May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« March 2007 |
Main
| May 2007 »
 The city of Baghdad continues to see a drop in sectarian violence, while suicide car bombings remain al Qaeda's most deadly tool. After the car bomb offensive by al Qaeda two weeks ago, which included 11 major suicide attacks over just five days, the past week inside the city has been relatively free of major attacks. Although roadside bombs, mortar attacks, and small arms fire remain a regular occurrence inside Baghdad, al Qaeda was unable to pull off any further large scale attacks--which threaten to reignite the sectarian bloodshed.
While it is difficult to assess al Qaeda's capabilities in sustaining suicide attacks inside Baghdad proper, it seems the terror group possesses enough resources to conduct several high profile attacks at a time. Coalition and Iraqi operations are putting a dent in al Qaeda's capacity nationwide; however, al Qaeda is still able to assemble enough car bombs to carry out the attacks, which are designed to split the Sunni and Shia communities and create a media frenzy.
Part of the Coalition strategy to cut down on the deadly car bomb attacks and reduce the sectarian violence is to segment the city with physical barriers. These barriers stem the flow of traffic through checkpoints and prevent the infiltration of death squads through back alleys and side streets. The news of the creation of the "Adhamiya Wall" sparked protests and the temporary halting of the barrier's construction. Opportunists likened the barrier to the fence separating Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank.
But, as Omar Fadhil noted early last week, "Work to construct similar walls started weeks ago in the Amiriya and Ghazaliyah districts. The 'news' went utterly unnoticed then." Mr. Fadhil noted the barrier has had some effect in Amiriya and Ghazaliyah, and speculated that insurgents might have stirred up the local protests in an attempt to halt the building of the wall.
Dave Kilcullen, the Senior Counter-Insurgency Advisor for Multi-National Force Iraq, explained that Prime Minister Maliki restarted the project after he was briefed on the need for the barrier and how the protests had come about. "As I understand it, once the reasons for the project and the likely benefits in terms of lives saved were explained to the PM, he was happy for it to continue. I understand that the evidence of extremist manipulation was also a factor." Kilcullen likened the barrier to an "urban tourniquet," and explained that the propaganda campaign to disrupt its construction came from none other than al Qaeda in Iraq.
While Baghdad remains the focus of attention, some real gains have been made in Anbar, once the most violent province in Iraq. The progress in subduing the insurgency in Anbar province has finally reached the front pages of the New York Times and other outlets. The process in standing up the Anbar Salvation Council, a group of local tribes and former insurgents opposed to al Qaeda's harsh brand of Taliban-like sharia law, has been ongoing since the summer of 2006. The Anbar Salvation Council has had such success in Ramadi, which was once the most dangerous city in Iraq, that attacks have dropped to as few as two per day after spiking to as many as 50 a day last summer. Markets are reopening, children are returning to school and Iraqi and American security forces are conducting patrols throughout the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city.
Part of the success of the Anbar Salvation Council is that it provides the Sunnis in Anbar with a political voice as well as security against al Qaeda. The Anbar Salvation Council's political component is the Anbar Awakening. Seven new tribes have just joined the political party. The Awakening is now expanding beyond Anbar province, and is becoming a national movement. The Anbar Awakening is facilitating the creation of the Iraq Awakening, a national political party which would "oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's political process." The Iraq Awakening is scheduled to meet in May, and will be the first Sunni political party to openly oppose al Qaeda in Iraq.
Sensing that the Awakening movement was gaining steam in Iraq--branches are said to be forming in Salahadin and Diyala--I asked Omar Fadhil, and Iraqi blogger living in Baghdad, about the perception of the movement inside Baghdad and prospects of the Awakening expanding into the capital. Omar responded that the tribal dynamics were different, and that it was difficult to draw conclusions about Baghdad based on trends in Ramadi.
The following day, Omar noted a report in As Sabah on the creation of the Adhamiya Awakening. "Some community leaders in Adhamiya are working on forming a salvation council for their own district they will be calling The Adhamiya Awakening," reported Omar. "Sources close to the leaders said they [the leaders] have managed to win the support of some hundred people who agree with the new position. The sources asserted that the goal of the Awakening is to rid Adhamiya of the terrorists."
During last week's Pentagon press briefing, General Petraeus stated that al Qaeda in Iraq remains the primary threat to security, but also highlighted Iran's role in the insurgency. General Petraeus noted that the Iranians were backing Sunni and Shia groups alike, but focused on two examples of Iranian backing of Shia violence--the Karbala raid in January 2007 and the capture of major players in the Sheibani group.
General Petraeus outlined Iranian Qods Force's involvement with the February 20 attack on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, which led to the aborted kidnapping and subsequent murder of five U.S. soldiers. Qods Force armed, trained, and advised the Qazili network, which carried out the attack. U.S. forces detained several senior leaders of the Qazili network, and captured a "22-page memorandum on a computer that detailed the planning, preparation, approval process and conduct of the operation that resulted in five of our soldiers being killed in Karbala," said Gen. Petraeus.
Petraeus also discussed the Sheibani network, "which brings explosively formed projectiles into Iraq from Iran," as well as other deadly weapons from Iran. A senior leader of the network was detained by U.S. forces. An American military intelligence official informs us the Sheibani network is one of Qods Force's foreign networks in Iraq, just as Hezbollah is an Iranian arm in Lebanon.
This latest news of Iranian complicity in the Shia insurgency came as the U.S. announced the capture of Abn Al-Hadi Al-Iraqi, a senior al Qaeda operative responsible for coordinating al Qaeda's networks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. Abd Al-Hadi was captured crossing the border from Iran into Iraq. He was a major in Saddam's Army, ran al Qaeda training camps, was a military commander in Pakistan and Afghanistan, set up Zarqawi's network in Iraq along with Saif al Adel, who was in Iranian custody at the time, and served on al Qaeda's senior military and political shura, or councils. Abd Al-Hadi was reported to have been captured sometime late in 2006.
U.S. and Iraqi security forces have been pressing hard against al Qaeda's network nationwide. A single raid against a "constellation" of targets over the weekend resulted in the capture of 72 al Qaeda operatives. Coalition forces killed Abu Abd al-Satter, a senior al Qaeda leader during a raid northwest of Baghdad on April 20. Satter is described as "a known al-Qaeda terrorist leader known to operate in Karmah and Ameriyah areas and was the al-Qaeda in Iraq Security Emir of the eastern Anbar Province." Satter's car bomb cell "used 12- to 13-year-old children as VBIED drivers" to conduct its attacks.
