May 12, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main
As noted last night, reports of the capture of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al Masri must be tempered with healthy a dose of caution until the U.S. military can confirmed the news. This morning, the U.S. spokeswoman in northern Iraq said al Masri was not in the U.S. military’s custody, nor has he been detained by Iraqi troops.
It certainly was tempting to believe al Masri was captured. The location of his reported capture fit the storyline from Iraq over the past several months. Fourteen of the 30 senior-most al Qaeda leaders that have been killed or captured over the past three months were killed or captured in Mosul. The city is al Qaeda’s last urban stronghold and sits at the end of the last operational ratline into Syria. Al Masri’s father-in-law was captured in Mosul in September 2006.
While the latest false report of al Masri’s capture/death is another black eye on the Iraqi security forces’ communications department, the event highlights the Iraq military’s increasing role in taking on security operations in Iraq. Iraqi commandos conducted the raid on the hideout believed to have been occupied by al Masri. The intelligence used in the operation was Iraqi-derived. U.S. forces were behind the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the infamous, brutal leader of al Qaeda in Iraq in the summer of 2006. It would be fitting if Iraqi troops took down Zarqawi’s successor, who came close to uniting the Sunni insurgency and splitting the Iraqi nation.
Somebody sent me this in an email and I didn't think it could be true. Then I followed the link to the Code Pink website and I was still dubious because the page looks like a mock-up, and it's so nutty...I still didn't think it could be true. But now Fox confirms, Code Pink is engaging in witchcraft at the Marine Corps recruiting station in Berkeley in another attempt to...drive the Marines into an ocean of peace?
Witches, Crones, Sirens come to the MRS today to cast spells, weave magic, invoke the foremothers, share wisdom, lead rituals to banish war and violence and to bring peace to the MRS, to protect our youth from the powerful spells of pro-war forces, to lead the men of the marine recruiting station off into the oceans of peace! Some witches, crones and sirens are willing to risk arrest, others are not. We call on all crones, witches and sirens to come to the MRS, to bring your energy, your wisdom, your fierce determination to end war now and bring peace to our world.
These people are bonkers, but you have to remember, each one of them is somebody's wife, or sister, or mother. Mental illness is a serious problem, and you just hope that this election will, at some point, get back to "real" issues like providing affordable mental health care for wealthy Bay Area liberals.
Unconfirmed reports from Iraq indicate the Iraqi Army may have captured Abu Ayyub al Masri, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq who was hand picked by Ayman al Zawahiri to succeed Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Al Masri has reportedly been captured in the northern city of Mosul, where al Qaeda is attempting to regroup after taking a beating from U.S. and Iraqi forces during the height of the surge in 2007. Reports state that he has been transferred to U.S. custody to confirm his identity.
Al Masri's capture would serve as a political and military victory for both the United States and Iraq. The capture of the leader of the terror group not only demonstrates a measure of progress, but his knowledge of al Qaeda's organization both inside and outside Iraq will prove useful in efforts to dismantle the terror group. But a word of caution: Iraqi security forces have made similar claims in the past only to be discredited days later. If it's true, the U.S. military will soon confirm the capture.
Noah Millman makes an excellent point at the American Scene:
You know, the forces of the United States have been engaged in Iraq since January 1991. That’s seventeen years. This year will see the last American election in which all eligible voters were born before our conflict with Iraq. Our conflict with Iraq has lasted longer than the conflict in Vietnam (dating that war either from the Hanoi Politburo’s decision for war in 1959 or President Kennedy’s dispatch of military advisers), longer than the Weimar Republic, longer than the combined terms of Hoover and Roosevelt, longer than the Civil War plus Reconstruction, longer than the period from Napoleon’s coup to his defeat at Waterloo . . . it’s lasted a long time....
This is all by way of putting the debate we currently have before us in context. McCain’s “100 Year War” has been much mocked, but we’ve been engaged in Iraq for more than 1/6th of that time period already. What he’s talking about is continuing along a road that we’ve been travelling for three Presidencies.
After several days of heavy fighting in the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City, the press tells us that over 900 "people" have been killed during fighting in Sadr City over the past five weeks. But how many of those killed were Mahdi Army fighters? AFP doesn't even try to answer these questions, and in failing to do so, the reporting gives the impression that all of these “people” are civilians, and U.S. and Iraqi forces are using indiscriminate force in Sadr City.
I've made a count of the Mahdi Army fighters confirmed killed during engagements in and immediately around Sadr City since the fighting began on March 25. U.S. and Iraqi troops killed 173 from the period between March 25 and March 30, when the Basra offensive began until Muqtada al Sadr issued a ceasefire. Seventy-one Mahdi Army fighters killed from March 31 to April 19 during a relative lull in the fighting. One hundred and ninety-one Mahdi fighters were killed between April 20 and April 30, the period starting after Sadr threatened a third uprising and as U.S. and Iraqi forces took control of the bottom third of Sadr City.
That makes for 435 Mahdi Army fighters killed in and around Sadr City since the fighting intensified there after the government of Iraq launched its crackdown in Basra on March 25. Almost half of the “people” killed were Mahdi Army fighters. And the odds are even more of those killed were Mahdi Army fighters, as we have little way of knowing how many wounded later died of their injuries during battle. Sadr’s people control the hospitals in Sadr City.
The Mahdi Army is taking heavy casualties when running up against U.S. and Iraqi forces in Baghdad, and the high numbers have an impact on morale and recruiting over time. The media loves to tell us how many U.S. soldiers were killed during fighting--were told that 47 US troops were killed in Iraq this month, and more than 20 in Baghdad alone--but seems to shy away from reporting the number of enemy casualties. The fight against the Mahdi Army certainly won't be determined by body counts, but there clearly is a double standard in reporting. U.S. body counts are news, but Mahdi Army body counts are to be avoided.
