Pat Dollard | Young Americans

Col. Ralph Peters
NY Post:

August 16, 2007 — TWO days ago, al Qaeda det onated four massive truck bombs in three Iraqi vil lages, killing at least 250 civilians (perhaps as many as 500) and wounding many more. The bombings were a sign of al Qaeda’s frustration, desperation and fear.

The victims were ethnic Kurd Yazidis, members of a minor sect with pre-Islamic roots. Muslim extremists condemn them (wrongly) as devil worshippers. The Yazidis live on the fringes of society.

That’s one of the two reasons al Qaeda targeted those settlements: The terrorist leaders realize now that the carnage they wrought on fellow Muslims backfired, turning once-sympathetic Sunni Arabs against them. The fanatics calculated that Iraqis wouldn’t care much about the Yazidis.

As far as the Thieves of Baghdad (also known as Iraq’s government) go, the terrorists were right. Iraqi minorities, including Christians, have been classified as fair game by Muslim butchers. Mainstream Iraqis simply look away.

But the second reason for those dramatic bombings was that al Qaeda needs to portray Iraq as a continuing failure of U.S. policy. Those dead and maimed Yazidis were just props: The intended audience was Congress.

Al Qaeda has been badly battered. It’s lost top leaders and thousands of cadres. Even more painful for the Islamists, they’ve lost ground among the people of Iraq, including former allies. Iraqis got a good taste of al Qaeda. Now they’re spitting it out.

The foreign terrorists slaughtering the innocent recognize that their only remaining hope of pulling off a come-from-way-behind win is to convince your senator and your congressman or -woman that it’s politically expedient to hand a default victory to a defeated al Qaeda.

Expect more attempts to generate massive bloodshed in Iraq in the coming weeks. The terrorists are well aware of the exaggerated-by-all-parties importance of Gen. David Petraeus’ Sept. 15 progress report to Congress. They’ll do all they can to embarrass the general and provide ammunition to the surrender caucus.

Meanwhile, our military progress has become undeniable. Even Democratic presidential aspirants have started hedging their peace-at-any-price positions. To the horror of al Qaeda and left-wing bloggers alike, cutting and running is starting to look unfashionable.

How has Petraeus changed the outlook so swiftly? Numerous factors are in play, but two of his personal characteristics have helped keep him from making a single wrong move thus far.

* First, Petraeus is relentless. The result is that, for the first time, our military approach has become relentless, too.

In the past, we followed up military wins by stepping back and hoping that the reduction of Fallujah or the latest shoot-’em-up with Muqtada al-Sadr’s thugs would prove decisive. We were wrong every time - all our forbearance achieved was to give our enemies time to recover.

Petraeus changed the rules, and God bless him for it. He may have a high-school-prom smile for the media, but the general’s a clinch fighter who ignores the bell - and who isn’t above landing a blow when the ref ain’t looking. It’s exactly the approach we’ve needed.

* The second quality is his leadership style. Micro-managers lose control in war. While Petraeus is interested in every detail and spends plenty of time on the ground with tactical commanders, he assigns missions, gives the essential guidance - then trusts subordinates to do their jobs.

Previous U.S. commanders worried about the wrong things, and they worried all the time. Petraeus is concerned about the one thing that matters: Winning.
He’s that rarer-than-a-unicorn beast, a full general capable of learning. Petraeus hasn’t “defended his dissertation” in the face of contrary facts. The politically correct counterinsurgency manual he produced before taking up this assignment delighted the left-of-center think-tank crowd - but they must be very disappointed today. Once in command in Iraq, Petraeus kept the doctrinal bits that worked, but dumped the baloney.

He’s doing what it really takes: Fighting. Our troops are killing those who need killing; tens of thousands of terrorists, insurgents and militiamen are in lockup, with more coming in every day. And any member of the NYPD can tell you that taking murderers off the streets works.

Petraeus is also pursuing political progress, but that effort’s still lagging. Not his fault: The most that our military can do is to help establish the conditions for Iraq’s leaders to succeed. But the old rivalries, bitter hatreds and personal pettiness of Baghdad’s politicians have been more discouraging than the terror attacks.

That said, we’re not really in Iraq for Iraq’s sake now, but for our own. The long-mismanaged situation has morphed from a grand attempt to create a model democracy in the Middle East to become a fight for our strategic security - knocking al Qaeda down, keeping Iran out (see sidebar) and shaping a new Iraq that’s at least benign where our interests are concerned.

Here’s how Gen. Petraeus summed it up for The Post on Tuesday: “Right now, we’re on the offensive, striving to build on the gains made in the past two months by conducting strike operations to retain the initiative against al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, to address the challenge of the Iranian-supported Shia extremists and to try to reduce further the level of ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad and other fault line areas.”
Al Qaeda down, Iran out and sectarian violence reduced. Sounds like a plan.

Ralph Peters’ new book is “Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the Twenty-First Century.” He returns to Iraq this weekend.