Multinational Forces Iraq still has two infantry brigades to deploy in support of the Baghdad Security Plan. Three have already deployed, and the fourth, the 4th Special Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division (Strykers) was reported to have entered Iraq in mid April, however there has been a reporting blackout on any information on the brigade.
General Petraeus and the Iraqi government have made some positive moves in the ten weeks since the kickoff of the Baghdad security Plan. However, he cautions it is still too soon to draw definitive conclusions. The proper time to make a preliminary assessment will be in September. But, increasingly, the war is being fought in the halls Congress. Senior politicians have declared the war lost, and the delay in the supplemental funding bill is preventing the training of the Iraqi Army. It would behoove the Bush administration and the Department of Defense to speed up the deployment of the remaining U.S. combat brigades into Iraq to smash al Qaeda's sanctuary in Diyala but a lack of political support at home is likely to hamper any such effort.
DJ Elliott and CJ Radin also contributed to this report.
The Baghdad Order Of Battle as of April 30, 2007.
Click map to view.
The White House is waiting for the Iraq supplemental that the president has promised to veto. It was cleared for the White House four days ago. As CQ notes, Congressional leaders never intended to send it before tomorrow--although it's unclear why.
Rest assured though, Congressional leaders are committed to making sure that the troops have the funding when they need it, without suffering any complications in combat operations. The April 15 deadline that the President identified? Not a real deadline. The May 1 deadline that Robert Byrd's staff identified? Apparently also not a real deadline. The reports (here, here, and here, for example) that the missed deadline has adversely impacted combat operations? Not to be believed.
Rest assured, contrary to all outside indications, the Democrats are committed to supporting our troops--just not right now.
From National Review: Tenet Strikes Out, by Michael Ledeen.
From the New York Post: Congress & Iraq: Declaring Defeat, by Peter Brookes.
From RealClearPolitics: China's Submarines, by Richard Halloran.
From Congressional Quarterly: McCain Probes Air Force CSAR Contract With Boeing, by Josh Rogin.
From the Danger Room: F-22 Not For Sale, Says Export Chief, by Sharon Weinberger.
Bonus: The North Korean Air Force by Google Earth
 The new E-2D Advanced Hawkeye by Northrop Grumman, unveiled on April 30.
It will make its first flight this summer. Read more about the plane's price tag at The DEW Line.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently got into trouble for saying aloud what many in his party undoubtedly believe--that Iraq is "lost."
This weekend brought fresh and powerful evidence of why he is wrong.
The story begins last fall when, according to a front page article in the Washington Post by Fiasco author Thomas Ricks, the chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq wrote a report concluding that Anbar province--long the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency--was "lost."
As the Post reported then, "there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force... Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair."
Flash ahead to yesterday's New York Times, which carried a cover story on the situation in Anbar. The paper says Anbar province is now "undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat."
Last summer, the American military recorded as many as 25 violent acts a day in the Ramadi region, ranging from shootings and kidnappings to roadside bombs and suicide attacks. In the past several weeks, the average has dropped to four acts of violence a day, American military officials said.
"'There are some people who would say we've won the war out here," said Col. John. A. Koenig, a planning officer for the Marines who oversees governing and economic development issues in Anbar. "I'm cautiously optimistic as we're going forward.'"
Will the Democrats hail this dramatic turnaround in Anbar--or even acknowledge it? Or will they keep on arguing the same premature defeatism that would have had us abandon Anbar to Al Qaeda?
This goes back a little ways.
You may recall that after the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives last fall, there was discussion over who would become chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Representative Jane Harman was in line for it, but she had quarreled with Speaker Pelosi and so was denied the position. By multiple reports, Speaker Pelosi was prepared to name Alcee Hastings as the new chair--even though he had been impeached and removed as a federal judge. Eventually--it was reported--she relented.
Now Congressman Hastings has done an interview with Congressional Quarterly in which he says that no, Speaker Pelosi was not going to deny him the chairmanship; he withdrew his own name. What led him to do such a thing? A chat with Bill Clinton:
By virtue of seniority, with Harman cast aside, Hastings was in line to take over the Intelligence panel.
But the Democrats panicked, and conservative activists loudly chortled, over the prospect of Hastings ascending to the committee chair...
Bill Clinton wanted it to go away.
Late in November, he placed a call to the self-made former trial lawyer, who earned a juris doctor degree from Florida A&M in 1963, when segregation was the way of the land.
“We talked to close to an hour and forty minutes,” said the would-be chairman, who added that the affair still “stings.”
“And he was saying, among other things, that, you know, I would force a rift in the party if I was to force the issue. And that sometimes you come out better if you can accommodate the parties that have a direct interest — meaning, specifically, that if you could find a way to say, ‘Fine, pass over me, choose someone else,’ then I would come across better, and be thought better of by Democratic functionaries...”
Hastings then called Pelosi and asked for a meeting.
On Nov. 28, he went to the new speaker’s ornate chambers in the Capitol.
“We talked very frankly for all of 40 or 45 minutes,” Hastings recalled. “And I suggested that she pass over me and select someone else, because the party would benefit more without having to live with all the negativity that was going to be surrounding this situation.”
It's entirely possible that Mr. Hastings' story is nothing more than sour grapes. Having been denied the chairmanship, he might have decided to make it look as if it was his choice. But then why invent the intercession of Bill Clinton?
If Hastings' tale is true, then we cannot credit Nancy Pelosi with having recognized that a Hastings chairmanship would have been at odds with the Democrats' ethics promises. Rather, it would mean that she just got lucky.
Think Progress has posted the video of Tom Brokaw's interview with George Tenet this morning. Brokaw pressed Tenet on the details of a conversation he claims to have had with Richard Perle on September 12, 2001, and which Perle denies ever took place--owing to the fact that he was not in the country on September 12, but in France.
Here's the original quote from Tenet's book:
On the day after 9/11, he [Tenet] adds, he ran into Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative and the head of the Defense Policy Board, coming out of the White House. He says Mr. Perle turned to him and said: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility."
And here's Tenet's response this morning:
“I may have been off by a couple of days. The encounter occurred. The conversation occurred. … So I may have gotten the days wrong, but I know I got the substance of that conversation correct.”