CBS News reporter Richard Butler was rescued by Iraqi troops in Basra on April 10 after being held captive for two months. Throughout his ordeal, his hands were kept in restraints and a sack kept over his head, although he was able to hear plenty of Hezbollah propaganda and ringtones. His sparse diet caused him to lose 42 pounds.
Not pretty. But it could have been worse:
Butler said he felt it was better to be kidnapped in Iraq then taken into custody by Americans in Afghanistan.
"I was pleased I wasn't being mortarboarded in Guantanamo or being held for six and a half years like an Al-Jazeera cameraman, for instance," he said.
Absolutely. American troops are renowned for torturing network reporters. You read about that all the time. Poor bastards are dropping like flies at the hands of our soldiers. It's a real scandal.
In related news, the ratings for CBS News hit a record low last week.
Don’t worry about Richard Butler, by the way. He’s recovering at his home. In France. But you just knew that, right?
(And I know what you’re thinking: Hezbollah ringtones?!)
The Battle for Sadr City is on. Several weeks ago, U.S. and Iraqi forces took control of the southern third of the city and began constructing concrete barriers to secure the area. Since U.S. and Iraqi forces moved into Sadr City, units have conducted patrols and distributed humanitarian aid to the Iraqis living in the neighborhoods. The U.S. military is also conducting aerial patrols of Sadr City, and is striking at Mahdi Army fighters as they plant roadside bombs, move weapons, and gather for attacks.
This has provoked a violent response from Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army, which is struggling to prevent the Iraqi government from maintaining a foothold in Sadr's power base in Baghdad. Over the past several days, Mahdi Army fighters have grouped for mass attacks. Each time U.S. and Iraqi forces beat them back, inflicting heavy losses on the enemy while suffering few of their own.
One of the largest engagements occurred today. A large force of Mahdi Army fighters ambushed a U.S. patrol on the border area where the wall is being built. U.S. forces responded and killed 28 Mahdi Army fighters while suffering six wounded. None of the casualties are life-threatening. On Sunday, 22 Mahdi Army fighters were killed as they massed to strike at a checkpoint in Sadr City. Sixteen more were killed in separate engagements that same day.
There have been numerous other air and ground engagements with the Mahdi Army in Sadr City and the surrounding areas over the past several weeks. Since Sadr threatened to conduct a third uprising nine days ago, U.S. and Iraqi troops have killed 186 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone. Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has said he is serious about taking control of Sadr City and disarming and disbanding the Mahdi Army. There are no signs that he plans to halt the offensive.
From the Times Online:
"Iraqi forces see victory in Basra"
The paper's Baghdad correspondent notes that "Iraqi soldiers are standing proud in Basra," and that "many of them say the operation has boosted their confidence." So, more evidence that this wasn't quite the humiliating defeat the New York Times first reported.
HT: Instapundit
The Wounded Warrior Project kicked off its "White House to Lighthouse Challenge" yesterday with remarks by the president:
Four years ago, Chris Carney decided to ride coast-to-coast to raise awareness and money for our wounded warriors. In the first year he biked more than 5,000 miles, from Long Island to the Pacific Ocean, and raised more than a million dollars for the Wounded Warrior Project. He started what's called the annual Soldier Ride.
The next year, wounded vets started coming along. In 2006, 75 wounded warriors took turns riding portions of the cross-country journey. These servicemen and women rode to raise money for their fellow soldiers, including those who were hurt too much to ride. And they also rode to show themselves what they could do, and in so doing, they showed the world what they could do.
Wounded Warrior is a very worth charity...you can click here to donate and click here for more information.
Harry 'the war is lost' Reid put out this statement on Petraeus's move to CENTCOM:
The next CENTCOM commander and field commander in Iraq will have to help the next President with a number of critically important challenges: making America more secure, restoring America's power and influence in the world, fixing our costly strategy in Iraq, and articulating a more effective strategy for winning in Afghanistan and defeating Al Qaeda in Pakistan....Our ground forces' readiness and the battles in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda in Pakistan have suffered as a result of the current costly Iraq strategy. These challenges will require fresh, independent and creative thinking and, if directed to by a new President, a commitment to implementing major changes in strategy...The Senate will carefully examine these nominations and I will be looking for credible assurances of a strong commitment to implementing a more effective national security strategy.
Not a word of thanks or praise for the remarkable job Petraeus has done in Iraq. Stay classy, Harry.
Update: It's interesting to note the contrast with the statement from Lieberman, which praised Petraeus saying he "has won the admiration and respect of the entire country over the past fifteen months." Isn't that objectively true? Or has the Democratic party been entirely co-opted by the 'Betray Us' crowd at MoveOn.org.
AP reports:
The Associated Press has learned that Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general who has been leading troops in Iraq, has been tapped to become the next commander of U.S. Central Command....
Taking Petraeus' position as the senior commander in Iraq would be Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, who had until recently been serving as Petraeus' deputy.
The allegedly lame duck Bush administration has--if this report is correct--hit a home run. CENTCOM is the central theater of the war on terror, and the president is putting our best commander in charge of it. What Odierno achieved as day-to-day commander in Iraq was amazing (see Fred and Kim Kagan’s article, "The Patton of Counterinsurgency"), and he’s clearly the right choice for MNFI. Bush has done the right thing, overriding opposition from within the Pentagon. He deserves congratulations--and thanks.
