Our Iraq debate is bearing fruit. Belmont Club counters my worries. Greg Djerejian argues back here. I don’t think there’s much doubt that the U.S. has been scaling back offensive operations against the insurgents for the past couple of months. The fact that, even then, casualties have increased is worrying. Then there’s the possibility that this pause will make re-taking Fallujah and other trouble spots that much more difficult and bloody. Money quote from Greg:
That question is, if we really needed to get back into towns like Fallujah–would we be losing more troops now than we did back in April because the insurgents have re-grouped, strengthened, and are becoming (that dreaded, over-used word so loved by the New York Times!) more “sophisticated”? Unfortunately–and this goes more to Sully’s point than Wretchard’s–I fear the answer is yes… Also, folks, a capital city like Baghdad is critical in all of this. You can’t have foreign nationals, willy-nilly, being kidnapped from the Mansour neighborhood smack dab in the morning on their way to work. You can’t have myriad suicide car bombings slaughtering new Iraqi police recruits seemingly every day. You can’t have the effing perimeter of the Green Zone unsecured at this late juncture. Not only is it critical to exert real control over the capital as a strategic matter–it’s also of hugely symbolic import–for us, for the international community and, yes, for the insurgents.
Amen. Losing control of critical parts of Baghdad is, er, not a good sign.
The Dish 