Transcript

Host: Four years after a U-S-led coalition invaded Iraq, troops are still fighting against insurgents and terrorists. Civilians continue to be killed almost daily in car bombings and other terrorist attacks. President George W. Bush says that a new security strategy for Iraq, backed by extra soldiers on the ground, may yet work:

President Bush: "Prime Minister Maliki and General Petraeus emphasized that the Baghdad security plan is still in its early stages, and success will take months, not days or weeks. Yet, those on the ground are seeing some hopeful signs."

Host: Mr. Bush addressed the growing dismay of lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Many in the U-S Congress have called for the American troops to withdraw from Iraq:

President Bush: "It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating."

Host: What next in Iraq and in Washington? I'll ask my guests: Roxana Tiron, a staff writer at The Hill newspaper; Alex Kingsbury, associate editor for U.S. News and World Report; Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and joining us by phone from Baghdad: Omar Fadhil, editor of the blog: "Iraq the Model". Welcome. Thanks for joining us.

I'd like to start by going to Baghdad and see if we have Omar Fadhil on the line. Are you there, Mr. Fadhil?

Fadhil: Yes, I'm here.

Host: Well, why don't you tell us a little bit about what the situation is like in Baghdad right now? Has the troop surge that has been building up there made any noticeable difference?

Fadhil: Yes, absolutely. You know, since the troops -- extra troops started pouring into Baghdad and the Operation of Imposing Law, as the current government here calls it, has started, we've been seeing very encouraging signs of increased barrier security in the capital here. The number and frequency of sectarian attacks has decreased significantly. There are still, of course, a lot of deadly bombings here and there. But there is a sense that the forces of the government -- the Iraqi forces and the American troops -- are largely holding the ground in Baghdad and not allowing the insurgents and terrorists and Shi'ite militias to roam freely, as they used to do just months ago.

Host: Alex Kingsbury, not long ago, you were embedded with some of the soldiers who were in this surge. What's your sense of what's working and what isn't working from having been along?

Kingsbury: Well, I was actually -- Part of the time -- I was there for about three weeks. Part of the time, I was in Baghdad, and the other part, I was down in Iskandariyah, which is about twenty-five miles south of Baghdad, with a Stryker unit, a unit of these Stryker military vehicles. And what they were seeing, initially, was that, as the security increased in Baghdad, that the insurgents and other groups were taking advantage of other parts of the country that weren't as closely scrutinized. So, as we've seen, the battle has moved elsewhere for some parts.

Host: Tom Donnelly, the battle just moving elsewhere -- wherever the troops aren't?

Donnelly: That's true to a certain degree. The amount of fighting has dropped. There's no question. The tragedy of this, almost, is almost how straightforward and easy it's been. It's really kind of upside down to make that kind of a comment. There's been some fighting -- increased fighting -- in Diyala province just north of Baghdad, as well. And the Stryker units, some of them which are rapid-response units, have moved into this town of Baqouba in Diyala province. So, interestingly enough, the Sunni insurgents chose not to go home to Anbar province, which has always been a hotbed of Sunni resistance. But they're sort of moving where we are not, and that's a big step forward. And that's been a remarkably rapid response to a surge that's just in its earliest phases.

Host: Roxana Tiron, you cover Capitol Hill for “The Hill” newspaper. What's the sense among lawmakers about this surge, which many had resisted? Is that resistance still in full force, or is the action on the ground likely to change that at all?

Tiron: No, I think resistance is still in full force, and especially in the House, where the Democrats are trying to get enough votes to withdraw the troops as early as the end of next year -- at latest, August 2008. So that resistance hasn't changed. There's a lot of weariness on the part of lawmakers that the four years in Iraq have sapped Army readiness and Marine Corps readiness, and a protracted war there would hurt the troops from fighting in other potential conflicts and having the right equipment, having the right kind of training. So I think their focus is just trying to mend the forces now rather than keep them in Iraq longer.

Host: Omar Fadhil, what's the sense in Iraq of the debate going on in Washington about whether to support an extension of troops in Iraq?

Fadhil: Well, I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but I am going to speak for myself. I think running away from a war and pretending that it doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem. America is in war right now with Al Qaeda, and Iraq is at war with Al Qaeda and other extremists. And it's essential that we do everything necessary to win this war eventually. We need to secure our resources to not -- defeat the enemies one way or another. This is not just about Iraq. Even if the Congress or the House wants to leave Iraq, this is not about Iraq. It's about global war on terrorism. If Iraq is not important, then defeating global terrorism is important. You know, Al Qaeda has moved its battlegrounds from Afghanistan, mostly, to Iraq. You see a greater network than in Europe or somewhere else, in North Africa. They do not send warriors anymore to Afghanistan. They send them to Iraq. Why? Because this is the battlefield for the war on terror.