Fred Kaplan stakes out a risky position:
In other words, we find ourselves lassoed into an armed intra-Shiite power struggle on two fronts—and the Iranians are positioned to benefit from one or both contests, no matter whether the side we're backing wins or loses.
Whatever the outcome, Kaplan can claim it's a disaster for the United States. And I wouldn't expect anything less of him.
AP reports:
The Iraqi army command in Basra is giving top leaders of the Mahdi Army in the city 24 hours to surrender.
The order comes from Gen. Mohan al-Freiji, who told reporters Tuesday that Basra city and the surrounding province are back under government control.
Al-Freiji says he has warrants for 81 people, including senior leaders of the Mahdi militia, and they have 24 hours to give up.
It's almost like Maliki didn't go crawling to Sadr and the Iranians to plead for a humiliating cease-fire.
Tom Donnelly has a piece on the website today explaining how the press botched this story so badly.
Multinational Forces Iraq has dramatically changed it’s messaging concerning the Mahdi Army and attacks in Baghdad. While MNF-I continues to refer to the Shia militias as “criminals” or Special Groups in their press releases, there are no longer any calls for the Mahdi Army to obey Muqtada al Sadr’s cease-fire order.This is occurring as the Iraqi government and MNF-I are pressing the fight against the Mahdi Army in Baghdad, Basra, and elsewhere in the South.
In the past, MNF-I press releases would refer to Sadr with the honorific “al-Sayyid” and appeal to the Mahdi Army to adhere to the ceasefire. Here is an example of a typical press release from late December 2007, which leaves an opening for Sadr and his Mahdi Army to end the violence:
"We commend all those who honor al-Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr’s ceasefire pledge… Significant progress has been made in the fight for a secure and stable Iraq, but dangerous criminal elements still exist."
Now, MNF-I is explicitly stating the goal is to “capture or kill these criminals” while dropping any pretenses about the neutrality of the Mahdi Army. Here is an example from a press release today:
”Iranian-backed Special Groups and other criminal elements who refuse to honor the rule of law are directly responsible for the current violence in Baghdad, as well as the deaths of countless innocent civilians,” said Lt. Col. Steven Stover, a spokesman for MND-B. “We will continue to work with Iraqi civilians and Iraqi Security Forces to identify, capture or kill these criminals who are terrorizing the people of Baghdad.”
A press release from April 20 actually noted that “criminal” fighters “retreated to building that contained the local Sadr Trend office” after a clash with Iraqi soldiers and special police. In the past, MNF-I would not directly link the “criminals” and “Special Groups” to Sadr’s political movement.
The change is significant. Just a few weeks ago, General David Petraeus was giving Sadr an out by saying he had a place in Iraq’s political process. Last week, Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sadr could either participate in the political process or not, the choice is his. This weekend, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice openly insulted Sadr by calling him a coward for hiding in Iran while he instructed the Mahdi Army to fight U.S. and Iraqi forces. "I know he's sitting in Iran," Rice said. "I guess its all-out war for anybody but him. I guess that's the message; his followers can go to their deaths and he's in Iran." Now MNF-I drops its friendly titles for Sadr and references to the cease-fire, while killing or capturing Mahdi Army fighters on a daily basis. MNF-I is withdrawing the carrot and applying the stick.
We keep hearing that Muqtada al Sadr has gained the upper hand after fighting “bogged down” in Baghdad and Basra. Time magazine has led the charge on this front. The April 15 article titled "Al-Sadr Tightens the Screws” epitomizes the tone of Time’s coverage in Iraq. “Sadr's Mahdi Army has effectively stopped an advance by U.S. and Iraqi forces into its strongholds in Baghdad and Basra after weeks of fighting” writes Mark Kukis. “Sadr's political power appears to be growing even as the crisis wears on.” These are difficult arguments to make considering:
a) Sadr called for a cease-fire in Basra and Baghdad just as the Iraqi Army began to push reinforcements into the troubled areas.
b) The Iraqi government decided to prevent political parties from participating in the upcoming provincial elections. Sadr’s spokesmen were in a near panic and admitted they were politically isolated as the continuum of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish parties backed the measure.
c) Iraqis troops have pushed through at least three of the five of the Mahdi Army strongholds in Basra.
d) Iraqi and U.S. troops now occupy the southern third of Sadr City.
e) Sadr has issued a series of demands, insisting that the Iraqi military pardon those who deserted during the recent fighting and halt military operations lest he call for a third uprising. The Iraqi government has not pardoned the soldiers and police, nor has it stopped military operations.
f) Sadr called for a million man march in Najaf, then moved the march to Baghdad, then canceled the march. He claimed the military was interfering with his supporter’s movement but his recent marches have been less than stellar, drawing at most 10,000 supporters.
The latest bit of news from Iraq shows the Sadrist political movement is desperate to end the advance in Sadr City. Voices of Iraq reported that the Sadrists has asked former Prime Minister Iyad Illawi to mediate a cease-fire with the U.S. military. “Sadrist bloc lawmakers called on [me] two days ago to mediate with U.S. troops to cease military operations and to stop the concrete walls siege imposed on Sadr city for over a month,” Illawi said at a press conference in Baghdad, referring to the barriers being put up to partition the city to allow Iraqi and U.S. forces to stabilize the neighborhoods.
It will be interesting to see how this latest move by Sadr will be spun into a moment of triumph.
