From Joe Quinn via the Tom Ricks blog:
"Al Qaeda murdered my brother Jimmy nine years ago...My brother Jimmy worked on the 101st floor. Not a single remnant of my brother would be recovered.
...Due to my emotions (and engineering classes), I barely graduated West Point in the spring of 2002...Nine years after my brother's death..I am currently contributing to the fight here in Afghanistan.
I have recounted the last nine years of my life because my journey through these wars has been similar to yours. You were devastated by the events of 9/11. You wanted revenge, or at least some sort of justice, where you supported the invasion of Afghanistan. You were sidetracked by the Iraq War in 2003 and then again by the Iraq "Surge" in 2007. Nine years after 9/11, you are tired of war, but finally find your blood and treasure in Afghanistan.
My greatest fear is that we will lose the Afghan war because of the Iraq war. The American people are tired of war mostly due to the painful doldrums brought on by the Iraq campaign. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) also siphoned resources and attention away from Afghanistan, allowing an insurgency to rise and for the U.S. to never fully realize a plan for winning. What is winning? Winning is achieving irreversible momentum towards a stable Afghanistan, free from Taliban control, which will never serve as a base for terrorism.
After nine years of neglecting the Afghan war, we finally have a plan for winning, with the right resources, the right leadership and the right programs. At the end of August, the last of the 30,000 additional U.S. troops are finally in place. Undoubtedly, these additional troops will clear and hold large swaths of Taliban strongholds.
In General Petraeus, we also have the right leadership to orchestrate the Afghan war. Saying that General Petraeus will not make a difference in Afghanistan is like saying Michael Jordan would not make a difference in Chicago after coming out of retirement in 1994. Eventually the team will improve.
The right programs in Afghanistan have only just begun. General Petraeus made an immediate impact by partnering with President Karzai to begin the Afghan Local Police (ALP) program that will leverage local Afghans to provide village-level security. The Afghan Peace and Reintegration Program (APRP) is another concept that has just been ratified, where the effects of the program will only truly be felt in the months ahead. The right resources, leadership and programs in Afghanistan have just begun. Winning the Afghan war has just begun.
So after nine years, why are we still in Afghanistan? For me it's still simple. The men that killed my brother on 9/11 were five of 20,000 terrorists trained by Al Qaeda in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan will only embolden Al Qaeda even more to perpetrate terrorist attacks like on 9/11. It's easy to forget the connection between Afghanistan and 9/11 after all this time. For me, it's impossible to forget. Perhaps remembering is the luxury of my family's tragedy.
In the end, I do not want revenge anymore. The truth is that the perpetrators that murdered my brother died that same day. I now have a new goal: to leave Afghanistan. To leave Afghanistan as a stable country, free from Taliban control, which will never serve as a base for terrorism.
Joe Quinn currently works in Afghanistan as a Counterinsurgency Advisor for the International Security Assistance Force's (ISAF's) Counterinsurgency Assistance and Advisory Team (CAAT). He graduated in May from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government."
Ricks Foreign Policy
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The War That Keeps On Giving...
TW:...succor to those opposed to American interests. It is the mistake that keeps on taking American- lives, treasure and reputation. All that has happened since 2004is the can has been kicked down the road. W. Bush had his "surge" that resolved nothing except reducing the political heat from flaming to simmer. Obama is conducting the "troop reduction" which kicks the can another year or two down the road and at least reduces American exposure in lives and treasure but will not solve much.
What would the teabagging Republican party suggest for Iraq at this point? More troops? More torture?
From Tom Ricks:
"I thought I was a pessimist about Iraq until I read this comment by a U.S. military official in today's Washington Post:
All we're doing is setting the clock back to 2005. ... The militias are fully armed, and al-Qaeda in Iraq is trying to move back from the west. These are the conditions now, and we're sitting back looking at PowerPoint slides and whitewashing."
Ugh. I think 2005 was my least favorite year of the war Iraq, when things were falling apart and the American officials were insisting that they weren't. 2006 was bloodier but at least by the end of the year, it was clear that something had to change.
The official's comment in the Post reminds me of when, a few months ago, a top American expert in Iraqi affairs took me aside to warn me that I was dangerously optimistic. I asked him if he misspoke and mean that I was too pessimistic about the prospects for Iraq. "No," he said, shaking his head. "You are too optimistic. You think a civil war in Iraq is avoidable. It is not. It is inevitable."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/17/iraq_the_unraveling_42_05_again
What would the teabagging Republican party suggest for Iraq at this point? More troops? More torture?
From Tom Ricks:
"I thought I was a pessimist about Iraq until I read this comment by a U.S. military official in today's Washington Post:
All we're doing is setting the clock back to 2005. ... The militias are fully armed, and al-Qaeda in Iraq is trying to move back from the west. These are the conditions now, and we're sitting back looking at PowerPoint slides and whitewashing."
Ugh. I think 2005 was my least favorite year of the war Iraq, when things were falling apart and the American officials were insisting that they weren't. 2006 was bloodier but at least by the end of the year, it was clear that something had to change.
The official's comment in the Post reminds me of when, a few months ago, a top American expert in Iraqi affairs took me aside to warn me that I was dangerously optimistic. I asked him if he misspoke and mean that I was too pessimistic about the prospects for Iraq. "No," he said, shaking his head. "You are too optimistic. You think a civil war in Iraq is avoidable. It is not. It is inevitable."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/17/iraq_the_unraveling_42_05_again
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Where Do We Stand In Iraq?
TW: This Ricks Q&A with the Economist frames my views on Iraq fairly well. Putting aside whether we should have been in Iraq in the first place (a huge assumption for the sake of discussion), how do things look since the "surge" in 2007. Has the surge achieved much other than providing an "honorable" means by which the U.S. reduces its presence? Was there value in delaying the inevitable fight amidst the various ethnics in Iraq perhaps. There was also a cost in American blood and treasure.
From Economist:
"DIA: You say the "surge" strategy in Iraq "succeeded tactically but failed strategically". What do you mean by that?
Mr Ricks: The surge achieved its military or tactical goal of improving security. But its stated goal was the larger, strategic one of creating a breathing space in which a political breakthrough could occur. No such breakthrough occurred. As General Odierno says in "The Gamble", we created a space, but some Iraqi leaders used it to move backward.
...all the major political questions that vexed Iraq before the surge are still there: How to share oil revenue. The relationship between Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Whether Iraq will have a strong central government or be a weak confederation. All of these questions have led to violence in the past, and are likely to again. Don't take it from me—take it from the former mayor of Tal Afar, who recently said that all the ingredients for civil war remain present in Iraq. The only element in the equation that is changing is that as US troop numbers go down, American influence will wane.
DIA: How much of the success of the surge was due to the change in American tactics, and how much to the change in attitude on the part of the Iraqis (ie, the Anbar awakening)?
Mr Ricks: Both were major ingredients. A third important factor was a new American attitude—a new humility, a sudden willingness to listen to Iraqis and even to those considered enemies, and even to put 100,000 Sunni insurgents on the American payroll. A fourth was the fact that by the time the American approach changed, the ethnic cleansing of much of Baghdad was completed.
DIA: You've written a series of blog posts titled, "Iraq the unraveling", that you describe as "a running commentary about what is unfolding every day before our very eyes". What needs to happen to stop this process of unraveling and how much of the burden falls on American troops in the country?
Mr Ricks: I don’t know what needs to happen to lead to political change, but I doubt the answer is a military one. The role the American troops play now is kind of a referee, to prevent civil war from breaking out again, and to try to make sure that Iraqi soldiers and police treat Iraqi civilians decently. I do worry that the plan to bring troop numbers down swiftly next year (2010) will erode the ability of the Americans to carry out those two missions."
From Economist:
"DIA: You say the "surge" strategy in Iraq "succeeded tactically but failed strategically". What do you mean by that?
Mr Ricks: The surge achieved its military or tactical goal of improving security. But its stated goal was the larger, strategic one of creating a breathing space in which a political breakthrough could occur. No such breakthrough occurred. As General Odierno says in "The Gamble", we created a space, but some Iraqi leaders used it to move backward.