Host: Alex Kingsbury, does the U-S Military, in the units you were with -- Do they think they've got a strategy evolved that can successfully deal with the kind of war against terrorists who have moved into Iraq?

Kingsbury: One of the striking things that was sort of encountered by this unit that I was with was the uncertainty of who the enemy was. Now, this is a unit that had been based in Mosul for their first deployment and most of their second. And just prior to the surge beginning, they were called off and sort of turned into this rapid-response team, where they go around and deal with a variety of enemies in different parts of the country. Now, this battalion of soldiers would go after Sunni insurgents one night, criminals another night, Shi'a militias, political parties affiliated with Muqtada al-Sadr. They fought a cult down in Najaf in one of the bloodiest battles since the major combat operations ended. So it's something new for these guys every day. And they would get into situations where they would have a house full of suspected people, and it was unclear who was a militant or a local criminal or just a local sort of big person in the village. You know, it's a very ambiguous enemy, and it changes. And just dealing with that reality is a large part of what these guys are doing.

Host: Tom Donnelly, what do you think about that? Do you -- Here we are, four years in, and still difficulty in figuring out who's who on the battlefield.

Donnelly: Well, actually, I'd say that's actually changing and that the experience of this rapid-response unit is anomalous and sort of the exception that proves the rule for the Baghdad security plan. The new plan -- Most of the troops in Baghdad are operating or beginning to operate out of what they call “joint security stations” when they operate with Iraqi army units or -- I forget the acronym for when it's just Americans. But they're like local police stations, so they go to the neighborhoods, they clear the neighborhoods, they stay in the neighborhoods, and they are like cops on the beat. And the word that's coming back -- General Petraeus had a very interesting recent interview. And when he said they've sort of broken through that barrier and now what they're having a hard time doing -- They used to do what they call “scrape for intelligence,” any little shreds of intelligence. Now it's a flood that -- They're having a hard time sorting through it. And the real difference is, the local Iraqis are beginning to be convinced that the Americans are going to stay, that there is a prospect for the future and it's worth that risk to turn in the thugs and the bad guys, whether it's a cult or a militia leader or just a criminal.

Host: Well, Roxana Tiron, is there any debate on Capitol Hill about how the debate on Capitol Hill affects that very question of expectations of Iraqis of whether the U-S is going to stay and how the debate on Capitol Hill, you know, affects that dynamic?

Tiron: There is, in fact. I think it's very divided among party lines at this point, with the Republicans saying that we're sending the wrong message to Iraq, that it's hurting the mission, and that Iraqi people are saying that the U-S is just cutting and running, versus the Democrats, who are placing emphasis on having the Iraqi security forces being well trained and taking over and having the political process overhauled. They think that that's what the success will lie in. They think that it's not a military solution anymore, that it's mostly a political solution that Iraq itself has to solve. If I may interject, on the issue of Al Qaeda, I think one other debate in Congress that's going on is the upcoming spring offensive in Afghanistan. And I think there has been, especially at the beginning of the year, a huge debate about how Afghanistan had been ignored and about how that has allowed, you know, Al Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup at the border with Pakistan and be able to prepare a spring offensive. And a lot more money now -- You'll see a lot more money going to Afghanistan and into preparing for that offensive. And I think, in many ways, the two are interconnected, in terms of attention, both on Capitol Hill and in the U-S military.

Host: Well, let's talk a little bit about the point you bring up about expectations of a political solution as opposed to a military solution. Recently, President Bush met with Vice President of Iraq, Adil Al-Mahdi, and talked about the political solution.

President Bush: "The main reason why I've reinforced our troops in Iraq is to give leaders such as yourself the opportunity to do the hard work of reconciliation. I appreciate very much the progress that you're making."

Host: Omar Fadhil, is there progress being made on political reconciliation in Iraq? And what needs to happen for more progress, if there is some?

Fadhil: Well, I wrote something similar, very much similar, to that idea a few months ago. Politics and military action go hand in hand. You cannot reach political solutions and reconciliation while there are extremist groups arm-twisting the other relatively moderate groups. You need to establish a state of security that enables moderate politicians to sit at the table and discuss their differences and reach solutions and compromises. And that's why I think the surge -- If it's sustained for long enough, it will create that atmosphere.

Host: Well, Alex Kingsbury, we've seen, just in the recent week here, insurgents turning attacks more -- Sunni insurgents turning attacks toward those Sunni sheikhs and local leaders who have been cooperating with the government. How is that playing out?

