. That Iraq reality makes pure fiction of the argument
heard in Washington that the surge will fail because it is only
"military."

---

Some argue that the new strategy is failing because, despite
gains in Baghdad and Anbar, violence has increased elsewhere in the country,
such as Diyala province. This gets things backwards: Our troops have succeeded
in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the
"surge" has focused. Al Qaeda has shifted its operations to places like Diyala
in large measure because we have made progress in pushing them out of Anbar and
Baghdad. The question now is, do we consolidate and build on the successes that
the new strategy has achieved, keeping al Qaeda on the run, or do we abandon
them?

What Senator Lieberman is saying here is that the anti-surge morons are calling the surge a failure for doing precisely what it purported to do. You really have to be an idiot not to be able to comprehend this stuff.

---

To be sure, there are still daunting challenges ahead. Iraqi political
leaders, in particular, need to step forward and urgently work through difficult
political questions, whose resolution is necessary for national reconciliation
and, as I told them, continuing American support.
These necessary legislative
compromises would be difficult to accomplish in any political system, including
peaceful, long-established democracies--as the recent performance of our own
Congress reminds us. Nonetheless, Iraqi leaders are struggling against enormous
odds to make progress, and told me they expect to pass at least some of the key
benchmark bills this summer. It is critical that they do so.
Here, too,
however, a little perspective is useful. While benchmarks are critically
important, American soldiers are not fighting in Iraq today only so that Iraqis
can pass a law to share oil revenues. They are fighting because a failed state
in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran, would be a
catastrophe for American national security and our safety here at home. They are
fighting al Qaeda and agents of Iran in order to create the stability in Iraq
that will allow its government to take over, to achieve the national
reconciliation that will enable them to pass the oil law and other benchmark
legislation.
I returned from Iraq grateful for the progress I saw and
painfully aware of the difficult problems that remain ahead. But I also returned
with a renewed understanding of how important it is that we not abandon Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran, so long as victory there is still possible.
And I conclude
from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi
majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage,
compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are
carrying the fight there, starting with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
The question now is, will we politicians in Washington rise to match their
leadership, sacrifices and understanding of what is on the line for us in
Iraq--or will we betray them, and along with them, America's future security?
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from
Connecticut

CHECKMATE