Think Progress conveniently reproduces the quote from last night's 60 Minutes--rather than the quote from the book--which makes it seem as though the date of the conversation might be wrong, but the "substance" might still be right. However, the original quote from the book makes clear that the "substance" of the conversation must be wrong if the date is wrong as well: Tenet quotes Perle as saying "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday."
This quote is a centerpiece of Tenet's charge that there was some kind of conspiracy in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks to pin the blame on Saddam. But the conversation didn't take place when he said it did, and so the substance of the conversation can't possibly be what he said it was. Tenet's explanation is no explanation at all.
An April 24th piece in the PLA Daily cautioning against the “corrosive effect” of foreign culture has been republished by several Chinese-language newspapers and websites, including People’s Daily, the immensely popular infotainment website sina.com, and china.com.cn, which operates under the jurisdiction of the press office of the State Council--China’s Cabinet.
The piece features interviews by PLA Daily reporter Zhang Xinyang with Xue Xiang of the department of strategy at the Chinese Academy of Military Science and Wang Ding, director of the political department at the Tianjin General Detachment of the People’s Armed Police.
It begins with a statement by Zhang that “like political, economic and military security, cultural security is an integral part of a country’s national security system.”
Wang Ding warns:
Using a variety of tactics, hostile Western forces are engaging in unbridled propaganda to promote the Western, capitalist world view, outlook on life and value system… Taking advantage of relevant agreements of the World Trade Organization, they export vast quantities of movies, television programs, books, and other cultural products. As they reap enormous economic profits, they also export their cultural values and generate an unmistakably negative impact on our social and cultural life…
This thinly veiled attack on the United States follows closely Washington’s decision earlier this month to file formal complaints against China with the WTO over alleged IPR violations and restrictions on market access for U.S. movies, DVDs, books, and music. China has vowed to “fight until the end” against these American complaints.
Xue Xiang of the Chinese Academy of Military Science cautions in the interview that globalization has made it “singularly difficult to defend against the corrosive and destructive effect of foreign culture,” and that “satellites, radio and television broadcasts, and the Internet…have created a series of problems for national cultural security; for example, the Internet has provided a platform for advanced countries to export culture to developing countries…thereby magnifying the negative impact of Western values… We must build a line of defense against foreign cultural corrosion.”
The expression “foreign cultural corrosion” heavily populated Chinese cyberspace this past January, when China Central Television’s English news anchor, Rui Chenggang, led an online campaign to have a Starbucks outlet removed from the Forbidden City because it constituted an “affront to Chinese culture.” A fluent English speaker, Rui Chenggang spent the 2005-2006 school year as a visiting fellow at Yale. His exposure to Western culture appears not to have had an especially “corrosive” effect on him--or perhaps such activism is precisely what the regime most fears.
The boss just posted an interesting piece on THE DAILY STANDARD about George Tenet's soon-to-be-released At the Center of the Storm. It seems that Tenet has included some misleading statements in the book, as well at least one rather serious factual error. According to Kristol's reporting:
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has now learned of a . . . stunning error in Tenet's book (which is due to appear in bookstores tomorrow). According to Michiko Kakutani's review in Saturday's Times,
On the day after 9/11, he [Tenet] adds, he ran into Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative and the head of the Defense Policy Board, coming out of the White House. He says Mr. Perle turned to him and said: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility."
Here's the problem: Richard Perle was in France on that day, unable to fly back after September 11. In fact Perle did not return to the United State until September 15. Did Tenet perhaps merely get the date of this encounter wrong? Well, the quote Tenet ascribes to Perle hinges on the encounter taking place September 12: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday." And Perle in any case categorically denies to THE WEEKLY STANDARD ever having said any such thing to Tenet, while coming out of the White House or anywhere else.
Also, Kristol points to this questionable account Tenet gives of a 2002 meeting with Douglas Feith and his staff:
Scott Shane reported in Saturday's New York Times that former CIA chief George Tenet's dramatic description in his book, At the Center of the Storm, of an August 2002 presentation at the CIA by defense undersecretary Douglas Feith and his staff, is at the very least misleading. In order to suggest that Feith's staff was utterly out of its depth, Tenet characterized the main briefer, Tina Shelton, as a "naval reservist." In fact, she had been a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst for almost two decades. Tenet also claimed that Shelton said in her presentation of Iraq-al Qaeda contacts, "It is an open-and-shut case." Shelton and Feith both deny she said that. One person who served in government with Shelton told THE WEEKLY STANDARD today he finds it "inconceivable" that Shelton, an experienced analyst, would have made such an unequivocal assertion.
The bottom line: Kristol wonders "How many other facts has George Tenet invented?"
Update: In his interview with 60 Minutes tonight, Tenet repeated the story about running into Perle at the White House. Here's the transcript:
The truth of Iraq begins, according to Tenet, the day after the attack of Sept. 11, when he ran into Pentagon advisor Richard Perle at the White House.
"He said to me, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.' It’s September the 12th. I’ve got the manifest with me that tell me al Qaeda did this. Nothing in my head that says there is any Iraqi involvement in this in any way shape or form and I remember thinking to myself, as I'm about to go brief the president, 'What the hell is he talking about?'" Tenet remembers.
If the truth of Iraq according to George Tenet begins with a fictional conversation...maybe Tenet's truth isn't so reliable.
Fox News Sunday:
John McCain was the featured guest on Fox News Sunday, and the Arizona senator laid out his vision for a McCain presidency in one quick sentence: “Reform government, fight this Islamic extremist element that challenges the world, and restore integrity to government.” While the Reaganite sound bites may have allayed the fears of some rank and file conservatives, they were probably not quite as happy when he said, “I would probably announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay, I would move those detainees to Fort Leavenworth, I would announce we will not torture anyone, I would announce that climate change is a big issue, because we’ve got some image problems in the world.”
On the roundtable, Bill Kristol mocked George Tenet for his self-serving 60 Minutes interview. “It turns out that George Tenet, in addition to being a mediocre CIA director, is a cry baby. Can you believe that clip on 60 Minutes you showed? Oh, it’s so disgusting that people are criticizing him, it’s hurting his reputation. Give me a break!” Mara Liasson felt that the Democratic debate served little to no purpose, noting “I don’t think the dynamic of this race was changed one iota. … Obama didn’t hurt himself, Hillary came off just fine.”
