Fred Kagan has written a somewhat schizophrenic piece in the Weekly Standard on A definition of success in Iraq
Virtually everyone who wants to win this war agrees: Success will have been achieved when Iraq is a stable, representative state that controls its own territory, is oriented toward the West, and is an ally in the struggle against militant Islamism, whether Sunni or Shia.
Further into the piece we learn that:
– Iraq is largely stable
Violence is the most obvious indicator of instability and the easiest to measure. The fact that violence has fallen dramatically in Iraq since the end of 2006 is evidence of improving stability.
– Iraq is a representative state
[W]e should note that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis continue to manifest their desire for representative government, as evidenced by the 8 million who voted in the last elections, the 90 percent of Sunni Arab Iraqis who tell pollsters they will vote in the upcoming provincial elections, and the sense on the streets that anyone who tries to eliminate representative government will do so at his peril.
– it largely controls its own territory
Enemy control of
territory has been significantly reduced, and further efforts to
eliminate enemy control of any territory are underway. Spikes in
violence surrounding the Basra operation reflect efforts by the
government to retake insurgent-held areas and are, therefore, positive
(if sober) indicators.
– Iraq is western orientated
Iran has not dominated Iraq in centuries.
…
In the simple terms suitable to that debate, then, suffice it to say that neither shared Shia faith nor a shared border has historically led to Iranian domination of Iraq. There is no reason to assume it will do so now.
…
Baghdad is organizing, training, and equipping its military and police
forces to be completely interoperable with the United States–and not
with Iran.
– and Iraq is actively fighting militant Islamism, Shia and Sunni
[T]here is no state in the world that is more committed than Iraq to defeating al Qaeda.
…
Iraq is already America’s best ally in the struggle against al Qaeda. Moreover, the recent decision of Iraq’s government to go after illegal, Iranian-backed Shia militias and terror groups shows that even a Shia government in Baghdad can be a good partner in the struggle against Shia extremism as well.
Three of Kagan’s five "success" criteria are then, by his own writing, completely fulfilled, two are largely fulfilled.
To end the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is the will of the majority of Iraqis and the majority of the people of the United States. Why then, when all conditions for "success" Fred Kagan has set up are – at least largely – achieved, can he and the U.S. government not declare victory and leave Iraq alone?
Could it be that the real definition of "success" that Kagan has in mind includes a few additional points he doesn’t want to discuss?
Mr. Kagan, what about permanent bases and oil?