...all the major political questions that vexed Iraq before the surge are still there: How to share oil revenue. The relationship between Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Whether Iraq will have a strong central government or be a weak confederation. All of these questions have led to violence in the past, and are likely to again. Don't take it from me—take it from the former mayor of Tal Afar, who recently said that all the ingredients for civil war remain present in Iraq. The only element in the equation that is changing is that as US troop numbers go down, American influence will wane.
DIA: How much of the success of the surge was due to the change in American tactics, and how much to the change in attitude on the part of the Iraqis (ie, the Anbar awakening)?
Mr Ricks: Both were major ingredients. A third important factor was a new American attitude—a new humility, a sudden willingness to listen to Iraqis and even to those considered enemies, and even to put 100,000 Sunni insurgents on the American payroll. A fourth was the fact that by the time the American approach changed, the ethnic cleansing of much of Baghdad was completed.
DIA: You've written a series of blog posts titled, "Iraq the unraveling", that you describe as "a running commentary about what is unfolding every day before our very eyes". What needs to happen to stop this process of unraveling and how much of the burden falls on American troops in the country?
Mr Ricks: I don’t know what needs to happen to lead to political change, but I doubt the answer is a military one. The role the American troops play now is kind of a referee, to prevent civil war from breaking out again, and to try to make sure that Iraqi soldiers and police treat Iraqi civilians decently. I do worry that the plan to bring troop numbers down swiftly next year (2010) will erode the ability of the Americans to carry out those two missions."
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The Evolution Of Iraq
TW: This piece provides context on what it means to engage directly in another nation's politics. Do we understand what we are doing initially much less the 2nd, 3rd, 10th order effects of our involvement? Our engagement in Iran ousted a Sunni dictatorship and gave the Shia majority political influence. Iraq is now aligned more closely with Iran than other Middle Eastern nations. As I said yesterday we will likely need to retain a material military presence in Iraq (assuming they will permit us) just to make sure the Iranians do not end up with their own military forces athwart the oil rich southern Shia provinces inside Iraq.
Pondering and evaluating these derivative effects will be crucial to formulating our next steps in an even thornier conundrum...AfPak.
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag relating a letter from a U.S. Army officer recently back from an Iraq deployment:
"...Ghaz[the city in which the officer was deployed], as you may know, is mainly Shia in the northern half and Sunni in the southern half. We closed the last JSS [U.S. military outpost] in Ghaz on Sept. 7...and the day after it was closed the Iraqi army battalion in south Ghaz raided the South Ghaz (Sunni) SOI headquarters, confiscating weapons and equipment a US unit had supplied them back in 2007-2008. The JSS, which straddled the Shia-Sunni fault line across the middle of Ghaz, was basically the buffer for the Sunni in the south. SOI and local council leaders were reported to have fled the neighborhood, citing Shia militia threats. Keep in mind, directly to Ghaz's north is the Shia enclave of Shulla, a mini-Sadr City that is basically controlled by JAM[Shia militia] remnant groups (and a heavily complicit Iraqi Army battalion). This Shia influence spills into north Ghaz and has been encroaching upon south Ghaz over the past several months.
... It is unsurprising and confirms a steady and growing Shia influence throughout Baghdad. ...
When I was in Iraq, I read a bunch of books to include Robert Baer's The Devil We Know, which is about Iran's growing influence in the Mideast. Baer's first two sentences in Chapter 2, "How Iran Beat America," are: "Iraq is lost. Iran won it." Given what we've seen in classified reports and in the revolving door of Iraqi army commanders in select Baghdad neighborhoods, his thesis is spot on. Plus, Shia militiamen have melted into the army and police over the past few years making it much easier for them to create Shia havens throughout the city. It'll be interesting to see where Baghdad is in about 5 years.
In your book, The Gamble, you cite Ryan Crocker's comment that the most important events in Iraq have yet to happen. This is quite true and the troubling fact is that these events are going on right now and we don't even know what to do about them. Probably the better question is if can we do anything about them, especially given the constraints of the Security Agreement. It's especially tough to influence our ISF and council member counterparts via cell phone from Camp Liberty.
Anyway, forgive my rambling thoughts. Just thought I'd add to your Iraq "the unraveling" series. I must say, though, I am quite conflicted about our unit's efforts and sacrifices over the past year and the real reality on the ground right now. I mean how much of it is out of our control? How much can Chris Hill really influence Maliki and the Iraqi politicians? Do US interests line up with Iraqi interests? And how much of Iraq's interests are really Iran's? Much to think about ..."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/30/iraq_the_unraveling_xxv_iran_won_an_army_officer_reports
Pondering and evaluating these derivative effects will be crucial to formulating our next steps in an even thornier conundrum...AfPak.
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag relating a letter from a U.S. Army officer recently back from an Iraq deployment:
"...Ghaz[the city in which the officer was deployed], as you may know, is mainly Shia in the northern half and Sunni in the southern half. We closed the last JSS [U.S. military outpost] in Ghaz on Sept. 7...and the day after it was closed the Iraqi army battalion in south Ghaz raided the South Ghaz (Sunni) SOI headquarters, confiscating weapons and equipment a US unit had supplied them back in 2007-2008. The JSS, which straddled the Shia-Sunni fault line across the middle of Ghaz, was basically the buffer for the Sunni in the south. SOI and local council leaders were reported to have fled the neighborhood, citing Shia militia threats. Keep in mind, directly to Ghaz's north is the Shia enclave of Shulla, a mini-Sadr City that is basically controlled by JAM[Shia militia] remnant groups (and a heavily complicit Iraqi Army battalion). This Shia influence spills into north Ghaz and has been encroaching upon south Ghaz over the past several months.
... It is unsurprising and confirms a steady and growing Shia influence throughout Baghdad. ...
When I was in Iraq, I read a bunch of books to include Robert Baer's The Devil We Know, which is about Iran's growing influence in the Mideast. Baer's first two sentences in Chapter 2, "How Iran Beat America," are: "Iraq is lost. Iran won it." Given what we've seen in classified reports and in the revolving door of Iraqi army commanders in select Baghdad neighborhoods, his thesis is spot on. Plus, Shia militiamen have melted into the army and police over the past few years making it much easier for them to create Shia havens throughout the city. It'll be interesting to see where Baghdad is in about 5 years.
In your book, The Gamble, you cite Ryan Crocker's comment that the most important events in Iraq have yet to happen. This is quite true and the troubling fact is that these events are going on right now and we don't even know what to do about them. Probably the better question is if can we do anything about them, especially given the constraints of the Security Agreement. It's especially tough to influence our ISF and council member counterparts via cell phone from Camp Liberty.
Anyway, forgive my rambling thoughts. Just thought I'd add to your Iraq "the unraveling" series. I must say, though, I am quite conflicted about our unit's efforts and sacrifices over the past year and the real reality on the ground right now. I mean how much of it is out of our control? How much can Chris Hill really influence Maliki and the Iraqi politicians? Do US interests line up with Iraqi interests? And how much of Iraq's interests are really Iran's? Much to think about ..."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/30/iraq_the_unraveling_xxv_iran_won_an_army_officer_reports
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Yes We Can And Are Leaving Iraq
TW: Our troops are leaving Iraq. More slowly than some would like but inexorably nevertheless. I suspect those 30-50K "residual" troops will be in Iraq for a very long time in order to:
1) Deter the Iranians from "joint" maneuvers with their Shia brethren in southern Iraq
2) Deter the Sunnis and Shia from getting too aggressive with our Kurdish allies
3) Make sure we retain a disproportionate amount of influence on several billion bbls. of petroleum products
The other thing that struck me in this article were the "contractor" numbers. There are more "contractors" than U.S. troops. Many of these are not U.S. citizens and their functions vary from slinging hash to maintenance to guard duty. But the numbers speak to how modern military ops have evolved. For better or worse we have farmed out many functions. When folks compare the troop numbers of today to yesteryear it is really an apple and orange comparison. If one combines the "contractors", U.S. troops and (albeit meager) coalition troop numbers, at its peak there were roughly 400,000 "troops" in Iraq.
From WaPo:
"The United States will withdraw about 4,000 troops from Iraq by the end of October, the U.S. military commander in Iraq said in testimony prepared for a congressional hearing on Wednesday.