German conservative interior minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has come out with a bold initiative to provide asylum for thousands of Iraqi Christians forced to leave their homeland in recent years because of religious persecution at the hands of Muslim extremist groups. According to the Schaeuble plan, which is backed by the interior ministers of the 16 German states, Iraqi Christians would be allowed to stay in Germany until conditions on the ground in Iraq have improved to the point where they can return home. While the Interior Ministry has not officially come out with any concrete refugees quotas, Berlin insiders believe that Germany could end up accepting anywhere between 5,000 and 7,000 Iraqi Christians per year.
For far too long, European governments have ignored the terrible fate suffered by Iraq’s most vulnerable minority; Christians, after all, are viewed by both Sunni and Shia terrorists as supporters of the American-led "Crusader Coalition." Scandinavian countries like Sweden have already granted asylum to tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees, many of them Christians. In Germany, in contrast, the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees scattered around neighboring countries like Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, has only recently garnered attention. Catholic and Protestant church organizations in Germany have been particularly vocal. At the moment, Iraq is already the number one country of origin of asylum seekers in Germany. In 2007, 4,327 Iraqis applied for asylum, more than twice the number compared to the year before.
So far, politicians from Germany’s governing conservative CDU/CSU parties have taken the lead in calling for new asylum programs specifically targeted at Iraqi Christians. In contrast, their left-wing SPD coalition partners and the opposition Green party have voiced skepticism about the Schaeuble initiative. For example, Brigitte Zypries, Germany’s SPD justice minister, argued that "It’s a difficult path when you start saying that we’re accepting somebody because of their religious conviction."
The Greens, a party with a long track record of calling on Germany to open the floodgates to refugees and asylum seekers from virtually around the world, voiced reservations, too. "We have to help everybody who is persecuted and cannot say there are our Christian brothers and sisters, and for others with a different identity we don’t care," says Volker Beck, a senior Green MP. Finally, Wolfgang Schaeuble’s other 26 EU partners yesterday rejected his call for a similar EU-wide refugee plan at a ministerial-level meeting in Luxembourg. Countries such as Slovenia (which currently holds the rotating EU presidency) and Luxembourg were particularly opposed to the German initiative, arguing again that one must not single out Iraqi Christians for preferential asylum treatment.
Continue reading "Germany to Help Iraqi Christian Refugees" »
The Iraqi government’s willingness to take on the Mahdi Army in its strongholds in Baghdad, Basra, and elsewhere in the South is perhaps the most significant news story from Iraq this year. In 2006 and 2007, analysts, pundits, military officers, and politicians said the Shia militias--particularly the Mahdi Army, pose the greatest long term threat in Iraq. Now that the Iraqi government has decided to take on the Mahdi Army, the press is fixated on distinct incidences of failure of the Iraqi security forces in their efforts to dislodge the Mahdi Army from their strongholds.
In today's New York Times, Michael Gordon focuses on the desertion of a company of Iraqi soldiers from their outpost in Sadr City. The story is factually accurate. A company of about 80 Iraqi soldiers abandoned their post. They deserted while engaged with the enemy, which is a serious crime during war. This is the main focus of the article.
Yes, Gordon touches on the fact that the Iraqi and U.S. military scrambled to get a unit to replace the company--and succeeded. Gordon briefly mentions the other Iraqi units on the line held. They even “fought hard.” He even recognizes the Iraqi Army is in Sadr City! But these are just one-off statements of little significance to the narrative, which summed up in a single paragraph:
This episode was a blow to the American effort to push the Iraqis into the lead in the struggle to wrest control of parts of Sadr City from the Mahdi Army militia and what Americans and Iraqis say are Iranian-backed groups.
The fact is the Iraqi Army is still inside Sadr City. A security zone has been carved out of 1/3 of the Mahdi Army controlled district. One company broke, the rest fought and seem to have acquitted themselves well, even if they expended plenty of ammunition (note: the Mahdi Army does the same thing).
Gordon also fails to tell us what unit of the Iraqi Army this is. This is important, as some divisions are greener than others. The likelihood here is that this was one of the young brigades from the 11th Division. The 44th Brigade of the 11th Division, which is in Sadr City, went through what is called “Unit Set Fielding”--where a unit is formed and receives its equipment--in December of 2007. The 43rd Brigade went through the training in January of this year. The 11th Division was commissioned to form in November 2007.
How do I know this? DJ Elliott meticulously tracks the formation of the Iraqi Army in his Iraqi Security Forces Order of Battle, which is updated monthly at The Long War Journal. Is it too much to ask the New York Times, with its near limitless resources, to do the same?
The article also misses the wider implications of what is occurring with the Iraqi security forces. In 2006, Iraqi units either refused to go to Baghdad or did not have the logistical capabilities to deploy. Those that did were severely undermanned. In 2007 the logistical and manning issues were largely resolved, but Sadr City remained off limits. In 2008, just three weeks after the Iraqi security forces took on the Mahdi Army in Basra, which sparked fighting in Baghdad, the Iraqi Army is 1/3 of the way into Sadr City. That is the story you are not being told.
The Iraqi Interior Ministry has released the official numbers on the number of police and soldiers dismissed in the aftermath of the fighting in Basra. At first glance, the numbers may be surprising: 500 soldiers and 421 police, including 37 senior police officers, were dismissed for failing to fight the Mahdi Army or for deserting their posts.
But looking at the overall numbers and the performance of the Iraqi security forces in the recent past, these numbers aren't all that concerning. There are over 16,000 police and 14,000 soldiers deployed in Basra, which means that a little more than two percent of the police and three percent of the soldiers either defected or abandoned their posts. There is no breakdown on how many soldiers and police defected to the Mahdi Army, and how many stopped fighting out of fear for their families or the poor performance of their leadership.
