Madam, - Tony Allwright (Opinion March 27th) lauds the "dramatic turnaround" in Iraq wrought by General Petraeus's "surge": a pacified Shia, al-Qaeda on the run, and grateful Sunni "begging" for US military protection. One does not have to look far, however, to dispel such a bizarre fantasy, as just a few pages earlier, sober reports bring us news of recalcitrant Badrists and mortars pummelling the Green Zone.
In several ways, Mr Allwright distorts the "successes" that he cites. The military surge has indeed brought a welcome level of comfort to Iraqi civilians, but its stated objective was to provide much-needed space for political reconciliation. As Gen Petraeus has recently admitted, and as Michael Jansen reports (March 27th), this simply has not happened.
Moreover, the five extra combat brigades deployed to Iraq with the surge each have 15-month tours of duty, which expire in July. When they depart, the US army and marines have no combat brigades ready to replace them. Any security gains brought by the surge can, in the absence of any real political progress, be expected to be reversed when the surge ends.
The Sunni "Awakening" that Mr Allwright touts as proof of progress has frayed significantly. Those who accepted American money in return for battling fanatical Islamists are now complaining about not being paid. Several militias have, improbably, gone on strike, and have refused to man checkpoints. The majority of Sunni are also bitter about the refusal of the Shia government to make any real political concessions - a refusal that portends likely violence ahead.
Finally, Mr Allwright neglects entirely to mention the most important reason for Iraq's stabilisation: the ceasefire declared by Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Yet, as your paper reports, Shia militias have resumed attacks in the south of the country, signalling that either al-Sadr is backing away from the truce, or that restive elements within his militia are unhappy with the current situation. Whichever it may be, Sunni militia are unlikely to remain passive in the face of any resumption of Shia violence.
Mr Allwright, therefore, has no warrant to declare Iraq an
"Achilles Heel" for each of the Democratic contenders. His rosy
view of the current scenario, shared with Senator McCain, has about
as much credibility as President Bush's repeated claims of
"victory". American policy in Iraq should be based, first and
foremost, on a realistic appraisal of the facts. At least, with a
Democrat in the White House, we could count on this much. - Yours,
etc,
SEÁN COLEMAN,
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22.
Madam, - How can Tony Allwright even begin to talk about "victory" in Iraq as the bodies of entire families lie beneath the rubble in Baghdad and elsewhere? What sort of "victory" does he envisage? The only winners will be the business community who will get to rebuild the country the US and its allies destroyed in the first place.
It is very easy to sit in the safety of your living room and
talk of outmoded notions of victory. I take it Mr Allwright won't
be going to Baghdad on his summer holidays any time soon? -
Yours,etc,
DERMOT SWEENEY,
Ushers Island,
Dublin 8.
Madam, - Tony Kinsella (March 24th) states that the "American people" owe to "their Iraqi victims" the election of a president committed to ending the war in Iraq.
Does Mr Kinsella really believe that the extremists are without
blame for sending out suicide bombers to kill thousands of innocent
Iraqis? He blames the "American people". This would be like blaming
the British people for the bombing deaths in Ireland over the past
few decades. I suppose we are expected to believe that the people
who plant the bombs just can't help themselves. - Yours, etc,
DANIEL McCAUL,
Atlanta,
Georgia,
USA.