In his assessment of the war, General Ray Odierno will tell the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee that the United States is on track to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by September 2010.
"We have approximately 124,000 troops and 11 Combat Teams operating in Iraq today. By the end of October, I believe we will be down to 120,000 troops in Iraq," Odierno said in an advance copy of the testimony obtained on Tuesday.
...Odierno said the number of U.S. contractors in Iraq has dropped from 149,000 in January to just over 115,000, saving over $441 million...
President Barack Obama's withdrawal timetable calls for the U.S. combat mission in Iraq to end on August 31, 2010. However, a force of 30,000 to 50,000 troops will remain to train and equip Iraqi forces and proprotect provincial reconstruction teams, international projects and diplomatic staff..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093000648.html?wprss=rss_world/wires
1) Deter the Iranians from "joint" maneuvers with their Shia brethren in southern Iraq
2) Deter the Sunnis and Shia from getting too aggressive with our Kurdish allies
3) Make sure we retain a disproportionate amount of influence on several billion bbls. of petroleum products
The other thing that struck me in this article were the "contractor" numbers. There are more "contractors" than U.S. troops. Many of these are not U.S. citizens and their functions vary from slinging hash to maintenance to guard duty. But the numbers speak to how modern military ops have evolved. For better or worse we have farmed out many functions. When folks compare the troop numbers of today to yesteryear it is really an apple and orange comparison. If one combines the "contractors", U.S. troops and (albeit meager) coalition troop numbers, at its peak there were roughly 400,000 "troops" in Iraq.
From WaPo:
"The United States will withdraw about 4,000 troops from Iraq by the end of October, the U.S. military commander in Iraq said in testimony prepared for a congressional hearing on Wednesday.
In his assessment of the war, General Ray Odierno will tell the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee that the United States is on track to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by September 2010.
"We have approximately 124,000 troops and 11 Combat Teams operating in Iraq today. By the end of October, I believe we will be down to 120,000 troops in Iraq," Odierno said in an advance copy of the testimony obtained on Tuesday.
...Odierno said the number of U.S. contractors in Iraq has dropped from 149,000 in January to just over 115,000, saving over $441 million...
President Barack Obama's withdrawal timetable calls for the U.S. combat mission in Iraq to end on August 31, 2010. However, a force of 30,000 to 50,000 troops will remain to train and equip Iraqi forces and proprotect provincial reconstruction teams, international projects and diplomatic staff..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093000648.html?wprss=rss_world/wires
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Woof Woof
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag:
"I have a lot of sympathy for people carrying around Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It sucks.
But now I see where a former spokesman for the British ministry of defense says he has post-traumatic stress disorder from telling so many lies about the Iraq war. Really? If that were really the case, I'd expect to see the sidewalks of Washington crowded with former Bushies gone barking mad.
Hey, look out the window ..."
"I have a lot of sympathy for people carrying around Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It sucks.
But now I see where a former spokesman for the British ministry of defense says he has post-traumatic stress disorder from telling so many lies about the Iraq war. Really? If that were really the case, I'd expect to see the sidewalks of Washington crowded with former Bushies gone barking mad.
Hey, look out the window ..."
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Six Years, Thousands Of American Lives And Hundreds Of Billions Of Dollars Later
TW: We have this as our current legacy in Iraq. Folks will reflect Friday on the 8th anniversary of 9/11. Hopefully, folks will also reflect on the cost and harm of misusing that legacy towards at best incompetent ends. Of course, Dick Cheney would fit in nicely as director of security in the "New" Iraq.
From Economist:
"THE main book market, in Baghdad’s Mutanabi Street, was a hive of angry chatter this week. Bespectacled traders, complaining about new censorship laws, shouted, “This is not freedom of expression,” and talked of holding a demonstration like one last month, when journalists protested against new restrictions.
But would the booksellers dare? They said they were already worried that plainclothes policemen had been taking their names. Perhaps they should go instead to court and fight censorship with the help of lawyers. “Not a chance,” said one book-dealer. “This is the new Iraq.” Legal protections, he noted, count for little. “Power”, he added, “is held by the men with the guns.
He had a point. The Shia-led government has overseen a ballooning of the country’s security apparatus. Human-rights violations are becoming more common. In private many Iraqis, especially educated ones, are asking if their country may go back to being a police state.
Old habits from Saddam Hussein’s era are becoming familiar again. Torture is routine in government detention centres. “Things are bad and getting worse, even by regional standards,” says Samer Muscati, who works for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby. His outfit reports that, with American oversight gone (albeit that the Americans committed their own shameful abuses in such places as Abu Ghraib prison), Iraqi police and security people are again pulling out fingernails and beating detainees, even those who have already made confessions. A limping former prison inmate tells how he realised, after a bout of torture in a government ministry that lasted for five days, that he had been relatively lucky. When he was reunited with fellow prisoners, he said he saw that many had lost limbs and organs.
The domestic-security apparatus is at its busiest since Saddam was overthrown six years ago, especially in the capital. In July the Baghdad police reimposed a nightly curfew, making it easier for the police, taking orders from politicians, to arrest people disliked by the Shia-led government. ..
...sentencing is getting harsher, with more people sentenced to death. On a single day in June 19 people were hanged in Baghdad. In a recent report Amnesty International, a British-based group, says that more than 1,000 Iraqis face execution, often on the basis of confessions, which, it says, are sometimes made under torture.
...The government recently announced plans to censor imported books as well as the internet, saying it wanted to ban hate screeds and pornography. But human-rights monitors fear this may presage a first step towards a wider web of censorship. Internet cafés face new rules that require them to register.
...[Maliki's] government is also seeking to tighten rules to regulate political parties and independent associations (including charities), causing still more alarm. “This is not how you build a democracy,” says Maysoon al-Damluji, a liberal member of parliament.
It is too soon to say Iraq will revert to Saddam’s heinous standards. Parliament is diverse and vigorous. The press still airs a range of opinion. The courts are not yet rubber stamps. But the trend is going the wrong way. “This will be a police state, no question,” says a Western diplomat with long experience of Iraq. “It’ll take two or three years. But it’s coming.”
http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14380249
From Economist:
"THE main book market, in Baghdad’s Mutanabi Street, was a hive of angry chatter this week. Bespectacled traders, complaining about new censorship laws, shouted, “This is not freedom of expression,” and talked of holding a demonstration like one last month, when journalists protested against new restrictions.
But would the booksellers dare? They said they were already worried that plainclothes policemen had been taking their names. Perhaps they should go instead to court and fight censorship with the help of lawyers. “Not a chance,” said one book-dealer. “This is the new Iraq.” Legal protections, he noted, count for little. “Power”, he added, “is held by the men with the guns.
He had a point. The Shia-led government has overseen a ballooning of the country’s security apparatus. Human-rights violations are becoming more common. In private many Iraqis, especially educated ones, are asking if their country may go back to being a police state.
Old habits from Saddam Hussein’s era are becoming familiar again. Torture is routine in government detention centres. “Things are bad and getting worse, even by regional standards,” says Samer Muscati, who works for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby. His outfit reports that, with American oversight gone (albeit that the Americans committed their own shameful abuses in such places as Abu Ghraib prison), Iraqi police and security people are again pulling out fingernails and beating detainees, even those who have already made confessions. A limping former prison inmate tells how he realised, after a bout of torture in a government ministry that lasted for five days, that he had been relatively lucky. When he was reunited with fellow prisoners, he said he saw that many had lost limbs and organs.
The domestic-security apparatus is at its busiest since Saddam was overthrown six years ago, especially in the capital. In July the Baghdad police reimposed a nightly curfew, making it easier for the police, taking orders from politicians, to arrest people disliked by the Shia-led government. ..
...sentencing is getting harsher, with more people sentenced to death. On a single day in June 19 people were hanged in Baghdad. In a recent report Amnesty International, a British-based group, says that more than 1,000 Iraqis face execution, often on the basis of confessions, which, it says, are sometimes made under torture.
...The government recently announced plans to censor imported books as well as the internet, saying it wanted to ban hate screeds and pornography. But human-rights monitors fear this may presage a first step towards a wider web of censorship. Internet cafés face new rules that require them to register.
