Life just gets worse in Iraq

[yolland]

As expected...

(click here for complete text of Bush's speech)

Bush Adds Troops in Bid to Secure Iraq

By DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times, January 10, 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush announced tonight that he was sending more than 21,000 American troops to Iraq to quell the sectarian violence there, as he conceded for the first time that he had provided neither enough troops nor enough resources to halt the country’s descent into chaos over the past year.

Mr. Bush’s speech to the nation differed sharply in tone and substance from his previous insistence that the United States was making progress toward building a workable Iraqi democracy, and he acknowledged that his previous strategy was based on fundamentally flawed assumptions about the power of the shaky Iraqi government. The president described his new strategy as an effort to “change America’s course in Iraq,” and he gave no indication that the troop increase would be short-lived. Mr. Bush also acknowledged that a renewed effort aimed at bringing security to Baghdad would also bring about more American and Iraqi casualties. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me,” Mr. Bush said, in his most direct such admission in an American-led war that has lasted nearly four years and claimed more than 3,000 American lives.

But he rejected all calls to begin a withdrawal from Iraq, arguing that the strategies advocated by newly empowered Democrats, restive Republicans and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group were a formula for deepening disaster. “To step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government,” Mr. Bush said from the White House library, a room officials said was chosen to create more of a sense of a conversation with an anxious American public, rather than the formal surroundings of the Oval Office. “Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal,” he said. “If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.”

Yet for the first time, Mr. Bush faces what could become considerable political opposition to pursuing the war. Democrats in Congress are drawing up plans for what, at a minimum, could be a nonbinding resolution expressing opposition to the to the commitment of more forces to what many of them say they now believe is a losing fight. They are likely to be joined by some Republicans, and they may attempt other steps to block Mr. Bush from deepening the American commitment. Not since President Richard M. Nixon ordered American troops in Vietnam to invade Cambodia in 1970 has a president taken such a risk with an increasingly unpopular war.

In his 20-minute address, Mr. Bush said that for the first time Iraq would take command-and-control authority over all of its own forces, and he argued that while more Americans ground troops are being put into the field, they will take more of a background role. He said the Iraqi government was committed to a series of “benchmarks” — which include adding another 8,000 Iraqi troops and police officers in Baghdad, passage of long-delayed legislation to share oil revenues among Iraq’s sects and ethnic groups, and a $10 billion jobs and reconstruction program, financed by the Iraqis.

In a running series of large and small briefings for reporters that opened a major campaign to market the new strategy, Mr. Bush’s aides insisted that the plan was largely created by the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Yet Mr. Bush sounded less than certain of his support for the prime minister, who many in the White House and the military fear may be intending to extend a Shiite power over Sunni Arabs or could prove incapable of making good on his promises. “If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people,” Mr. Bush declared.

The president put it far more bluntly when leaders of Congress came to visit Mr. Bush at the White House earlier today. “I said to Maliki this has to work or you’re out,” the president told the Congressional leaders, according to two officials who were in the room. Pressed on why he thought this strategy would succeed where previous efforts had failed, Mr. Bush shot back: "Because it has to."

Until this summer, Mr. Bush had used the phrase “stay the course,” to describe his approach in Iraq, and his decision to describe his new strategy as an effort to “change America’s course” appeared intended to distance himself from that old approach. An earlier plan unveiled in November 2005 had been entitled a “Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” but Mr. Bush used the word “victory” sparingly tonight, and then only to diminish expectations. “The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success,” he said. “I believe that it will,” saying that if it is successful it would result in a “functioning democracy” that “fights terrorists instead of harboring them.”

In some of his sharpest words of warning to Iran, Mr. Bush accused the Iranian government of “providing material support for attacks on American troops” and vowed to “seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.” He left deliberately vague the question of whether those operations would be limited to Iraq or conducted elsewhere, and said he had ordered the deployment of a new aircraft carrier strike group to the region, where it is in easy reach of Iranian territory.

While Mr. Bush has previously vowed to work diplomatically, largely inside the United Nations to stop Iran’s nuclear program, in this speech he said nothing about diplomacy.

slate.com has a decent concise overview of the pros and cons of the various (oppositional) ways the Democrats--and in all likelihood a few Republicans--might react...should they choose to do so.

What do you think Congress should do?

 

[namkcuR]

Close the purse, Congress. For once in your big business-owned careers, grow a pair and do the right thing. Close the purse.

 

[redhotswami]

Here's another article to supplement your other one, Irvine.

Ethnic cleansing by U.S. backed Shiite forces in Iraq is increasing ahead of the planned 'surge

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0109-21.htm


Presidential Campaign Launched in America with Ethnic Cleansing in Iraq
As Debate Begins, Sunnis Decry Massacres
By Tom Hayden


Politically, the coming escalation by 20,000 US troops in Iraq is best understood as the comeback strategy of the neo-conservative Republicans rallying around Sen. John McCain's presidential banner.