Meet the Press:
On Meet the Press, Joe Biden was given a chance to show off his famed loquaciousness after being on his best behavior for the Democratic debate. Nothing particularly interesting was said, but if your Sunday feels incomplete without a (60 minute) cup of Joe, click here to check out the full show.
This Week:
Condoleezza Rice was the featured guest on This Week, taking on George Tenet and refusing to rule out a conflict with Iran. Russ Feingold and Sam Brownback also appeared. Feingold took the president to task for daring to disagree with the Democratic Congressional majority. “The American people want us to provide the funds that the president has asked for,” Feingold said, “but they want us to end this war, and the only way to do that is to have some sort of approach, like the timeline in this bill.” Brownback took issue with his colleague’s plan, noting “This is assured defeat. Defeat will happen in America, not Iraq. That’s not what the American people want.”
ABC’s roundtable was just as dismissive of the Democratic debate as Fox's Mara Liasson. George Will remarked “These are not debates; they are parallel press conferences--and not even particularly good press conferences,” while Fareed Zakaria felt “the whole spectacle was somewhat depressing for all of us as voters. The whole thing was so rehearsed, so planned, they say nothing of any interest, they don’t take any risks.”
Face the Nation:
Condi also showed up at Face the Nation, as did Democratic congressman John Murtha, who spoke of impeachment as "a way to influence a president." The Politico's Roger Simon spoke to the wisdom of proceding with an effort to impeach the president:
I don’t think the Democrats want this on the table. For one thing, do they really want Vice President Cheney to become President Cheney? I mean, is that their goal? Secondly, I think they want to fight an election campaign next year. I don't think they want to fight to impeach a president, to prove that he's actually committed high crimes and misdemeanors, to go through a trial in the Senate. I think they just want to win at the ballot box next November.
Senator McCain had a conference call with a number of bloggers this afternoon, and McCain certainly made some interesting points.
In response to comments yesterday by Mitt Romney that we shouldn't "move heaven and earth" or "spend billions" trying to capture Osama bin Laden, which we commented on earlier today here, McCain said that he disagreed: "We'll devote every effort this country can make to get him," the Senator said.
On the supplemental, McCain said that he understood "the absolute drop dead date" to be sometime in early June, but he also said it was important that the president veto the current bill if for no other reason that the $20 billion in pork that Democrats have stuffed into it. He said the pork was being "used as a vehicle to buy votes," and that it was "obscene and corrupting." He also said that it would be a mistake to wait until that "drop dead date" before passing a clean supplemental.
On the issue of same sex marriage, the senator said he was personally opposed to the legislation just passed in New Hampshire that would legalize civil unions for gay couples, but that he did believe that this was a matter best left to the states--that he was a "strong federalist."
On the media coverage of the Iraq war, McCain said that "suicide bombers continue to be the focus of [press] efforts, but there is progress being made." He went on to say that "the thing that concerns me as much as anything is the Maliki government," pointing to its decision to take a two month recess this summer as particularly worrying. He also said there had been "dramatic improvement in Anbar," but that General Petraeus continued to be concerned about the suicide bombers and equipment coming into Iraq from Iran and Syria. Overall, he said that there was "measured but slow progress" taking place in Iraq.
On energy, McCain spoke of the "huge national security component to the need for energy independence," and then treated us to the only blatant pander of the afternoon by pointing to the importance of "corn oil" in Iowa as an alternative source of energy. More important, he emphasized the need for nuclear power: "We need [more] nuclear power badly."
When asked about what kind of justices he might appoint to the Supreme Court, McCain said that he would not impose a litmus test, but he did say he thought a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution was critical, and that he would look for someone with "life experience" rather than just focusing on judicial experience. Specifically, he said that he would want someone who had military or business experience, "real world experience" he said.
When asked whether he would be able to peel off any of the states that voted for Kerry in 2004, McCain said that "if you look what happened in Ohio and other midwest states [in 2004] it's not good," but that he would look to put California in play in 2008 to offset those negative trends: "I'm going to compete in California," he said, adding that Republicans can no longer afford to write off the biggest state in the Union.
And on defense spending, McCain was asked whether he was in line with Romney, who recently endorsed the Heritage Foundation proposal for spending a minimum of four percent of GDP on national defense. McCain said that he would see to it that defense spending continues to rise, but that "what we do is more important than how much money we spend," emphasizing the need for serious reform in the acquisition process. Specifically, he said that the cost overruns on the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) were "disgraceful," that "missile defense has to be fully funded," that "the greatest challenge is to get costs under control," and that the "heads of services have to be more involved in the acquisition process."
He speculated on whether what money we are spending is being spent in the right areas, asking "are we spending enough on intelligence" and "do we need a half-billion dollar aircraft?" Presumably that is a reference to the F-22, and on that he answered his own question saying that "I think we happen to need these," but his point was clear: reforming the acquisition process will be a central theme of his defense policy. To that end, he said he would "get the smartest guys in America" into the Pentagon to get a handle on how the military deals with the defense industry.
I asked McCain about CSAR-X, as issue which was likely of no interest to anybody else on the call, and he responded that he had been traveling the past week and didn't know if the Air Force had met his deadline for delivering all the relevant paperwork. When I interviewed folks for that story, some were concerned that the rigors of the presidential campaign would prevent McCain from delving too deeply into this issue, as he had done in relation to the 2001 scandal over the Air Force's deal with Boeing for refueling tankers. McCain said he'd pass along an update as soon as possible, but it seems that the senator's hectic schedule does call into question his ability to keep the focus on oversight--which, in all fairness, is not the biggest issue he faces right now.
For more coverage of the call, I'm sure John Hideraker will have something up at Powerline shortly, as will the Bluey Blog.
Update: Eyeon08 has posted, so has Hit and Run, and Little Miss Atilla, who has a way better caricature than I do.
Update 2: And Dean Barnett wasn't invited. What does Nelson say?
 Baghdad and greater Iraq has seen yet another relatively quiet day. A major car bombing in Tal Afar was reported by an unidentified police officer, however Iraqi officials and the city's mayor later denied the report. The two major stories from Iraq are the capture of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a senior al Qaeda operative and lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, and General Petraeus's disclosure of Iranian involvement in the January attack in Karbala during yesterday's press briefing.
Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was captured sometime in late 2006, and was transferred to Guantanamo Bay this week. Abd al-Hadi was a former major in Saddam Hussein's Army, sat on al Qaeda's military and leadership shuras (or councils), ran al Qaeda training camps, conducted attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and served as the facilitator between al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda's senior command in Pakistan, and the Taliban. He was captured while attempting to enter Iraq, and is purported to have been assigned to take over operational control of al Qaeda forces in the region.