...[Maliki's] government is also seeking to tighten rules to regulate political parties and independent associations (including charities), causing still more alarm. “This is not how you build a democracy,” says Maysoon al-Damluji, a liberal member of parliament.
It is too soon to say Iraq will revert to Saddam’s heinous standards. Parliament is diverse and vigorous. The press still airs a range of opinion. The courts are not yet rubber stamps. But the trend is going the wrong way. “This will be a police state, no question,” says a Western diplomat with long experience of Iraq. “It’ll take two or three years. But it’s coming.”
http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14380249
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Iraq Still Violent- No Suprise There
TW: Iraq is going through a severe molting process. It will be violent, this is inevitable and unavoidable. Would the violence have been different had we not "surged" perhaps. But I doubt it will be that different (some Americans may feel better for the surge, I do not). The Iraqis never wanted to be occupied and certainly do not want to be occupied now. The sooner we have fewer troops there the better. Although I suspect five years from now we will still have a material presence in Kurdistan (they DO want us around) and perhaps in or around Basra to keep an eye on Iran.
Indigenous violence in a country one occupies is one thing, a different thing when one is not occupying it.
From Nightwatch:
"We worked ourselves out of a job," according to a US military officer, referring to the sharp drop in violence over the past two years. "This is what the end of a counterinsurgency looks like."
Actually the US officer is incorrect and looking backwards, not forwards. The next stage of the insurgency is just beginning. It features a violent breakout from US-enforced power sharing, but the US now is de-fanged by common consent and on the side lines. The Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds want to slug it out without the US as the referee. This is not success, just postponement of the end game.
The unfinished business is political control of Baghdad, between the Sunnis and the Shii. The US is no longer relevant to this smoldering grudge match, by common consent. The Shia backed by Iran should win, on the numbers, thanks to the US military effort to support majority rule, but the bloodletting is likely to get much, much worse."
Indigenous violence in a country one occupies is one thing, a different thing when one is not occupying it.
From Nightwatch:
"We worked ourselves out of a job," according to a US military officer, referring to the sharp drop in violence over the past two years. "This is what the end of a counterinsurgency looks like."
Actually the US officer is incorrect and looking backwards, not forwards. The next stage of the insurgency is just beginning. It features a violent breakout from US-enforced power sharing, but the US now is de-fanged by common consent and on the side lines. The Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds want to slug it out without the US as the referee. This is not success, just postponement of the end game.
The unfinished business is political control of Baghdad, between the Sunnis and the Shii. The US is no longer relevant to this smoldering grudge match, by common consent. The Shia backed by Iran should win, on the numbers, thanks to the US military effort to support majority rule, but the bloodletting is likely to get much, much worse."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
What Is Worse? Being Wrong And Admitting It Or Being Wrong And Denying It?
"“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
-- Albert Einstein
TW: We have been led into two unnecessary wars within my lifetime. They have similarities but far more differences. One was pursued by the U.S. confusing local nationalism with global communism, the other in a forlorn effort to spread American "democratic" ideology. The results were tragic in both cases, far more tragic for the target nations than the U.S., but tragic and debilitating enough for the U.S.
Robert McNamara, SecDef for JFK and LBJ, a key architect of American policy during the Vietnam era ultimately came out and acknowledged his mistakes. Not surprisingly he received little reward for the admission. Those against the war considered it too little, too late; those for it still considered him a loser. Many Republicans to this day think we could have "won" Vietnam somehow (what victory would have meant and at what further cost remains highly nebulous).
But what about the neo-cons and Iraq. They concede nothing and claim the "surge" as a great victory (even though the strategic realities are hardly changed).
The common thread between Vietnam and Iraq are that they were both tragically wrong wars, which have left thousands of Americans dead and maimed whilst undercutting our prestige and treasury.
From Economist:
"...Mr McNamara's failure to tackle one key issue in particular: "how America's leaders could recognise the futility of the military struggle in Vietnam yet blind themselves to the necessary conclusion that the alternative was defeat."
Considering the lessons we've learned over the past seven years, I think we may have been a little too harsh in condemning Mr McNamara on this count. It is easy in hindsight to say that America should've ended its war in Vietnam at some or another point short of 1975, as the mission became hopeless. But many said the same about Iraq in 2005 and 2006, only to see things turn around a bit in 2008. Wars tend to be much more accurately assessed when they're over.
Having said that, let's also give Mr McNamara at least a scrap of credit for eventually recognising that his own policies were failing. As my colleague said yesterday, there will be parallels drawn between Mr McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld, but the two differ considerably in this area. Mr Rumsfeld and his neoconservative colleagues were set in their ways, obstinate to the end. As David Rieff tells Greg Djerejia, "Like the Trotskyists of yore, these people are never wrong if only they had been listened to and allowed to follow their mad utopian schemes to their limit." Even today they continue to give counsel, as if our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us nothing, least of all that they are not to be trusted. Mr McNamara, on the other hand, made efforts to learn (and have us learn) from his mistakes. It's a favourable comparison for him. He need not be exalted for his admissions of failure, but let's at least recognise this character trait as a useful example for future government employees."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/07/robert_mcnamara_is_better_at.cfm
-- Albert Einstein
TW: We have been led into two unnecessary wars within my lifetime. They have similarities but far more differences. One was pursued by the U.S. confusing local nationalism with global communism, the other in a forlorn effort to spread American "democratic" ideology. The results were tragic in both cases, far more tragic for the target nations than the U.S., but tragic and debilitating enough for the U.S.
Robert McNamara, SecDef for JFK and LBJ, a key architect of American policy during the Vietnam era ultimately came out and acknowledged his mistakes. Not surprisingly he received little reward for the admission. Those against the war considered it too little, too late; those for it still considered him a loser. Many Republicans to this day think we could have "won" Vietnam somehow (what victory would have meant and at what further cost remains highly nebulous).
But what about the neo-cons and Iraq. They concede nothing and claim the "surge" as a great victory (even though the strategic realities are hardly changed).
The common thread between Vietnam and Iraq are that they were both tragically wrong wars, which have left thousands of Americans dead and maimed whilst undercutting our prestige and treasury.
From Economist:
"...Mr McNamara's failure to tackle one key issue in particular: "how America's leaders could recognise the futility of the military struggle in Vietnam yet blind themselves to the necessary conclusion that the alternative was defeat."
Considering the lessons we've learned over the past seven years, I think we may have been a little too harsh in condemning Mr McNamara on this count. It is easy in hindsight to say that America should've ended its war in Vietnam at some or another point short of 1975, as the mission became hopeless. But many said the same about Iraq in 2005 and 2006, only to see things turn around a bit in 2008. Wars tend to be much more accurately assessed when they're over.
Having said that, let's also give Mr McNamara at least a scrap of credit for eventually recognising that his own policies were failing. As my colleague said yesterday, there will be parallels drawn between Mr McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld, but the two differ considerably in this area. Mr Rumsfeld and his neoconservative colleagues were set in their ways, obstinate to the end. As David Rieff tells Greg Djerejia, "Like the Trotskyists of yore, these people are never wrong if only they had been listened to and allowed to follow their mad utopian schemes to their limit." Even today they continue to give counsel, as if our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us nothing, least of all that they are not to be trusted. Mr McNamara, on the other hand, made efforts to learn (and have us learn) from his mistakes. It's a favourable comparison for him. He need not be exalted for his admissions of failure, but let's at least recognise this character trait as a useful example for future government employees."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/07/robert_mcnamara_is_better_at.cfm
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tranistions In Iraq
TW: To relatively little ado (a good thing), Americans forces are completing their withdrawal from Iraqi cities. To me this is a great thing. Not without some risk but like everything else in life one must take risks, otherwise one ends up with a Cheney/Bush policy of chasing demons in the night at all costs and regardless of consequences.
Will there be violence in Iraq? Of course. Will the country blow apart? I doubt it. Military occupations inherently must end, why not now for the U.S. in Iraq? The Iraqis must figure out how to co-exist more or less peacefully. There will be bumps in the road but the process must accelerate. Today is a step on that path.
