Associated Press: US is Winning the Iraq War

You don't say!

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Notice that the authors still couldn't resist taking a shot at the president.

The following gentlemen asked and answered the question about possible victory in Iraq long before AP woke up:

• Michael Yon

• Michael Totten

• Greyhawk

One wonders why AP is admitting the truth now.

(Thanks to the other AP)

Comments

[notropis]

Somebody, a little over a year ago, said that their plan was: "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Must have been Barack Obama....

(Yeah, I wrote this over at AoS, too, but I thought it was so clever of me, I'd post it twice.)

[Eric Chen]

AP: "It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had."

Clearly, this is a dig at President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003. It annoys the heck out of me whenever the President's announcement is spun as an arrogant, ignorant President announcing the end of a mission that was yet to see its hardest days. In fact, Bush's statement was accurate: we did end the "major combat" phase when we achieved the objective of regime change, and as Bush also announced in the speech, we entered into the post-war security and stabilization, rebuilding, and transition phase of the mission.

Many of us had a rough idea that the post-war in Iraq would be hard, but few could predict then what shape it would take and what we needed to do to control it. That the post-war has been far more difficult, protracted, and costlier than the "major combat" of the war itself reflects not shortcomings in the President, but the shortcomings of our then-institutional way of war.

At the time, we divided traditional high-intensity major combat from low intensity conflict and operations other than war, such as security and stability operations. We heavily favored the former and under-invested in the latter. As we learned the hard way, the world adapted to our overwhelming dominance on the traditional battlefield. Using proven guerilla doctrine, the enemy chose to attack our vulnerability in the post-war. Hence, the post-war has been higher intensity than the "major combat" of the war and our priorities have changed. The Petraeus-led 'surge' in Iraq represents our adaptation to the enemy's adaptation.

In short, President Bush was technically correct on May 1, 2003; it was not he, but our way of war that was inadequate at the time. Since then, the enemy has taught us and some of us - like GEN Petraeus - (but unfortunately, not all of us) have learned to think about war differently.

[Bill Brown]

As I recall "Mission Accomplished" did not refer to the fighting in Iraq, but to the mission of the carrier, which mission had been accomplished and the men of the carrier had returned home.

[me]

I thought we couldn't trust the "liberal media". Could you let us in the main stream know when we can and cannot trust what the "MSM" says. Is it an odd/even day thing? Planetary alignment system? Or is it an inner voice/ oracle thing? Inquiring minds...

[baldilocks]

Bill Brown: That's correct.

'me': all the time, 24/7; anything they say requires verification. That verification is linked at the end of this post. I'm sure you saw it.