Abd al-Hadi is also said to have worked with Saif al Adel, al Qaeda's operational planner who is currently in Iran. The two are said to have planted the seeds for al Qaeda's involvement in Iraq's insurgency.
Abd al-Hadi's capture comes as General Petraeus outlined Iranian Qods Force's involvement with the February 20 attack on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, which led to the aborted kidnapping and subsequent murder of five U.S. soldiers. Qods Force armed, trained, and advised the Qazili network, which carried out the attack.
U.S. forces detained several senior leaders of the Qazili network, and captured a "22-page memorandum on a computer that detailed the planning, preparation, approval process and conduct of the operation that resulted in five of our soldiers being killed in Karbala," said Gen. Petraeus.
Gen. Petraeus also discussed the Sheibani network, "which brings explosively formed projectiles into Iraq from Iran," as well as other deadly weapons from Iran. An American military intelligence official informs us that the Sheibani network is one of Qods Force's foreign networks in Iraq, just as Hezbollah is an Iranian arm in Lebanon.
In operations across Iraq, Coalition forces captured nine members of al Qaeda's network in Salman Pak, Mosul, Baghdad, and Ramadi. On April 21, a series of joint Iraqi and U.S. operations netted over 50 insurgents in the Shubayshen region just south of Baghdad. Several weapons caches, bomb factories and IEDs were discovered, as well as al Qaeda propaganda.
 Hugo Chavez is an outsized personality with a bit of Don King about him. His foolish policies, anti-Americanism and devotion to a walking cadaver earn him a tremendous amount of attention in the United States. Less noticed, however, is that his attempt to remake Latin America after his own image has led to opposition from the region's largest player: Lula Inacio DaSilva. The Los Angeles Times reports that Lula is traveling around South America seeking to promote Brazil's role as leader of the region. He is at pains to make clear that this is not aimed at Chavez:
Though Lula has denied any effort to undermine Chavez's petro-diplomacy, South American analysts see the Brazilian president responding to his Venezuelan counterpart's oil-funded strategy to become a regional power broker — a role Lula believes should rightly be his because his nation is Latin America's largest and most populous.
"Brazil is returning step by step to the political initiative," said Julio Burdman, a political analyst here. "That includes balancing the aspirations of Chavez to lead the region."
The Brazilian president is said to be troubled by Latin America's creeping division into pro- and anti-Chavez blocs. These splits also reflect starkly differing attitudes toward Washington, Chavez's archenemy.
The ostensibly warm relations between Chavez and Lula mask an intense competition for political and economic influence, experts say. Venezuela has used oil revenue to win allies, but Lula is employing diplomacy and his prestige as an up-from-the-factory former union leader who is now Brazil's widely respected head of state.
Away from the attention of the U.S. media, Chavez and Lula have been clashing over energy for a while--at least since Brazil's Petrobras lost much of its investment in Bolivia when Evo Morales followed Chavez's advice and lead by nationalizing the country's gas sector. Since then, a rivalry between the two over hydrocarbons and ethanol has taken shape. After a regional energy summit last week, it looks like Lula won hands down. Brazil blocked Chavez's effort to create an 'OPEC' for South America's natural gas exporters (Argentina, Venezuela and Bolivia), and forced Chavez to back down on his opposition to Brazil's ethanol partnership with the United States:
Ethanol, it seems, is main ingredient for a new geopolitical relationship that has arguably increased US influence in South America while presenting real possibilities of a global presence for Brazil.
Almost immediately after Bush's visit to Brasilia, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro decried the evils of a global ethanol market, claiming it would drive up the price of food around the world. The world's poor would inevitably suffer, they said.
This argument, however, was absent from the regional energy conference held on 16 April in Venezuela, just two weeks after Lula visited Bush at Camp David. Rather than use the forum where 12 South American heads of state were present to attack Lula, Chavez offered his support for ethanol as a regional energy effort.
And in the middle of this back-and-forth between Brazil and Venezuela, Lula found time to host Bush and to travel to Camp David--in a matter of just a few weeks. What do you suppose motivated the White House to spend such time on Lula, and to put such priority on an ethanol deal with Brazil?
When it comes to ties to the United States and the Bush White House, Lula's Brazil will never be Tony Blair's Britain. But the U.S. has developed a good working relationship with Brazil. At its core lies a significant common interest: the desire to reduce Hugo Chavez's influence in Latin America. And common interests are often the foundation of very productive relationships.
For the most part, yes. Dean Barnett points to this quote from a speech the former governor gave earlier in the week at Yeshiva University as evidence:
"What Jimmy Carter fails to understand is what so many fail to understand: Whether it is Hamas or Hezbollah or al Qaeda, there is an overarching goal among the violent jihadists that transcends borders and boundaries. That goal is to replace all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, to destroy Israel, to cause the collapse of the West and the United States, and to conquer the world."
But then there's this quote, from a brief interview he gave to AP reporter Liz Sodoti yesterday:
[Romney] Said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.
Of course, Romney is absolutely right--capturing bin Laden won't significantly reduce the threat we face from radical Islam. The president himself has repeatedly made the same point. But is it worth "moving heaven and earth" and "spending billions of dollars"...well, yes. Capturing bin Laden would be priceless. In a world of finite resources, and in which manpower is the scarcest resource of all, it would be foolish to take men and materiel out of the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, a far more potent enemy, just to pursue a single man. But if it were merely a matter of cost, is there anybody in this country who would object to spending an extra $10 billion to catch bin Laden? There may be a price at which it just doesn't make sense, but I'd be hard pressed to determine what that price is. And whatever it costs, I'd pay double to catch him alive.
 The United States has scored a major victory against al Qaeda's global network. Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, one of Osama bin Laden's senior deputies who was "personally chosen by bin Laden to monitor al Qaeda operations in Iraq," has been captured and transfered to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. government put a $1 million bounty out for Al-Hadi's capture.
It is unknown who captured al-Hadi, or where or when he was captured. "'Abd al-Hadi was trying to return to his native country, Iraq, to manage al Qaeda's affairs and possibly focus on operations outside Iraq against Western targets," according to the Department of Defense. "'Abd al-Hadi also met with al Qaeda members in Iran and believed that they should be doing more with the fight, including supporting efforts in Iraq and causing problems within Iran." Last year, Coalition forces captured senior al Qaeda operative Omar Farouq in Basra after he left Afghanistan to plan operations inside Iraq.