From Economist:
"...As the deadline looms, people are again asking whether Iraq’s forces will be able to cope on their own...
Yet...the recorded figures suggest that the violence is still in retreat. Fewer civilians were killed in May than in any month since 2003. Both Iraqi and American officials had predicted a surge in attacks as the deadline for withdrawal neared.
...But the Iraqis are slowly realising that Mr Obama really does intend to remove the bulk of his troops before 2011. So they may at last be starting to focus on passing long-delayed bits of important nation-building legislation, such as an oil-and-gas law, constitutional amendments, and even a law governing elections. Without a modicum of cohesion at the heart of government, how can Iraq’s security forces stick together in the face of sectarian or ethnic tension? Iraqis know that establishing a more cohesive and broader-based government is at least as important as beefing up the Iraqi security forces.
A crucial general election is due in January—and everybody knows that the Americans want to witness a peaceful poll leading to a stable government before they can withdraw completely. So there is a fresh ferment of political horse-trading and alliance-testing. Mr Maliki is trying to buff up his image as the strongman who can provide law and order. He is exploring the possibility of new ties across sectarian divisions as well as sounding out possible partners for a grand Shia coalition similar to the one that won last time. Even the “Bands of the Righteous”, an offshoot of the Shia militia movement led by a radical cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, may want to take part in peaceful politics. As a gesture of goodwill, it released the bodies of two long-dead British hostages who had been kidnapped two years ago.
Yet, whether the Americans stay or leave, Iraq still suffers from its worst failing. There is still no party or leader that can reach across the country’s divisions and appeal to Iraqis of every ethnic and sectarian hue."
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13927318
Will there be violence in Iraq? Of course. Will the country blow apart? I doubt it. Military occupations inherently must end, why not now for the U.S. in Iraq? The Iraqis must figure out how to co-exist more or less peacefully. There will be bumps in the road but the process must accelerate. Today is a step on that path.
From Economist:
"...As the deadline looms, people are again asking whether Iraq’s forces will be able to cope on their own...
Yet...the recorded figures suggest that the violence is still in retreat. Fewer civilians were killed in May than in any month since 2003. Both Iraqi and American officials had predicted a surge in attacks as the deadline for withdrawal neared.
...But the Iraqis are slowly realising that Mr Obama really does intend to remove the bulk of his troops before 2011. So they may at last be starting to focus on passing long-delayed bits of important nation-building legislation, such as an oil-and-gas law, constitutional amendments, and even a law governing elections. Without a modicum of cohesion at the heart of government, how can Iraq’s security forces stick together in the face of sectarian or ethnic tension? Iraqis know that establishing a more cohesive and broader-based government is at least as important as beefing up the Iraqi security forces.
A crucial general election is due in January—and everybody knows that the Americans want to witness a peaceful poll leading to a stable government before they can withdraw completely. So there is a fresh ferment of political horse-trading and alliance-testing. Mr Maliki is trying to buff up his image as the strongman who can provide law and order. He is exploring the possibility of new ties across sectarian divisions as well as sounding out possible partners for a grand Shia coalition similar to the one that won last time. Even the “Bands of the Righteous”, an offshoot of the Shia militia movement led by a radical cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, may want to take part in peaceful politics. As a gesture of goodwill, it released the bodies of two long-dead British hostages who had been kidnapped two years ago.
Yet, whether the Americans stay or leave, Iraq still suffers from its worst failing. There is still no party or leader that can reach across the country’s divisions and appeal to Iraqis of every ethnic and sectarian hue."
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13927318
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Obama In Cairo
James Baker (fmr. Sec. of State and WH Chief of Staff for Reagan) before Obama's Cairo speech on how one pushes the ball up the hill in the Middle East:
"Well, you get there by doing what the president is doing. Show these people that we value the relationship that has existed formany years between their countries and our country. Pay them attention,which he is certainly doing. Meet with them, listen to their concerns. And explain to them the importance of U.S. policy goals. That's a way you get there. And I think it's very healthy that he is doing this."
From Craig Crawford after the speech:
"...It was a moment that made good on the promise of this man to begin the process of transforming relations and undermining terrorists.
"You have the ability to reimagine the world," Obama to young Muslims at Cairo University.
For the first time since Jimmy Carter's Camp David accords we have a president with the skills, understanding and commitment to make peace in a region that has bedeviled the world for generations. Carter's 1978 brokering of a deal between Egypt and Israel to recognize each other and pursue peace still stands as the only lasting agreement of its kind since those days.
Obama's phenomenal speech gracefully shifted from historical tensions to current conflicts between Muslim nations and the western world. Without taking sides he was not shy about noting the wrongdoing of extremists on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance.
Perhaps his most controversial words at home will turn out to be calling Afghanistan a war of necessity, while labeling Iraq a "war of choice." Although Obama has said such things before, his political foes will probably seize upon his decision to say it on foreign soil.
But acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake -- or at least seeming to say so -- will probably do more to impress the Muslim world than just about anything else in this great speech."
From Economist:
"...Mr Obama didn't shy away from the hard questions; indeed he said early and clearly that one speech wasn't going to change much, and that the problems are severe. More than anything, he was frank. Whether talking about a need for an Israeli settlement freeze, reminding the audience that America overthrew Iran's government in 1953, or taking on the Arab conspiracy theories about 9/11, he didn't shy away from the hard topics. The question isn't whether we heard anything new—nobody expected that. The speech was, in my view, honest. That, in itself, is significant for a Muslim audience too used to hearing one thing and seeing another.
...Mr Obama's speech in Cairo closed with a standing ovation, a stunning sight in itself. The knee-jerk reaction of too many Americans is to recoil at the notion of foreigners cheering an American president, as if unpopularity abroad was a sign of virile vigor. This is a new and ugly strain in conservatism. The first sentence of the first official document of the United States paid tribute to "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind". Mr Obama took that seriously today."
"Well, you get there by doing what the president is doing. Show these people that we value the relationship that has existed formany years between their countries and our country. Pay them attention,which he is certainly doing. Meet with them, listen to their concerns. And explain to them the importance of U.S. policy goals. That's a way you get there. And I think it's very healthy that he is doing this."
From Craig Crawford after the speech:
"...It was a moment that made good on the promise of this man to begin the process of transforming relations and undermining terrorists.
"You have the ability to reimagine the world," Obama to young Muslims at Cairo University.
For the first time since Jimmy Carter's Camp David accords we have a president with the skills, understanding and commitment to make peace in a region that has bedeviled the world for generations. Carter's 1978 brokering of a deal between Egypt and Israel to recognize each other and pursue peace still stands as the only lasting agreement of its kind since those days.
Obama's phenomenal speech gracefully shifted from historical tensions to current conflicts between Muslim nations and the western world. Without taking sides he was not shy about noting the wrongdoing of extremists on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance.
Perhaps his most controversial words at home will turn out to be calling Afghanistan a war of necessity, while labeling Iraq a "war of choice." Although Obama has said such things before, his political foes will probably seize upon his decision to say it on foreign soil.
But acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake -- or at least seeming to say so -- will probably do more to impress the Muslim world than just about anything else in this great speech."
From Economist:
"...Mr Obama didn't shy away from the hard questions; indeed he said early and clearly that one speech wasn't going to change much, and that the problems are severe. More than anything, he was frank. Whether talking about a need for an Israeli settlement freeze, reminding the audience that America overthrew Iran's government in 1953, or taking on the Arab conspiracy theories about 9/11, he didn't shy away from the hard topics. The question isn't whether we heard anything new—nobody expected that. The speech was, in my view, honest. That, in itself, is significant for a Muslim audience too used to hearing one thing and seeing another.
...Mr Obama's speech in Cairo closed with a standing ovation, a stunning sight in itself. The knee-jerk reaction of too many Americans is to recoil at the notion of foreigners cheering an American president, as if unpopularity abroad was a sign of virile vigor. This is a new and ugly strain in conservatism. The first sentence of the first official document of the United States paid tribute to "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind". Mr Obama took that seriously today."
Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day (cont.)