If the past performance of the Iraqi security forces is any guide, most of the defections will have come from the police ranks. Most of the Iraqi Army failures appear to have occurred within a single battalion from the 52nd Brigade of the 14th Iraqi Army Division, the youngest unit in the Army.
The 52nd Brigade is far from "one of [the Iraqi Army's] best--and also one of the most loyal to Prime Minister Maliki," as reported by Kevin Drum at CBS News. The formation of the 14th Division has been rushed by the Ministry of Defense because of the security situation in Basra. The division was not due to be stood up until June 2008.
One added benefit of the Basra operation is the Iraqi Army and the police have learned much about the loyalty and fighting capability of their forces and the level of infiltration by the Mahdi Army. Only small numbers of soldiers and police either underperformed or defected. The Sadrists claim they have wide support in the Shia South, but this support does not appear to extend to the security forces operating in Basra.
Earlier this week, the Today show ran a remarkable story about a Marine serving in Iraq:
If you’ve ever wondered what the Marines have in mind when they advertise for “a few good men,” look no further than Gunnery Sgt. William “Spanky” Gibson.
Two years ago, he lost a leg to a sniper’s bullet in Iraq. Today, he’s back in the combat zone — by his own choice. If you notice an unusual spring in his step as he goes about his duties at Camp Fallujah in Iraq, mark it down to the wonders of the modern technology that went into the carbon-fiber prosthetic leg Gibson wears. He may have surrendered a leg in serving his country, but he’s far from handicapped.
The accompanying video is worth watching for a couple of reasons. One, it helps to remind us of the astonishing courage and strength that our armed forces possess. Sgt. Gibson is the first, full-leg amputee to re-up for a tour of combat. No obligation on his part; he wanted to.
Two, it makes a nice antidote to the seemingly-relentless parade of fictional movies and documentaries that make our troops look like nothing but bitter fools who were tricked into combat. Take Tomas Young, the 25 year-old paralyzed by gunfire days after arriving in Iraq. His story, told in the new documentary Body of War, co-directed by Phil Donahue, is certainly tragic. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be told. But isn’t there room on the big screen for a movie about Sgt. Gibson, or any other soldier who believes in what they’re fighting for? Donahue and the rest would tell you that their anti-war stories must be told because the media is ignoring them. This is an odd thing to say since only anti-war movies have been released since Operation Desert Storm.
All those Iraq-themed movies of 2007 tanked, so you’d think some director might take a new approach: American Soldier as Hero; Terrorist as Bad Guy. But that would take guts. How odd.
The U.S. military has long worked to divide Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army and force Sadr to participate in the political process. This strategy became evident in early 2007, when Sadr ordered his fighters off of the streets at the onset of the Baghdad Security Plan. The U.S. military touted Sadr’s efforts, began negotiating with elements of the Mahdi Army (often called the “noble Mahdi Army”), and kicked off a concerted campaign against the more radical elements it described as the “Special Groups” or “secret cells.”
U.S. officials and military officers have not gone on the record about this policy. But today, Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, alluded to the real view of the military on Sadr. Mullen said Sadr is "somewhat of an enigma" when it comes to the violence carried out in his name:
"So, I think Sadr clearly is a very important and key player in all this," Mullen added. "Exactly where he's headed and what impact he'll have long term, it's, I think, is out there still to be determined."
The U.S. military continues to offer both the carrot and the stick to Sadr. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said it was very unlikely Sadr would be detained if he returned to Iraq, while Mullen has left the door open for Sadr to join the political process. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces strike at the “rogue” elements of Sadr’s Mahdi Army while preparing the battlefield to enter the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City and continuing operations in Basra. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is moving to bar Sadr’s political party from participating in elections if it does not disband the Mahdi Army militia. Sadr has his out, it is a question of whether he will take it.
Michael Yon has a must-read piece in today's Journal. He makes a lot of interesting observations based on the unprecedented amount of time he's spent in Iraq reporting on the war, but I think most important is this:
Soldiers everywhere are paid, and good generals know it is dangerous to mess with a soldier's money. The shoeless heroes who froze at Valley Forge were paid, and when their pay did not come they threatened to leave – and some did. Soldiers have families and will not fight for a nation that allows their families to starve. But to say that the tribes who fight with us are "rented" is perhaps as vile a slander as to say that George Washington's men would have left him if the British offered a better deal.
The left has long ridiculed the members of the Anbar Awakening as mere mercenaries, fighting for the insurgency and al Qaeda first before being offered better pay by the U.S. military. Yon doesn't see it that way. In fact, he says that "powerful tribes in Anbar province cooperate with us now because they came to see al Qaeda for what it is--and to see Americans for what we truly are."
It's definitely worth reading the whole thing. Even soldiers who've been in Iraq for a full 15-month tour are unlikely to have the perspective that Yon does if only because Yon is able to cover the whole country. If he says there has been a dramatic turnaround...it's hard to argue with it. And of course, buy the book, Moment of Truth.
Just as a follow-up to this, AFP reports:
Two Israeli civilians and seven Palestinians were killed on Wednesday in an explosion of violence on the Gaza Strip border after Palestinian commandos stormed into Israel....
The Israeli army said Palestinian fighters, under cover of mortar fire, breached the border near the Nahal Oz terminal that provides Gaza with its fuel supplies, and moved into Israel.
Israel withdrew unilaterally, ended the occupation of Gaza, and a terrorist group took over the territory. The result is cross-border violence. The same thing happened after the Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon. So tell me again how unilateral withdrawal from Iraq will lead to a different result? Granted AQI won't be able to run across the border to kill Americans, but there is no doubt that terrorists can strike from a great distance when they are allowed to plot and train unmolested.
