Last week, Connecticut Republican congressman Christopher Shays briefed his Republican colleagues on the progress he observed in Iraq earlier this month. No member of Congress has visited Iraq more often than Shays, and since he’s an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s war strategies, members of Congress were attentive as he gave his impressions from his 16th trip. For the first time in over a year, Shays saw promising signs, and he is anxious to confirm them when he returns to Iraq next month. He is encouraged by the improved security in Baghdad, the cooperation of Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province, and the dramatically improved oil production in the north.
Shays was the first member of Congress to visit Iraq following the invasion. His previous impressions made it clear that, on these trips, he is not outfitted with rose-colored glasses.
Since April 2003, Shays has gone to Iraq every few months in order to gauge whether things are headed in the right direction. He considers the multiple mistakes made in ’03 — including disbanding the Iraqi military and border police, allowing widespread looting, and de-Baathification — as having “dug a deep hole.” In his opinion, transferring power to the Iraqis in June 2004 led to an improvement of conditions on the ground, and important progress was made in the ensuing months, with elections and the adoption of a constitution.
According to Shays, 2006 was a “bad year.” Frustrated with the lack of progress, by August of last year he was publicly expressing doubts about whether the Iraqi government had the political will to tackle the necessary political reforms. He endorsed timelines, crafted according to the ability of Iraqi forces to handle security on their own, in the hope of forcing the government to act. He recounts that during one of his visits, behaving more like a “blunt member of Congress” than like the culturally sensitive former Peace Corps volunteer he is, he warned Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki about the consequences of delay. “I said to him, ‘Take a good look at me. You might not see me in November. You could have a Democratic Congress and then face deadlines that could mean we leave before Iraq is ready to stand alone.’” He urged Maliki to take action on turning over police security-work to Iraqi forces, on correcting the de-Baathification problem and arranging the sharing of oil revenues, and on organizing provincial elections.
Congressman Shays was spared the fate of his Republican Connecticut colleagues when he survived a tough challenge in the elections of last year. He returned to Capitol Hill and to the change in Pentagon leadership he had strongly urged. Along with calling for Secretary Rumsfeld’s resignation, “I had been lobbying for General Petraeus for years,” he explains. He marked the new commander in Iraq as a stand-out when he witnessed his skills and strategies during the general’s Iraq duty in 2003.
Three developments now have Shays more optimistic than he has been in many months. During his April trip, he was able to visit the “red zone” in Baghdad, which he says would have been impossible in the past, even with armed protection. And he saw evidence that routine violence was diminishing when almost every one of the 40 Iraqi soldiers he spoke with reported that they felt safe returning to their homes during their regular monthly leaves. Having once thought that Anbar province was lost, he is also encouraged by the cooperation of Sunni tribal leaders in security operations there. Finally, he highlights an effective Iraqi security operation in the north.
The Baiji oil refinery had been plagued by corruption. Thefts from the refinery, its pipelines, and from ships had funded insurgents and some Shia militias. The refinery was able to produce only 20 truckloads of oil on some days. Prime Minister Maliki sent five Iraqi battalions, under the command of an Iraqi colonel who served in Saddam’s forces, to tackle the corruption. “This guy has worked miracles,” an American general told Shays, who reports that 200 truckloads of oil are now being delivered daily to provinces, with the revenue flowing to the government rather than insurgents.
Shays is counseling patience and resolve. He points out that last November’s voters have gotten what they wanted with a new secretary of Defense, a new ground commander, and a new mission and strategy in Iraq. He believes that some war critics are encouraging the enemy to attack our forces in the expectation that American casualties will prompt a retreat. “If the enemy understood that we won’t be intimidated by the number of deaths inflicted on the United States, because we will remain focused on enabling the Iraqis to stand on their own, whatever it takes, there would be no point in killing our troops,” he explains. And he wonders the same thing that Speaker Pelosi is wondering: “If the United States wins, does she lose?” he asks.
Just Can’t Get Enough? Mitch McConnell warns against a congressional “Surrender Date.” Rich Lowry bemoans “The Capitulation Caucus.” W. Thomas Smith Jr. reports on U.S. troops making the case for courage.