Al-Hadi was al Qaeda's Internal Operations Chief and served as an instructor as well as the commander of several al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. He was a major in Saddam Hussein's Army prior to going to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Al-Hadi also served on al Qaeda's "ruling Shura Council — a now-defunct 10-person advisory body to Osama Bin Ladin — as well as the group's Military Committee, which oversaw terrorist and guerrilla operations and paramilitary training."
While in Pakistan, al-Hadi directed cross-border military operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in Afghanistan. Al-Hadi also served as a conduit between al Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban and al Qaeda senior command operating inside Pakistan. He was behind the assassination attempts against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
"'Abd al-Hadi was known and trusted by Bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri," notes the Department of Defense. He was "in direct communication with both leaders and, at one point, was Zawahiri's caretaker. 'Abd al-Hadi also interacted with other senior al Qaeda planners and decision makers, such as Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and Abu Faraj al-Libi, and deceased al Qaeda members Hamza Rabi'a and 'Abd al-Rahman al-Muhajir."
Al-Hadi's capture and subsequent interrogation will likely yield significant intelligence on al Qaeda's global operations, and specifically operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Al-Hadi was a vital link in al Qaeda's global network, who possesses knowledge on al Qaeda's training, communications, personal ties and operations in the critical theaters of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Al-Hadi's knowledge of al Qaeda's command structure inside Pakistan will be of particular interest, as the U.S. believes Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and other al Qaeda senior leaders are operating from command centers in Waziristan and Bajaur.
Cross-posted at The Fourth Rail.
Update: Our friend Thomas Joscelyn has posted some interesting questions he'd like to see the intelligence community put to recently captured al Qaeda bigwig Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi. Check it out here.
The president headed to Camp David today with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. Following an "intimate" dinner last night at the White House, where the two leaders were joined by their wives, their respective ambassadors, and golfer Ben Crenshaw, they will spend today discussing a range of issues at the presidential retreat--balancing against China and managing a nuclear North Korea are likely at the top of that list.
As Duncan Currie wrote in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, "the [U.S.-Japan] alliance remains structurally robust." But there is at least one rather simple way that the president might strengthen that alliance and go a long way toward balancing against China and North Korea: provide the Japanese with access to the F-22 Raptor--the world's most advanced air superiority fighter.
As things stand now, sale of the F-22 to foreign governments requires Congressional oversight and approval, but an agreement between the two leaders would likely assure Congressional support for such an arrangement.
 According to Aviation Week, acquiring the F-22 has become "a point of pride with the Japanese" military, but one industry source quoted by the magazine says that Japanese politicians have yet to "realize that it's a matter of national survival, not just national pride."
We've written here before on the impact such a sale might have on the balance of power in the Pacific--in short, there's little or no downside, other than rankling the Chinese. And the aircraft would be a significant boost to Japan's ability to deter aggression--or project power in the event that deterrence fails. But there's a huge upside for the American military as well.
The F-22 is not only the world's most advanced fighter, it's also the most expensive. So expensive that the Pentagon has cut its initial order of 750 aircraft down to a paltry 183. As the Pentagon cut numbers, the unit cost of the aircraft rose, forcing the Pentagon to make further cuts, and so on, in a vicious cycle referred to as "the death spiral."
Of course, much of the cost comes from research and development--meaning that billions are spent before the first plane is even built. Now that full-scale production is under way, the marginal cost of building additional copies is significantly less that the average cost of each aircraft. So while the government may end up paying as much as $312 million, on average, for each F-22 in the inventory, the marginal cost of producing one more F-22 might be as little as $132 million.
An article by SSgt C. Todd Lopez that appeared in the Air Force Print News this week gives what may be the best account I've read on the cost breakdown of the F-22.
One roadblock to more Raptors is the aircraft's high cost. Estimates for the fighter jet range from as little as $132 million to as much as $312 million. So far, the Air Force has invested as much as $28 billion in the Raptor's research, development and testing. That money, referred to as a "sunk cost," is already spent and is separate from money used for future decision-making, including procuring a copy of the jet.
By the time all 183 jets have been purchased, around $28 billion will have been spent on research and development. An additional $34 billion will have been spent on actually procuring the aircraft. That's about $62 billion for the total program cost. Divided out, that's comes to about $338 million per aircraft.
But the reality is, if the Air Force wanted to buy just one more jet, it would cost the taxpayer less than half that amount. The current cost for a single copy of an F-22 stands at about $137 million. And that number has dropped by 23 percent since Lot 3 procurement, General Lewis said.
"The cost of the airplane is going down," he said. "And the next 100 aircraft, if I am allowed to buy another 100 aircraft ... the average fly-away cost would be $116 million per airplane."
General Lewis also says that 183 F-22s just isn't enough:
The Air Force now has funding for up to 183 F-22 aircraft, which will be distributed among seven squadrons. But General Lewis makes no secret of the fact the Air Force would like to see even more Raptors.
Today there are about 23 Air Force fighter squadrons, supported by more than 800 aircraft that are currently flying air-to-air, destruction of enemy air defenses, suppression of enemy air defenses and strategic attack missions. Those missions are performed by aircraft such as the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-117A Nighthawk. General Lewis said he believes about 381 F-22s could do those same missions.
If the Air Force wants 381 F-22s, getting the Japanese in on the program would be a big help in bringing costs down. It's a win-win situation. As impressive as the F-22 is, scoring a whopping 144-0 kill ratio in exercises late last year, it would be foolish to replace 800 air superiority aircraft with just 183 F-22s. But 381 F-22s, in addition to several Japanese squadrons, would force the Chinese to think long and hard about taking any aggressive action in the Pacific. The president would do well to bring the subject up at Camp David today.
We may have figured out why the Democratic policy on Iraq is so incoherent. At least some Democrats seem to think that Iraq, Haiti, and Somalia are all the same.
The linked page includes video of Senator McCain advocating the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia in 1993 and from Haiti in 1994. He explains in each case why he favors the recall of American forces. With regard to Somalia, he states:
the mission which the American people supported and this Congress supported, in an overwhelming resolution, has been accomplished
And Haiti:
The Haitians were to police themselves but the cooperation that was to prevent mission creep has not materialized and U.S. troops have assumed a greater and greater responsibility for policing Haiti. We all see on CNN what they are doing. Day by day their mission expands.