The left is quick to point out that there is no clear path to victory in Iraq, but one gets no sense that those agitating for withdrawal have grappled at all with the consequences of such a policy. If U.S. forces are to leave Iraq, how, precisely, do we avoid the spill over of instability and violence that characterized the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon. There can obviously be no guarantee, but if Obama's plan is to "get us out of Iraq as carefully as we were careless getting in," then there must be some attempt to answer this question.
Andrew Sullivan makes the perfectly reasonable point that Iraq is not South Korea, or Japan, or Germany. He says that if American forces could stay in those countries for 100 years, the same may not be true of Iraq, a country at the heart of a Muslim world:
There is no way an Arab Muslim country will tolerate Western troops permanently based on their land - without constant war and threat of war. To believe otherwise is to engage in a "holiday from reality." We've done enough of that.
The future of a permanently occupied Iraq is less likely to be Japan than the West Bank. And the deeper we are stuck there, the more our predicament will become the awful, morally corrosive, soul-sapping experience of the occupying Israelis.
There's only one problem with this analogy--it, too, ignores reality. Despite all the settlements in the West Bank, there is a broad consensus in Israel that occupation is a disaster, that it must be ended, that it is, as Andrew says, morally corrosive. And yet they do not leave the West Bank. Why? Because they left Gaza, and Hamas took over. Because the left Southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah took over. Because they face daily rocket fire from Gaza in the south, and have only temporarily suppressed the threat from the north following the costly reinvasion of Southern Lebanon in 2006.
Again, it's an entirely fair point to say that occupation is bad, and that there are differences between Japan and Iraq. But one must also examine how those differences will manifest themselves in the wake of a withdrawal. If the future of an occupied Iraq is less likely to be Japan than the West Bank, Sullivan needs to explain why a future withdrawal is less likely to be Gaza than Vietnam. Because I don't think anyone, on the left or right, would be willing to tolerate an Iraq that was run by al Qaeda as Gaza is now run by Hamas. And while the Israelis can reinvade Gaza with relative ease--as they are almost sure to do in the next several months--the United States cannot just walk back into Iraq.
Yesterday morning, about 450 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan rallied outside the Capitol to support General Petraeus and the mission in Iraq. "We’re here to tell Congress not to micromanage the war from air-conditioned offices on Capitol Hill," said Pete Hegseth, a decorated Iraq veteran and executive director of Vets for Freedom, the veterans’ group dedicated to victory in Iraq that organized the rally.
Over a dozen lawmakers, including John McCain, spoke at the rally before the Vets for Freedom flooded Senate and House office buildings to attend over 300 meetings with senators, congressmen, and congressional aides. Certainly each of these veterans has accomplished much greater feats than lobbying legislators, but today marked a significant milestone for Vets for Freedom. Conceived at the end of 2005 by a handful of soldiers and Marines who gathered in a bar in Charleston, S.C., the group now boasts a membership of over 22,000. "This is the single largest gathering of Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans since the war began," Hegseth told his fellow veterans. "You guys are continuing the battle here at home in the arena of public opinion."
Yesterday’s events were part of a Vets for Freedom "national heroes tour" that hit 21 cities in 14 states. "We’ve reached well over 20 million Americans through local media outlets--about $2 million worth of earned media," Hegseth told me. "So much of what we're trying to refute is this idea that veterans are a bunch of victims of Bush's war who came back with injuries that they can't overcome," he added. "We want to show that we're proud of our service."
At least 17 veterans are demonstrating their continued leadership by running for Congress as Republicans. "As a soldier, it often appears that our civilian leadership in Congress gravely misunderstands the consequences of victory or defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan," said David Bellavia, a cofounder of Vets for Freedom and a Medal of Honor nominee who is vying for Republican Tom Reynolds’ open seat in western New York.
Continue reading "Vets for Freedom Take the Hill" »
The left is thrilled that Senator Biden yesterday got Ambassador Crocker to 'admit' that it's more important to defeat al Qaeda along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border than it is to defeat them in Iraq. Next up: getting FDR to admit that it's more important to defeat the Nazis in Berlin than in Paris, getting Ike to admit that it's more important to bring down the U.S.S.R. than to preserve a free and independent South Korea, and getting JFK to admit that Cuba is a distraction from the 'real' war effort.
The left seems not to understand that the central battlefield in a war is not always the enemy's home base. Sometimes we fight on multiple fronts, and it's important to win on all. Sometimes 'victory' is impossible if you fail to defeat the enemy in different places. Would we still have enjoyed victory in the Cold War if we had decided that Greece, Korea, Cuba, East Berlin, Vietnam, and Nicaragua were 'distractions?'
There are plenty of other reasons that Biden's question is silly. The first is the false premise that we must choose one or the other. The reason we have the 'inflated' defense budget that liberals complain about is that we don't want to be forced to choose one battlefield or another. The U.S. military is designed to fight multiple conflicts simultaneously.
The second is that not all battles are fought the same way. The only way Biden's question makes sense is if he believes we must choose between committing tens of thousands of troops in Iraq or Pakistan. As Fred Kagan points out, no Democrat is seriously considering this.
Earlier today the president presented the Medal of Honor to the parents of Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor, a Navy SEAL who threw himself on a grenade in order to save his buddies during an intense firefight in Ramadi. You can read more about it here, but also worth checking out is this piece from THE WEEKLY STANDARD archive.
