NYT has reports some puzzling analysis on Iraq from Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the former second-in-command of US forces in there. Odierno has been relatively straightforward on a number of issues in recent years, and he correctly notes that political and economic progress will be required for any lasting improvement of the situation in Iraq. The nominee to be the Army's next vice chief of staff, Odierno also mentioned the importance of provincial elections and encouragingly cited literacy and vocational programs as key to establishing a functional society.
He also, however, says two things that stunned me -- one which would be shocking if true, and another that I find extraordinarily difficult to believe. The article says, "About half of the attacks carried out by militants are by Shiite groups, he said. The rest are primarily orchestrated by Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia". For years, the vast majority of attacks in Iraq have been by the domestic (non-AQI) Sunni insurgency, especially in the west (Anbar) and in Baghdad -- so if what he says is true, then the Sunni insurgency is over, and there is nobody left for us to fight, especially given all the talk of "al Qaeda in Iraq" being routed by indigenous Sunnis.
The claim about Shia groups plays into the second confounding claim, which is that Shia groups are responsible for half the attacks and, "The general said that Iran continues to train and finance Shiite extremists in Iraq and that Iran’s goal is to ensure that the Iraqi state remains too weak to challenge Iran’s increasing power." But . . . what Shia extremists?? The two major Shia armed groups, Sadr's Mahdi Militia and ISCI's Badr Corps, are the armed wings of the two most significant Shia political parties, both of which are full participants in the government. They could hardly be accused of working to weaken the government, and I can't think of any other groups Iran would be working with to undermine Iraq, especially considering Iran's longtime association with ISCI.
Unfortunately, the Times doesn't appear to have asked the two natural follow-up questions: "So is the Sunni domestic insurgency over?" and "Which Shia groups are working with Iran to undermine the government?" It's surprising, because reporter Michael Gordon knows these issues very well; I'd love to know what Odierno would say in response. Instead, the reader is left thinking that these two bombshells are nothing particularly special. Very weird.