TW: This video chronicles the seven Americans reflective of the diverse country from which they came, who lost their lives in Iraq in February 2007 when their Marine helicopter was shot down. Their commander, Col. Killeen, is our acquaintance. He is in the photo above to the right at one of the subsequent memorial services.Memorial Day (cont.)
From C. Trent Rosecran's blog (Cincy Reds blogger):
"[recently] you may have heard of the Army soldier who shot and killed five people at a counseling center in Iraq. One of the five people killed was a friend of mine, Keith Springle.
The Springles were our neighbors in Japan when I was in high school, and then Keith was getting his PhD at Alabama when I lived in Tuscaloosa. I can honestly say, Keith was one of the kindest, most caring men I’ve ever met. Keith was always concerned about those who serve and their families. Both my sister and I participated in surveys he administered for his research about military children. His son, Charlie, is a U.S. Marine, as is the husband of his daughter Sarah and father of the grandchild he never got to meet.
And then there’s Susan, his wife of 26 years and one of the strongest people you’ll ever meet. She’s the epitome of a Navy wife and all that goes with it. She’s an amazing woman — and they were an amazing couple. I must say Keith was a role model as a friend, father and husband.
The one thing I know about Keith was he was extremely dedicated to helping those in the military deal with everything they were going through and helping destroy the stigma attached to counseling and therapy for those in uniform."
http://ctrentrosecrans.com/2009/05/16/springle-scholarship-fund/
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Iraq Simmering Not Boiling For Now (cont.)
TW: Iraq barely makes headlines which in a way is a good thing. But the absence of coverage has more to do with the attention shift to Afghanistan partly due to MSM's lack of funds to cover more than one war at a time. It does not mean things are settled much less over. Am reading over and over that while progress has been made the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd divide remains wide as ever. Maliki is a Shiite whose Sunni bonafides do not appear to be growing.
We are going to greatly reduce our forces barring a massive shift in realities on the ground. What Iraq will look like a year from now is anybody's guess.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...the arrest of a key leader of the Sunni Awakening Councils in Diyala province is not a good sign. Diyala, which is located just northeast of Baghdad has been one of the toughest provinces to calm over the past two years, in part because it is not pure of sect--the Sunnis represent a significant minority. Diyala is, then, a crucial test for the Maliki government's effort to reintegrate Sunnis into the government...and there are far too many indications that Maliki is failing in Diyala and elsewhere.
We are going to greatly reduce our forces barring a massive shift in realities on the ground. What Iraq will look like a year from now is anybody's guess.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...the arrest of a key leader of the Sunni Awakening Councils in Diyala province is not a good sign. Diyala, which is located just northeast of Baghdad has been one of the toughest provinces to calm over the past two years, in part because it is not pure of sect--the Sunnis represent a significant minority. Diyala is, then, a crucial test for the Maliki government's effort to reintegrate Sunnis into the government...and there are far too many indications that Maliki is failing in Diyala and elsewhere.
I'd suspect that a good part of the rising body count in Iraq is being orchestrated to coincide with the planned departure of U.S. troops from the major cities, which is to take place over the next month. But there is a growing danger that Iraq could backslide into civil war--not just between Sunni and Shiites, but between Arabs and Kurds--if Maliki doesn't start making a more determined effort to reunite his country."
Sunday, May 17, 2009
And You Wonder Why Folks Think We Are Full Of It
The Rumsfeld cover sheets via GQ:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
TW: Apparently we WERE embarked on a new crusade. They were elected not once but twice.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
TW: Apparently we WERE embarked on a new crusade. They were elected not once but twice.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Iraq Simmering Not Boiling For Now
TW: These anecdotal bits are frequently interesting if possibly apocryphal. These seem logical. A fundamental question remains whether the surge has created the circumstances by which Iraq can evolve in a zig-zag fashion towards some form of civilized governance or merely the surge has put a lid on a witch's brew that will explode once the U.S. troop presence alleviates. I do not know although I suspect it will be closer to the latter.
Regardless we are leaving, a good thing. Things will be messy but the factions there will have an interest in maintaining positive relations with the U.S. The Kurds most of all, the Shiites perhaps the least but at the end of the day I do not believe they want to become too beholden to the Iranians. We will likely be fielding requests from the Iraqi factions for more commitments than Obama or any other rational POTUS will accept.
From Jim Fallows at the Atlantic:
"Flew from XXX to XXX seated next to a career Army sgt headed to Iraq after R&R on 3rd tour.
Gratifying to me was his saying that the troops really do feel appreciated and supported by the public, and can distinguish criticism of the war from criticism of the men and women in uniform (unlike in Vietnam days). None of the rest was gratifying at all:
• Surge has "worked" because Iraqis who just want to start killing one another again are biding their time. Après nous, le deluge.
• No one could comprehend the waste of money in US expenditures in Iraq.
• IEDs have become infinitely more sophisticated, very high tech now, and can penetrate all but one type of US vehicle. Suicide bombers can penetrate anything they want.
• When an IED blows up a vehicle in a convoy, and you are two vehicles away in the same convoy, the force of the explosion is so violent you are thrown against the interior of your vehicle, you are temporarily deafened, etc.
• Troop morale is high because they sense they are going home, most of them. But there is no way US can be out in five years or even ten without leaving too much equipment behind."
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/04/seatmates_on_a_plane.php
Regardless we are leaving, a good thing. Things will be messy but the factions there will have an interest in maintaining positive relations with the U.S. The Kurds most of all, the Shiites perhaps the least but at the end of the day I do not believe they want to become too beholden to the Iranians. We will likely be fielding requests from the Iraqi factions for more commitments than Obama or any other rational POTUS will accept.
From Jim Fallows at the Atlantic:
"Flew from XXX to XXX seated next to a career Army sgt headed to Iraq after R&R on 3rd tour.
Gratifying to me was his saying that the troops really do feel appreciated and supported by the public, and can distinguish criticism of the war from criticism of the men and women in uniform (unlike in Vietnam days). None of the rest was gratifying at all:
• Surge has "worked" because Iraqis who just want to start killing one another again are biding their time. Après nous, le deluge.
• No one could comprehend the waste of money in US expenditures in Iraq.
• IEDs have become infinitely more sophisticated, very high tech now, and can penetrate all but one type of US vehicle. Suicide bombers can penetrate anything they want.
• When an IED blows up a vehicle in a convoy, and you are two vehicles away in the same convoy, the force of the explosion is so violent you are thrown against the interior of your vehicle, you are temporarily deafened, etc.
• Troop morale is high because they sense they are going home, most of them. But there is no way US can be out in five years or even ten without leaving too much equipment behind."
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/04/seatmates_on_a_plane.php
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Lest We Forget Iraq
TW: What is our goal in Iraq again other than leaving with as many of our troops in one piece as possible? Given that our casualties have in fact declined greatly, I would call that a victory. Naturally never having been there in the first place would have truly minimized them.
Any other claims to victory are crap. We made a deal with the Sunni insurgents for a cease-fire. Will that deal hold in the face of Shiite government acts? Have many of the metrics by which the "surge" were meant to be judged born out? Not so much. Violence is down but are you confident it will remain so?
From Tom Ricks blog:
"I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening this quickly. It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad.
Anyone who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington Post:
'As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi soldiers hostage'
That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved?
Here is a quote of the day:
If they don't release Adil Mashadani, all the Awakening in Iraq will rise up like our uprising today," he [a local Awakening Council spokesman] added."
Along with the bombings in west Baghdad lately, the street fighting over the weekend doesn't quite form a trend. But it points toward one possible series of events. That is, the Maliki government is putting the screws to the Awakening movement (for those who just arrived, that's a mainly Sunni group of about 100,000 people, many of them former insurgents, who in late 2006 and 2007 arrived at ceasefires with the U.S. military presence in Iraq). The American plan was to integrate about 20,000 members of Awakening groups into Iraqi security forces, and help the rest find other work.
Meantime, the Baghdad government was supposed to take over the payments to the groups, which when I last checked totaled about $30 million a month. But the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government never really liked the idea. Indeed, the first deals were cut by U.S. officials behind the back of the Iraqi government. So Maliki's guys are:
Arresting some leaders of the "Sons of Iraq" (the American term for Awakening forces)
Attacking others
Bringing only 5,000 of the ex-insurgents into the Iraqi security forces
And stiffing others on pay, with some complaining they haven't been paid in weeks or even months
I think Maliki's gambit is to crack down on the Sunnis while American forces are still available in sufficient numbers to back him up. This is a turning into a test of strength, Sunni vs. Shiite.