Michael Fumento arrived in Ramadi just days after Monsoor had been killed in action. In his report for this magazine in November 2006, Fumento wrote:
Nobody was killed operating out of Corregidor while I was there, but three days before my arrival, the 19-man SEAL platoon I had photographed and videotaped in combat earlier this year lost its second member, Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor. He threw himself on a hand grenade to save three of his buddies. He was the second SEAL killed in Ramadi and second killed in Iraq. The first, Petty Officer 2nd Class Marc Allan Lee, was lost in August. Anyone who harbors the notion that SEALs are as tough on the inside as they are on the outside is wrong. After I wrote an obit on Lee for my blog, many who knew him opened up their hearts to me. When I blogged on the death of Monsoor from Ramadi, I got the same reaction.
Included in the piece is one of the emails from a SEAL in Monsoor's unit. Monsoor was also featured on the cover of the magazine that week--he is one of the men in the photo at right.
As sad is it is, I don't think Monsoor's death was for naught. A recent piece in Men's Health, which was written by a reporter embedded with a team of SEALs, revealed what may have been the origin of the Anbar Awakening. It all started with a team of Navy SEALs operating in Ramadi that fall. It doesn't take a big leap of faith to figure that this was Monsoor's team--and that he likely played a pivotal role in starting a movement that would bring Western Iraq back from the edge of the abyss. Read the Fumento piece, and if you haven't read the piece in Men's Health, do yourself a favor.
McCain mixed up Sunni and Shia before catching himself about half a second later.
Lefty bloggers are in a state, and the DNC has already posted the item.
This is getting beyond ridiculous. Sometimes people make mistakes, even liberals--like when Arianna Huffington, in the midst of attacking McCain for just such a gaffe, confused Iran with Syria. Does she really not know the difference between the two? Of course not.
Or how about during today's hearings when Ted Kennedy referred to "inter-sectarian" violence in Basra. Five and a half minutes into the video above, as Petraeus tries to explain the situation in Basra to Kennedy, Kennedy cuts him off:
But we're over in Iraq to take on al Qaeda and here we've got the Maliki government moving in to battle inter-sectarian violence that's taking place which many believe can enhance the possibilities of civil war.
From that quote it is not entirely clear that Kennedy does understand the difference between inter- and intra-sectarian violence--or that the situation in Basra is not at all likely to lead to an inter-sectarian civil war, but is in fact likely to lessen the possibility of such an outcome. But how about we give Teddy the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not a complete moron but just misspoke. Do we think maybe the left would give McCain the same courtesy, especially since McCain, at least, corrected himself immediately afterward?
Senator Lieberman began his questioning of Petraeus with this:
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. General, Ambassador, thank you for your extraordinary service in the cause of freedom in Iraq. I must say that as I listen to your testimony, which is encouraging and yet quite realistic, and in my opinion, not overstated. You’ve told us that the strategy associated with the surge is working, progress has been made, but it’s entirely reversible. You’ve been very frank about some of the problems that we still face.
What I’m about to say - with respect to my colleagues who have consistently opposed our presence in Iraq - as I hear the questions and the statements today, it seems to me that there’s a kind of hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, and most of all, speak of no progress in Iraq.
And thus a Democrat perfectly articulates his own party's disposition at today's hearings.
From Amb. Crocker's opening statement:
· The first is at the national level in the form of legislation and the development of Iraq’s parliament. In September, we were disappointed that Iraq had not yet enacted some key pieces of legislation. In the last several months, however, Iraq’s parliament has formulated, debated vigorously, and in many cases passed legislation dealing with vital issues of reconciliation and nation building.
· A pension law extended benefits to individuals who had previously been denied them because of their service under the former regime.
· The Accountability and Justice Law (de-Ba'athification reform), passed after lengthy and often contentious debate, reflects a strengthened spirit of reconciliation, as does a far-reaching Amnesty Law.
Continue reading "Crocker Highlights" »
From Petraeus's opening statement:
· Security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional US forces to Iraq. A number of factors have contributed to the progress that has been made.
o First, of course, has been the impact of increased numbers of Coalition and Iraqi Forces. You are well aware of the U.S. surge. Less recognized is that Iraq has also conducted a surge, adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces.
o A second factor has been the employment of Coalition and Iraqi Forces in the conduct of counterinsurgency operations across the country, deployed together to safeguard the Iraqi people, to pursue Al Qaeda-Iraq, to combat criminals and militia extremists, to foster local reconciliation, and to enable political and economic progress.
o Another important factor has been the attitudinal shift among certain elements of the Iraqi population. Since the first Sunni “Awakening” in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected AQI’s indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq’s bounty if they didn’t participate in the political arena. Over time, Awakenings have prompted tens of thousands of Iraqis—some, former insurgents—to contribute to local security as so-called “Sons of Iraq.” With their assistance and with relentless pursuit of Al Qaeda-Iraq, the threat posed by AQI—while still lethal and substantial—has been reduced significantly.
Continue reading "Petraeus Highlights" »
This is a development I have been expecting for some time. The longer Muqtada al Sadr remained outside the political sphere and used his Mahdi Army militia to attack the Iraqi security forces and government, the greater the pressure became for the government to ban his political party and militia. The fighting in Basra has shown that Sadr and his movement/militia are now anti-state elements, and the disparate political parties are seeking to pressure Sadr to disband his Madhi Army or face being banned from political activity. Per the AP:
Iraq's major Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties have closed ranks to force anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to disband his Mahdi Army militia or leave politics, lawmakers and officials involved in the effort said Sunday...
The first step will be adding language to a draft election bill banning parties that operate militias from fielding candidates in provincial balloting this fall, the officials and lawmakers said. The government intends to send the draft to parliament within days and hopes to win approval within weeks.
