Desperately Seeking Defeat in Iraq 27/04/2007 Amir Taheri

Without meaning to do so, Senator Harry Reid, leader of the Democrat majority in the US Senate, has pushed the debate over the war in Iraq away toward a new direction.
    Senator Reid claims that the war is lost and that US has already been defeated. By advancing that claim the senator has moved the debate away from the initial antiwar obsession with the legal and diplomatic controversies that preceded it. Reid is no longer interested in establishing the Bush administration's supposed guilt in manipulating intelligence data and ignoring the United Nations. Reid has distanced himself from such early anti-war figures as Howard Dean and Michael Moore.
    At the same time, Reid has parted way with other Democrat leaders, such as Senator Hillary Clinton who supported the war but now claims that its conduct has been disastrous. What they mean by implication is that a Democrat president would do better than George W Bush, and win the war. Reid's new position, however, means that even a Democrat president would not be able to ensure American victory in Iraq. For him Iraq is irretrievably lost.
    Some anti-war analysts have praised Reid for what they term "his clarity of perception." A closer examination, however, would show that Reid might have added to the confusion that has plagued his party over the issue from the start.
    Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified the US as the loser, is required to name the winner. And, this is what Reid cannot do.The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, the US and its Iraqi allies, that is to say the overwhelming majority of the people of Iraq, remain the only objective victors in this war.
    Reid cannot name Al Qaeda as the winner because the terror organization has failed to achieve any of its objectives. It has not been able to halt the process of democratization, marked by a string of elections, and failed to destroy the still fragile institutions created in the post-Saddam era. Al Qaeda is also suffering from increasing failure to attract new recruits, while coming under pressure from Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes, especially west of the Euphrates.
    In military terms, Al Qaeda has failed to win any territory, and has lost the control it briefly exercised in such places as Fallujah and Samarra. More importantly, perhaps, Al Qaeda has failed to develop a political program, focusing instead on its campaign of mindless terror....
.....Despite continued violence, the US and it Iraqi allies are winning this third war as well. Their enemies are like the man in a casino, who wins a heap of tokens at the roulette table, but is told at the cashier that those cannot be exchanged for real money.
    The terrorists, the insurgents, the criminal gangs, and the chauvinists of all ilk are still killing lots of people in Iraq. But they cannot translate those killings into political gain for themselves. Their constituencies are shrinking, and the pockets of territory where they hide are becoming increasingly exposed. They certainly cannot drive the Americans out. No power on earth can. Unless, of course, Harry Reid does it for them."