Kingsbury: I sort of wouldn't want to speak to the broader picture of Iraq outside of my own experiences in the country. But, you know, I think it's worthwhile to point out that what we're seeing now is one of the early stages of the surge, but it's also sort of a response from the enemy, if you will, that we've seen before, where they choose not to fight in many cases and sort of pull back and let the politics do whatever it will and then come back with a spectacular attack. A lot of the things that the soldiers were saying that I was with was that they could do a very effective job carrying out their missions and going after the people that they wanted to go after but that all of their gains could be wiped away in a second with, you know, a few terrorist attacks or one, and they can lose the population and all the political progress it's made. So I think we'll have to wait and see what exactly happens, but just to keep in mind that even progress is quite fragile.

Host: Well, Tom Donnelly, we've seen Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army really stand down and a reduction in the sectarian attacks that were coming from the Shi'ite militias. Does that represent some real opening for reconciliation, or is this just an effort to let the Coalition and Iraqi troops do the fighting that the Mahdi Army was doing against the Sunni insurgents?

Donnelly: Well, actually, I would sort of say these are two sides of the same coin. And the response of the Sadrists more broadly -- politically, militarily -- is interesting. First of all, Muqtada himself has been recalled to Iran for consultations or whatever. The Maliki government has rounded up a number of his top lieutenants, including his chief propagandist. The surge has made it difficult for the Mahdi Army to operate west of the Tigris, where a lot of the executions and ethnic cleansing was going on. The U-S Army is beginning to move into Sadr City without much fighting in response. The Sadrists' block in Parliament has ended its boycott. And so I think the key is that the Shi'a community is now possibly open to the idea that it doesn't need the Mahdi Army to be its defender. The government is beginning to do the job of defending the people, as is the U-S Army. And in some way, the rationale for Sadr's posture as a defender of the Shi'a community in a sectarian conflict is being eroded with every day. So I'm sure we haven't heard the last of him, or I don't think the story's over by any stretch of the imagination. But he's got some choices to make, and it'll be interesting to see which way he jumps.

Host: Well, Omar Fadhil, what's your sense on it? Has the government achieved some credibility, or can it achieve credibility in bringing security?

Fadhil: Sorry. I didn't hear you.

Host: Omar Fadhil, on this question of whether people feel that the Iraqi security forces can actually defend them and, thus, they might not need to support local militias, is the government in Iraq gaining any credibility with Iraqi people?

Fadhil: Well, I think it's still early to tell yet. You know, one month into the operation, the people have not yet developed a clear opinion about that. There is still some violence that disrupts normal life, and people are not yet feeling, you know, really secure. They still need some more time to obtain security until they can feel more confident in their government. But there is some degree of cautious optimism.

Host: And, Roxana Tiron, is that cautious optimism shared by anyone on Capitol Hill? Is there likely to be any change in the debate on Capitol Hill in the months going forward?

Tiron: It is possible, but so far -- I mean, this week, we're seeing a concerted effort to try and withdraw the troops from Iraq. The balance in the Senate is a lot more dynamic and a lot more fragile as far as the Democrats are concerned, and the Democrats in the Senate have tried repeatedly to introduce legislation to withdraw the troops from Iraq, and that hasn't worked, in part, also, because certain Democrats don't feel that imposing a deadline would be the smartest thing to do. They're trying to get as many people on their side, but so far, that hasn't been possible. But I do think that the Democrats on the Hill are very determined to put an end to this at this point.

Donnelly: Eric, Eric.

Host: Tom Donnelly.

Donnelly: I just happen to have spent a good deal of time on the Hill recently. I think there's a lot of anxiety on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans are obviously anxiety-ridden about what could go wrong, but the Democrats are also worried that if things improve -- I mean, it's weird a little, like they're worried that the plan will succeed and they will have overplayed their hand and in six months or a year, they will have looked premature, and they're worried that they'll be tarred again with the idea of being soft on defense and national-security issues. That anxiety runs very deep in the Democratic Party, and it's just below the surface, even though they're very solid about trying to get the withdrawal provisions in law.

Host: We have less than a minute. Alex Kingsbury, what's your sense, from watching troops on the ground, of what needs to happen for success to build?

Kingsbury: The commanders that I spoke with that were there on the ground and the troops, as well, have a sense that the Army can hold the line, in a sense, where we are now. But they're interested to know what the endgame is going to look like, what the metrics for success of this surge are. And something that came up quite frequently was this idea of a surge as a brief increase in forces as really -- was a poorly chosen phrase, and that they intend to keep these numbers up. So it will be interesting to see what the endgame looks like.

Host: I'm afraid that's going to have to be the last word for today. We're out of time, but I'd like to thank my guests -- Roxana Tiron of “The Hill” newspaper; Alex Kingsbury of “U-S News & World Report”; Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute; and joining us by phone from Baghdad, Omar Fadhil, editor of the blog “Iraq the Model.” Before we go, I'd like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can reach us through our website at www.voanews.com/ontheline. For “On The Line,” I'm Eric Felten.