Do the Democrats believe that our foreign policy should be viewed today the same way it was prior to 9/11? Do they believe the mission in Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq is and was the same? Do they believe that a failed state in Iraq is no more of a threat to Americans then Somalia and Haiti were, after U.S. forces departed?
That explains a lot.
Rest assured, when the war in Iraq is no longer the most important issue facing the Republic, the Weekly Standard will return to American Idol updates.
That said, since Democrats insist on repeatedly quoting General Petraeus to justify their effort to pull the rug out from under the war effort, we thought it worthwhile to provide context for the quote that they are repeating ad nauseam:
The Quote You Hear:
"There is no military solution" [in Iraq]
Actual Statement by General Petraeus:
"As our military effort surges in the greater Baghdad area and in Al Anbar province, a complementary effort will be carried out on the civilian side in the form of a joint Department of State/Department of Defense initiative to double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq from 10 to 20.
As with the military effort, the focus will be on Baghdad and Al Anbar Province. These PRTs will draw on civilian and military expertise to help the Iraqis build capacity in the provinces and support local initiatives...
We and our Iraqi partners recognize that improving security for the Iraqi people is the first step in rekindling hope. The upward spiral we all want begins with Iraqi and coalition forces working together and locating in the neighborhoods those forces must secure. This concept features Iraqi and coalition soldiers partnering with local police to establish joint security stations...
With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient."
War opponents are engaging in Orwellian tactics in suggesting that Petraeus supports a withdrawal when he suggests that military action is necessary, but not sufficient.
Similarly, a statement by Secretary Gates is being selectively quoted:
The Quote You Hear:
"The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetables probably has had a positive impact..."
Actual Statement by Secretary Gates:
"I think that what I have said is that the debate in Congress, I think, has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. As General Petraeus has said, there's the Baghdad clock and there's the Washington clock.
That said, I've been pretty clear that I think the enactment of specific deadlines would be a bad mistake. But I think the debate itself and I think that the strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact -- at least I hope it has -- in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."
Sometimes it's useful to read the full text, rather than a parsed fragment. Those who use these quotes in support of the ongoing effort to end the Iraq mission are grossly misrepresenting Petraeus and Gates.
General David Petraeus, the commander of Multinational Force Iraq, completed his closed-door Congressional testimony yesterday, and has since conducted a quick press briefing and a Pentagon briefing. In this morning's Pentagon briefing, Gen. Petraeus highlighted Iran's involvement in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq's dominance of the Sunni insurgency, and the importance of disrupting the Shia militias. He also stressed that the Baghdad Security plan is still in its early stages, and a full evaluation of the operation cannot be made until September at its earliest. He noted that sectarian violence has decrease by about two-thirds since the inception of the Baghdad Security Plan, and ongoing operations against al Qaeda cells are yielding good intelligence on al Qaeda's network.
After yesterday's testimony to Congress, Gen. Petraeus highlighted the very real progress in Anbar, which used to lead all Iraqi provinces in attacks per capita. An American intelligence official informs us that attacks in Ramadi, which used to be the most violence city in Iraq, have dropped from a peak of 50 a day last September to 2 - 4 a day currently. Here is what Gen. Petraeus had to say about Anbar province:
I also pointed out the progress in Anbar Province, which has been very substantial, as you know. Literally over the last two months, Anbar has gone -- or certainly over the last six months -- from being assessed as being lost, to a situation that now is quite heartening because of the decision by a number of Sunni Arab tribes to join the fight against al Qaeda, saying no more -- they've had it -- and linking arms with the coalition to take on al Qaeda and one city after another really cleaning them out all the way down the Euphrates River Valley from al Qaim and Husaybah through Haditha, Hit, Ramadi and so forth, although as I pointed out to each of the respective bodies -- the House and the Senate -- there still is considerable work to be done in Anbar Province although all the trends are in the right direction. And in fact the two additional Marine battalions that are part of the surge are now operating just for the first couple of weeks in Anbar Province, and they'll be joined by some additional forces later on as with the two additional Army brigades as they move in to their respective areas in and around Baghdad.
The Anbar Salvation Council, which is led by Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, has been waging a war against al Qaeda in Iraq for almost a year, and are now showing real progress against the terror group. The Anbar Salvation Council has requested permission from the government to chase al Qaeda across provincial boundaries into Karbala, Baghdad and Babil, as well as Coalition air power to back them up. In past engagements in Amiriya, Coalition air support has backed the Council.
Coalition forces continue the hunt for al Qaeda facilitators and operatives. Raids in Eastern Anbar province, Fallujah, Baghdad and Taji led to four terrorists killed, two wounded and nine captured today. Also, four more al Qaeda members of a car bomb cell were killed in a Coalition airstrike on their hideout west of Taji. Two women and two children were also killed in the air strike. Iraqi security forces stated it captured 217 suspected insurgents and killed one terrorist during operations inside Baghdad and Mahmadiyah.
Operations against Muqtada al Sadr's fractured Mahdi Army are continuing inside the Sadr City district of Baghdad. Coalition forces killed three Mahdi militiamen during a running gun battle inside Sadr City. The operation targeted "a network that trains terrorists for operations in Iraq."
Al Qaeda in Iraq is continuing its offensive in Diyala province, where it has consolidated its power since U.S. forces drew down in the region last fall and al Qaeda fighters fled to the province at the inception of the Baghdad Security Plan. Al Qaeda has conducted its third major attack in four days on a security outpost. Today's attack targeted an Iraqi Army checkpoint. A suicide bomber killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and wounded another 15 in Balad Ruz. Al Qaeda in Iraq is attempting to destroy the will of the Iraqi security forces in Diyala while simultaneously conducting its propaganda campaign to destroy the will of the American public.
Senator Lieberman delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate today that probably won't get as much attention as it deserves, but it is a deep and comprehensive critique of the Democratic leadership's Iraq policy.
We've posted the speech in its entirety at THE DAILY STANDARD. Click here to read.
From the AP:
The Air Force’s top general expressed frustration on Tuesday with the reassignment of troops under his command to ground jobs for which they were not trained, ranging from guarding prisoners to driving trucks and typing.
Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, said that over 20,000 airmen have been assigned worldwide into roles outside their specialties.
With President Bush and Congress in a standoff over Iraq spending, the Pentagon is shifting money among services and accounts, including drawing down funds earmarked for other later purposes.