There's more. If the Awakening fighting spreads, I wouldn't be surprised to see Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia re-emerge. I've always thought the Sunni Awakening forced him to go to ground, because he didn't want to be the only guy taking on American forces. But if the Sunnis are on the attack again, it might be game on for him as well. I am reminded of Ambassador Ryan Crocker's worry, expressed in my new book and elsewhere, that the future of Iraq was something like Lebanon. That is, it has a government, but it is shaky, and there is violence in the streets, with some political parties having armed wings that are outside the control of the government.
The Washington Post's Anthony Shadid calls this all "potentially worrisome." When Shadid begins to worry, we all should. He's the guy who back in early 2004 used to encourage me to take taxis around Baghdad.
Proven provider John McCreary of NightWatch fame is even more emphatic:
This is a pre-cursor of the second round of the Sunni-Shia civil war to follow."
Question of the day: What should I say the next time someone tells me the surge "worked"?
Any other claims to victory are crap. We made a deal with the Sunni insurgents for a cease-fire. Will that deal hold in the face of Shiite government acts? Have many of the metrics by which the "surge" were meant to be judged born out? Not so much. Violence is down but are you confident it will remain so?
From Tom Ricks blog:
"I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening this quickly. It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad.
Anyone who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington Post:
'As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi soldiers hostage'
That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved?
Here is a quote of the day:
If they don't release Adil Mashadani, all the Awakening in Iraq will rise up like our uprising today," he [a local Awakening Council spokesman] added."
Along with the bombings in west Baghdad lately, the street fighting over the weekend doesn't quite form a trend. But it points toward one possible series of events. That is, the Maliki government is putting the screws to the Awakening movement (for those who just arrived, that's a mainly Sunni group of about 100,000 people, many of them former insurgents, who in late 2006 and 2007 arrived at ceasefires with the U.S. military presence in Iraq). The American plan was to integrate about 20,000 members of Awakening groups into Iraqi security forces, and help the rest find other work.
Meantime, the Baghdad government was supposed to take over the payments to the groups, which when I last checked totaled about $30 million a month. But the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government never really liked the idea. Indeed, the first deals were cut by U.S. officials behind the back of the Iraqi government. So Maliki's guys are:
Arresting some leaders of the "Sons of Iraq" (the American term for Awakening forces)
Attacking others
Bringing only 5,000 of the ex-insurgents into the Iraqi security forces
And stiffing others on pay, with some complaining they haven't been paid in weeks or even months
I think Maliki's gambit is to crack down on the Sunnis while American forces are still available in sufficient numbers to back him up. This is a turning into a test of strength, Sunni vs. Shiite.
There's more. If the Awakening fighting spreads, I wouldn't be surprised to see Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia re-emerge. I've always thought the Sunni Awakening forced him to go to ground, because he didn't want to be the only guy taking on American forces. But if the Sunnis are on the attack again, it might be game on for him as well. I am reminded of Ambassador Ryan Crocker's worry, expressed in my new book and elsewhere, that the future of Iraq was something like Lebanon. That is, it has a government, but it is shaky, and there is violence in the streets, with some political parties having armed wings that are outside the control of the government.
The Washington Post's Anthony Shadid calls this all "potentially worrisome." When Shadid begins to worry, we all should. He's the guy who back in early 2004 used to encourage me to take taxis around Baghdad.
Proven provider John McCreary of NightWatch fame is even more emphatic:
This is a pre-cursor of the second round of the Sunni-Shia civil war to follow."
Question of the day: What should I say the next time someone tells me the surge "worked"?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Iraq And Afghanistan a Comparison
TW: Obama is embarking on a new phase in Afghanistan/Pakistan (AfPak is the emerging moniker). Deploying finite American blood and treasure is certainly worthy of much debate and analysis. Hopefully the discussion relative to AfPak will exhibit far more depth and insight than the lead-up to the foolhardy and disastrous war in Iraq. Unfortunately both here and especially in Europe Iraq and Afghanistan have become conflated into one big operation. The differences though far exceed the similarities. A comparison of the two.
Basis for original involvement/invasion:
Iraq- has never been accurately defined excuses have included but are not limited to:
1) Finding and destroying WMD
2) Implied Iraqi association with 9/11 conspirators
3) A desire to impose democratic institutions in the Middle East
4) Securing oil supplies
5) Preventing genocide
Afghanistan
1) The then Afghan government directly and without equivocation aided and abetted the 9/11 conspirators and supported the greater Al-Qaeda organization
Involvement of other nations beyond the U.S.
Iraq-
The "coalition of the willing" was an Orwellian term manufactured to disguise the paltry support for the U.S. policies. Other than the U.K., few nations provided material support the U.S. Those that did were generally doing so for economic or unrelated political reasons (e.g. Poles, Georgians etc.). Only 139 of the 4,579 soldiers lost in Iraq are from nations other than the U.S. or U.K.
Afghanistan-
N.A.T.O and innumerable other nations joined enthusiastically in the Afghanistan campaign. Initial involvement constrained only by American arrogance in integrating other military forces into the early military actions. Furthermore, the U.N. has been involved from day one in the various nation-building exercises within the country. The non-U.S. involvement has not been without controversy, some nations (i.e. Holland, Australia, Canada) have been aggressively participating in the fighting, others (i.e. Germany) have been reluctant to engage in direct combat. Yet 449 of the 1,122 soldiers lost in Afghanistan are non-American.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan are large countries with complex political and cultural attributes. The end states for both situations are challenging to define. But I believe it is imperative for all to recall why we are involved in AfPak. Our reasons for engaging Afghanistan were and are clear where Iraq never was and never will be. Where Iraq was largely unilateral, AfPak is multi-lateral. When purpose is clear,valid and agreed much can be accomplished and much sacrificed. Obama and other world leaders should keep their eyes on the ball.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Iraq On the 6th Anniversary
TW: This piece written six years ago turned out to be prescient. Not many got it right at the time, including myself. I supported the war under the assumption that a POTUS had far better information than someone like myself and initiating a pre-emptive war was such a huge step that surely he knew something we did not. Obviously that was exceedingly naive on my part.
Iraq will represent a historical inflection point, a peak in American influence.
From Paul Krugman 3/18/2003:
"Of course we'll win on the battlefield, probably with ease. I'm not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: the most recent U.S. military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only $1.4 billion.
What frightens me is the aftermath — and I'm not just talking about the problems of postwar occupation. I'm worried about what will happen beyond Iraq — in the world at large, and here at home.
The members of the Bush team don't seem bothered by the enormous ill will they have generated in the rest of the world. They seem to believe that other countries will change their minds once they see cheering Iraqis welcome our troops, or that our bombs will shock and awe the whole world (not just the Iraqis), or that what the world thinks doesn't matter. They're wrong on all counts.
Victory in Iraq won't end the world's distrust of the United States, because the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again, that it doesn't play by the rules. Remember: this administration told Europe to take a hike on global warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defense, told developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court — all in just two years.
Nor, as we've just seen, is military power a substitute for trust. Apparently the Bush administration thought it could bully the U.N. Security Council into going along with its plans; it learned otherwise. "What can the Americans do to us?" one African official asked. "Are they going to bomb us? Invade us?"
Meanwhile, consider this: we need $400 billion a year of foreign investment to cover our trade deficit, or the dollar will plunge and our surging budget deficit will become much harder to finance — and there are already signs that the flow of foreign investment is drying up, just when it seems that America may be about to fight a whole series of wars.
It's a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of a group of neoconservative intellectuals, who view it as a pilot project. In August a British official close to the Bush team told Newsweek: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." In February 2003, according to Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Will Iraq really be the first of many? It seems all too likely — and not only because the "Bush doctrine" seems to call for a series of wars. Regimes that have been targeted, or think they may have been targeted, aren't likely to sit quietly and wait their turn: they're going to arm themselves to the teeth, and perhaps strike first. People who really know what they are talking about have the heebie-jeebies over North Korea's nuclear program, and view war on the Korean peninsula as something that could happen at any moment. And at the rate things are going, it seems we will fight that war, or the war with Iran, or both at once, all by ourselves.