"We, the Sadrists, are in a predicament," lawmaker Hassan al-Rubaie said Sunday. "Even the blocs that had in the past supported us are now against us and we cannot stop them from taking action against us in parliament."
Everyone rushed to declare the Maliki government defeated and neutered after the Basra operation hit a speed bump in its opening phase. But the push to force Sadr to disband his Mahdi Army or face the political wilderness suggests otherwise.
In case you missed it, PBS has been airing a superb, grunt-level documentary on the War in Iraq called Bad Voodoo's War. Director Deborah Scranton, employing her revolutionary "virtual embedding" process made famous by The War Tapes, masterfully weaves an inside-out story of the "Bad Voodoo" platoon (great name, no?) sent to Iraq as part of the surge.
Here's the trailer:
Aside: don't confuse soldiers exercising their most treasured right (to gripe) with political messaging. Though some of the quotes in the trailer might give the impression that BVW is just another anti-war film, it isn't.
PBS will be airing the doc for the rest of the week, but if you miss it or don't have TiVo, you can watch online here.
McCain has one son serving in Iraq and another may be on the way. I follow this stuff pretty closely and while I'm sure McCain has made some reference to his sons on the trail, I can't recall it, and it's certainly not something that comes up often. Neither have I heard about McCain's sons from any of his surrogates. Which is what makes this comment from TPM reporter Eric Kleefeld so creepy:
Democrats are facing what could prove a major difficulty in the general election: During the fall campaign, John McCain might have not one, but two sons serving in Iraq.
For the Democrats, that possibility could make it much more difficult to hit McCain on Iraq policy. And while McCain himself has avoided mentioning it in his speeches, at least for now, you can bet his surrogates will be more than happy to bring it up every time the Dems hit him on the war.
So McCain's boys are going to Iraq and liberals want to know how this affects their prospects in the general election. As always, I'm overwhelmed by their support and concern for the troops. Clinton and Obama do nothing but hit McCain on the war and his sons have never been mentioned in response, by McCain or anyone else. You know who did politicize his son's service in Iraq? Jim Webb. And TPM loved it.
Michael Yon's must be seen to be believed:
The few remaining serious troublemakers are being hacked off and mulched in these incessant operations, which gives the enemy no rest (in the old days, when they were murdering Iraqis and Americans by the thousands, AQI used Tal Afar for training and R&R). These types of terrorists used to lay up with prostitutes in downtown Tal Afar, which isn’t so uncommon – for years brothels have been an excellent source of information against al Qaeda from Mosul to Baghdad. The al Qaeda terrorists don’t save themselves for the seventy two virgins promised to suicide bombers. They love drugs, prostitutes, and the power of the gun.
You'll have to click through for the photographic evidence. Regulars here will note that I do not hesitate to post pictures of scantily clad women. I do this for you, the reader. But jihadist hookers...I have to draw the line somewhere, even if Debbie Stabenow's husband doesn't.
Also, Yon's book, Moment of Truth is set for release at the end of the month. I was able to extort a free copy in exchange for the plug, but somebody has to finance his operation, so buy a copy. The guy is a national treasure, pony up and do your part.
Interesting discussion from Tom Ricks at the Washington Post:
As the experts poke the ashes, I think the emerging consensus is that Moqtada al-Sadr won more than he lost, because he and the government agreed to a cease-fire. That makes him 3 for 3 in taking on state powers (the U.S. in the previous two rounds, and now the Baghdad government). If nothing else, this guy is a survivor.
What puzzles me most is the role Iran played, especially in ending the fighting. There are lots of rumors that it brokered the ceasefire, but I have seen nothing definitive. If it did, that indicates that the Tehran government felt it had something to lose through the fighting.
Well, yeah. Iran's plan is to keep the United States--and to some extent, Israel--occupied on the military, diplomatic, and political fronts while they build a small arsenal of nuclear weapons. Their strategy, from a military perspective, has been very effective so far. Through effective use of proxies in Basra and southern Lebanon, Tehran exploits the West's greatest weakness--their low tolerance for chaos and unending conflict. All this while they strictly avoid direct contact with US/NATO/Israeli forces.
Al-Qaeda Iraq has been decimated by the surge, so if the Iranians lose Sadr and his militias, their ability to sow the seeds of discord in Iraq is sharply reduced. It's important to remember that Iran doesn't expect to win battlefield victories in Iraq, but rather to exploit the chaos there as a means to their nuclear end.
If they knock out the fledgling Iraqi government and kill a few Coalition troops in the process? All the better.
Because it sounds a lot like "insurgent" to me.
The report from CENTCOM:
Soldiers from 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, were traveling in a combat patrol to investigate a possible point of origin for an indirect fire attack when their Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device.
Immediately after the IED attack, Soldiers discovered a second IED in the area and attempted to secure it.While attempting to secure the IED, they were attacked with indirect fire, rocket propelled grenades and small-arms fire from a house in the vicinity of the IED strike.
An aerial weapons team was called in to support the Soldiers on the ground. A mortar team was spotted on the roof of the house where the attack was coming from, and the AWT defended the Soldiers on the ground and killed 25 criminals. One Soldier was injured in the IED attack.
"We will defend ourselves when attacked by armed criminals," said Lt. Col. Steven Stover, MND-B spokesman. "We are not the aggressors, but we will defend ourselves and the Iraqi people with all resources available to us."
I'm arguing semantics, of course. What's important is that all 25 assumed room temperature upon contact with 4BCT.
| | | |