“Somebody’s going to have to pay us back,” Moseley said. “I don’t have to want to have concerns about getting that money back.”
In a breakfast session with a group of reporters, Moseley said he was trying to be realistic. “We live in a joint world. We live in a military that’s at war. And we live in a situation where, if we can contribute, then sign me up for it.”
Still, the Air Force general added, “I’m less supportive of things outside our competency.” . . .
Moseley said he didn’t mind the use of airmen as drivers as much as some of the other new duties usually performed by the Army, such as guarding prisoners.
“Not only do we not have a prison, but very rarely do we have anybody in prison,” he joked.
Earlier this week, our own Bill Roggio reported that the training and equipping of new Iraqi units had come to a halt because of a lack of funding. Now we hear that airmen are being used to guard prisoners. Some Democrats seem to lack a sense of urgency about passing the supplemental--Rep. Rahm Emanuel said the military would be fine until June--but the lack of funding is already having an effect. If nothing else, you'd think Democrats would be worried about the prospect of untrained personnel guarding Iraqi prisoners.
Right now the entire focus of public debate on Iraq seems to be on when the troops should leave. The Bush administration argues for troops to remain until the job is done, while Democrats want troops to withdraw anywhere between today and next summer.
But before pulling out of Iraq, we ought to have a good understanding of what happens if we leave. Peter Neumann--the director of the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College London--addresses the question here:
First, no matter what happens inside Iraq, any U.S. decision to withdraw will be celebrated as a victory by al Qaeda. Whatever way the spin doctors in Washington dress it up, bin Laden is certain to portray the pullout as another example of what he once described as the “low spiritual morale of the American fighters.” Al Qaeda, in other words, will be emboldened—even if it fails to set up a permanent safe haven or establish an Islamic theocracy. Most worryingly, the foreign fighters—now experienced and battle-hardened veterans of the “global jihad”—will soon turn up and cause trouble in other places, such as Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.
Even more questionable than hoping that al Qaeda’s victory can be spun away is the idea that the Sunnis can be pushed to the negotiation table. This may have worked in 2003 and 2004. But in the current situation, Sunnis can no longer be assumed to have any faith in a government which a majority of them regard as openly sectarian. With many members of the Iraqi cabinet thought to be linked to the Shiite militias or Tehran, the Sunnis have concluded that the government has little interest in national reconciliation. Rather, they suspect that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his colleagues are bent on cementing Shiite hegemony and making the Sunnis pay for their privileged position under Saddam Hussein.
Hence, a withdrawal announcement is much more likely to drive more Sunnis into the arms of the insurgency than it is to compel the insurgents to the negotiating table. As in many other ethnic conflicts, security and survival will increasingly come to be seen as one and the same thing, with the insurgents the only ones who can be relied on to deliver both. If anything, being seen by their community as the “last line of defense” against Shiite atrocities will make it easier for the insurgents to overcome their internal divisions...
In their quest to win the policy argument, those who favor heading for the exits in Iraq shouldn’t dismiss as mere political rhetoric the idea that a sectarian blood bath—not reconciliation—is the most likely outcome. Most importantly, though, U.S. political leaders should understand that the game is not over once a withdrawal date is set. On the contrary, getting out of Iraq without unleashing a civil war is likely to be as delicate an operation as getting into the country was in the first place. Let us hope that if the United States does leave, the planning is better this time around.
When the decision to leave Iraq is presented as one without any costs--'leave now and Americans stop dying'--it sounds great. But the real world ramifications are far deeper. If advocates of an easy, pain-free withdrawal get their way, they may be shocked when they encounter the buyer's remorse that follows.
The violence inside Baghdad was unusually low today, with no major attacks inside the city. The pressing issue inside Baghdad continues to be the building of Adhamiya security barrier, and the upcoming modifications. The largest suicide attack occurred in Diyala province outside a police station, while Coalition forces have confirmed killing a senior al Qaeda military commander for Anbar province.
The politically sensitive issue of the Adhamiya security barrier, which includes 15 foot high concrete barriers (also know as Texas barriers), appears to be working towards a resolution. As we noted yesterday, the construction of the barrier was very likely to continue. "Iraq has modified a U.S. military plan to enclose a Sunni enclave in Baghdad with high concrete walls, and is using barbed wire and smaller cement barriers instead," Reuters noted. "We have sought other substitutes such as barbed wire, sand walls and small concrete barriers," said Brigadier Qassim Moussawi, the spokesman for the Baghdad Security Plan.
Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Sadrist political block as well as the Mahdi Army, has called for a protest against the Adhamiya barrier. Sadr, whose Mahdi Army has behind much of the Shia death squad activities over the past year, ironically called referred to the barrier as "the sectarian, racist and unjust wall that seeks to divide" Sunnis and Shiites.
Sadr's political block withdrew from the government last week, surrendering its 6 ministries and 30 seats in the United Iraqi Alliance. Both Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the U.S. welcomed Sadr's withdrawal. Sadr's calls for protests against the U.S. occupation on Iraq's liberation day on April 9th drew far fewer protesters than expected - no more than ten thousand. In the past, Sadr inspired protests could draw hundreds of thousands of protesters.
The raids against al Qaeda senior operatives continue on a daily basis. Coalition forces killed a senior al Qaeda leader during a raid northwest of Baghdad on April 20th. Abu Abd al-Satter is described as "a known al-Qaeda terrorist leader known to operate in Karmah and Ameriyah areas and was the al-Qaeda in Iraq Security Emir of the eastern Anbar Province." Satter's car bomb cell "used 12- to 13-year-old children as VBIED drivers" to conduct its attacks. One of Satter's associates was killed and another captured during the raid. Today, Coalition forces captured six al Qaeda operatives during raids in Salman Pak and Karma.
Al Qaeda is continuing its suicide campaign in Diyala province. Today, a suicide bomber murdered six police and wounded 16 after he detonated his bomb at a police station in Balad Ruz. This follows yesterday's multiple suicide car bomb attack on a combat outpost in Baqubah, which killed 9 U.S. soldiers. The Baqubah attack was in the mold of prior multiple car bomb attacks, followed by a ground assault, which have occurred over the past several years against outposts in Tarmyia, Husaybah, Abu Ghraib and the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. The fighting in Diyala will only intensify as the U.S. and Iraqi forces build up the capacity to conduct the Diyala Campaign later this spring.
| | | |