What scares me most, however, is the home front. Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it's not a case that the Bush administration ever made. Instead we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by our domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest of the world doesn't trust the Bush administration's motives. And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.
So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated claims, without paying a price when those claims prove false, and that saber-rattling gains it votes and silences opposition. Maybe it will honorably refuse to act on this dangerous knowledge. But I can't help worrying that in domestic politics, as in foreign policy, this war will turn out to have been the shape of things to come."
Iraq will represent a historical inflection point, a peak in American influence.
From Paul Krugman 3/18/2003:
"Of course we'll win on the battlefield, probably with ease. I'm not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: the most recent U.S. military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only $1.4 billion.
What frightens me is the aftermath — and I'm not just talking about the problems of postwar occupation. I'm worried about what will happen beyond Iraq — in the world at large, and here at home.
The members of the Bush team don't seem bothered by the enormous ill will they have generated in the rest of the world. They seem to believe that other countries will change their minds once they see cheering Iraqis welcome our troops, or that our bombs will shock and awe the whole world (not just the Iraqis), or that what the world thinks doesn't matter. They're wrong on all counts.
Victory in Iraq won't end the world's distrust of the United States, because the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again, that it doesn't play by the rules. Remember: this administration told Europe to take a hike on global warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defense, told developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court — all in just two years.
Nor, as we've just seen, is military power a substitute for trust. Apparently the Bush administration thought it could bully the U.N. Security Council into going along with its plans; it learned otherwise. "What can the Americans do to us?" one African official asked. "Are they going to bomb us? Invade us?"
Meanwhile, consider this: we need $400 billion a year of foreign investment to cover our trade deficit, or the dollar will plunge and our surging budget deficit will become much harder to finance — and there are already signs that the flow of foreign investment is drying up, just when it seems that America may be about to fight a whole series of wars.
It's a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of a group of neoconservative intellectuals, who view it as a pilot project. In August a British official close to the Bush team told Newsweek: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." In February 2003, according to Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Will Iraq really be the first of many? It seems all too likely — and not only because the "Bush doctrine" seems to call for a series of wars. Regimes that have been targeted, or think they may have been targeted, aren't likely to sit quietly and wait their turn: they're going to arm themselves to the teeth, and perhaps strike first. People who really know what they are talking about have the heebie-jeebies over North Korea's nuclear program, and view war on the Korean peninsula as something that could happen at any moment. And at the rate things are going, it seems we will fight that war, or the war with Iran, or both at once, all by ourselves.
What scares me most, however, is the home front. Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it's not a case that the Bush administration ever made. Instead we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by our domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest of the world doesn't trust the Bush administration's motives. And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.
So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated claims, without paying a price when those claims prove false, and that saber-rattling gains it votes and silences opposition. Maybe it will honorably refuse to act on this dangerous knowledge. But I can't help worrying that in domestic politics, as in foreign policy, this war will turn out to have been the shape of things to come."
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Should Media Cover the Arrival Of American Dead At Dover?
From Newsweek:
"...there were six coffins and a few small clumps of civilians to receive them. One by one the flag-draped coffins slid down from the nose of the cargo plane, and one by one the coffins were shepherded by an honor guard—a half dozen soldiers in dress uniforms and white gloves—to waiting hearses. One or two elderly people wept; everyone else was stoical. There were no bugles. No bands. There was no pageantry—just the heavy tread of the honor guard in a ritual perfected through much repetition. It was an event so moving in its intimacy and restraint, out there on the acres of concrete, that I felt an intruder. I was glad there were no waiting cameras and flashbulbs.
...it's not an easy issue. It never has been. For many years, dead soldiers were buried where they fell, or close to, at home or abroad...It wasn't until the Korean War that the United States started routinely shipping bodies home. The Dover ceremony became familiar to the public in the 1980s, in part because President Reagan was such an affecting figure mourning the dead as they were returned from Lebanon or other locations where U.S. soldiers were dying. On the eve of ground combat in the first Gulf war in 1991, the administration of George H.W. Bush grappled with a grisly question: war planners were expecting so many combat fatalities that they worried that the military would have to use forklifts and pallets at Dover. President Bush instituted the camera ban, which persists to this day.
...Dead soldiers, their bodies sometimes torn and bloody from the battlefield, are packed in ice, placed in a casket and flown directly to Dover, where they are cared for. Then the body is sent on to the soldier's hometown for a military funeral—with plenty of publicity if the family wishes to allow it.
The military's aim is to move the bodies from the battlefield to Dover in two days. If cameras are present to greet the caskets, there will be a great deal of pressure on the families to be there, too—an emotional and financial hardship for many. Some may want a public ceremony; some may want privacy and silence. Is there a better way to honor their privacy and meet their needs while making sure the public is reminded of the price of war? Canada may have an answer. The more than 100 Canadian soldiers who have fallen in combat in Afghanistan have been flown to Trenton air base, then driven 107 miles to the mortuary in Toronto. A stretch of Canada's Highway 401 has become known as the Highway of Heroes. When the military hearse drives down it, all other traffic is blocked; police and fire trucks, lights flashing, line each overpass, and hundreds of Canadians, flags in hand, wait along the highway. Perhaps fallen American soldiers could arrive at Andrews Air Force Base— with the sort of quiet, dignified ceremony I chanced to witness—and then be carried by hearse (anonymously; no family need be present) to the mortuary at Dover, 102 miles away by road and highway. The route could pass by the White House."
TW: What do you think?
"...there were six coffins and a few small clumps of civilians to receive them. One by one the flag-draped coffins slid down from the nose of the cargo plane, and one by one the coffins were shepherded by an honor guard—a half dozen soldiers in dress uniforms and white gloves—to waiting hearses. One or two elderly people wept; everyone else was stoical. There were no bugles. No bands. There was no pageantry—just the heavy tread of the honor guard in a ritual perfected through much repetition. It was an event so moving in its intimacy and restraint, out there on the acres of concrete, that I felt an intruder. I was glad there were no waiting cameras and flashbulbs.
...it's not an easy issue. It never has been. For many years, dead soldiers were buried where they fell, or close to, at home or abroad...It wasn't until the Korean War that the United States started routinely shipping bodies home. The Dover ceremony became familiar to the public in the 1980s, in part because President Reagan was such an affecting figure mourning the dead as they were returned from Lebanon or other locations where U.S. soldiers were dying. On the eve of ground combat in the first Gulf war in 1991, the administration of George H.W. Bush grappled with a grisly question: war planners were expecting so many combat fatalities that they worried that the military would have to use forklifts and pallets at Dover. President Bush instituted the camera ban, which persists to this day.
...Dead soldiers, their bodies sometimes torn and bloody from the battlefield, are packed in ice, placed in a casket and flown directly to Dover, where they are cared for. Then the body is sent on to the soldier's hometown for a military funeral—with plenty of publicity if the family wishes to allow it.
The military's aim is to move the bodies from the battlefield to Dover in two days. If cameras are present to greet the caskets, there will be a great deal of pressure on the families to be there, too—an emotional and financial hardship for many. Some may want a public ceremony; some may want privacy and silence. Is there a better way to honor their privacy and meet their needs while making sure the public is reminded of the price of war? Canada may have an answer. The more than 100 Canadian soldiers who have fallen in combat in Afghanistan have been flown to Trenton air base, then driven 107 miles to the mortuary in Toronto. A stretch of Canada's Highway 401 has become known as the Highway of Heroes. When the military hearse drives down it, all other traffic is blocked; police and fire trucks, lights flashing, line each overpass, and hundreds of Canadians, flags in hand, wait along the highway. Perhaps fallen American soldiers could arrive at Andrews Air Force Base— with the sort of quiet, dignified ceremony I chanced to witness—and then be carried by hearse (anonymously; no family need be present) to the mortuary at Dover, 102 miles away by road and highway. The route could pass by the White House."
TW: What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)