The political spin-doctors are calling it a "surge", an aggressive term implying a kind of post-election erection for Bush and the neo-conservatives. In fact, or course, it is an escalation, a term apparently carrying too much baggage from Vietnam.

The hardcore neo-conservatives, their ranks thinned by defections publicized in Vanity Fair, leaped immediately to salvage the war from November's voter disapproval. Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard began promoting an increase of 50,000 troops, mainly to Baghdad. Bush, who all along said he was listening to his generals, now sacked generals Casey and Abizaid, who had plans to reduce troop levels over one year ago, and who now opposed more American soldiers in Iraqi neighborhoods. John Negroponte, a specialist in the black arts of counter-intelligence, became the State Department's point man on Baghdad. US ambassador Zalman Khalilzad, a Sunni who has been critical of the Shi'a-controlled interior ministry, was removed from his Baghdad post. An Ivy League general, David Petraeus, with a counter-insurgency agenda to prove, took over command of US troops.

Right after the election, Sen. McCain was touring Baghdad with his potential running mate Sen. Joe Lieberman, promoting the plan to escalate, although supported by only 20 percent of Republicans, 11 percent of independent voters, and a statistically-insignificant 4 percent of Democrats [LA Times/Bloomberg, Dec. 11, 2006]

It is a brilliant strategy – for a faction dealt a losing hand.

If and when the 20,000 Americans plunge into Baghdad neighborhoods, there will be dramatic television coverage of soldiers at risk. It is possible, though far from easy, to "stabilize" a Baghdad neighborhood for several months or one year, carrying the surge into the next presidential cycle. The strategy fits the polling data showing only 21 percent of Americans favor immediate withdrawal, while the moderate middle might be open to an undefined new strategy if convinced it will shorten the war and bring the troops home.

More likely, the ranks of the peace movement are likely to swell with people angry over the perceived betrayal by Bush of the November voter mandate. A failure by majority Democrats to prevent the escalation will convince more people to take to the streets or look to 2008 for a fix.

If the proposal to escalate somehow is blocked by Congressional Democrats along with a few Republicans facing re-election, McCain and the neo-conservatives will be able to salvage a narrative blaming the "loss of Iraq" on Democrats. Their Plan B is to claim the US should have escalated from the very beginning.

The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report offered a hint that this escalation was coming in its formulaic compromise stating that it "could" support a "short-term redeployment or surge" but only if "the US commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." With the arrival of a new commander in Iraq, that mission is accomplished.

The term "could" represents one of the partisan trade-offs in the writing of the Report. The Republicans on the ISG would have been advocating the optional language on behalf of the White House while others tried to weaken the "could" by relying on a commander like Gen. Casey to nix it.

US Sides with Shiites in civil war

Meanwhile, as the politicians position themselves in Washington, urgent appeals from Iraqis warned of Shi'a death squads being unleashed against Sunni neighborhoods. The Baghdad security plan agreed in a teleconference last week being Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki already is underway. According to al-Jazeera the Shiite militia attacks and roundups began on Sunday. The parliamentarian and peace advocate Saleh al-Mutlaq denounced the plan as an attempt to cleanse Baghdad of the Sunni majority it had in 2003. The Association of Muslim Scholars and Iraqi satellite TV stations began transmitting cries for help from relatives and neighbors in Baghdad.

Already tens of thousands have fled Baghdad, the largest percentage of the nearly one million Iraqis who have been displaced according to the United Nations. Forty thousand have relocated in Falluja. There they stand in a parking lot surrounded by razor wire, are hand-searched, given retinal scans, and provided ID's to enter Falluja, or weeded out. [LA Times, Jan. 4, 2007]

Baghdad itself, once a diverse city of five million, has become the Shi'a capital, with fifty of 51 governing officials being from Shi'a parties. The security forces, as well as the "commandos" and "public order brigades" under the Interior Ministry are from Shi'a militias. Having fostered, equipped, financed and trained these sectarian forces, US officials have attempted to distance themselves from the scandal, for example claiming in 2006 they only "recently learned" that the 7,700 members of the public order brigades were Shi'a. [New York Times, Mar. 7, 2006]

A media or Congressional investigation of these death squads operating under official auspices might begin by interviewing James Steele, Gerald Burke and Ann Bertucci, who were police advisers attached to the US Civil Police Assistance Training Team in Baghdad. [New York Times, May 22, 2006]The commando teams were developed by Steele and Burke under the direction of Gen. Petraeus at the time. Steele was quoted in 2006 as "not regretting their creation" but worried they had grown out of control. Bertucci admitted that American advisers were attached to the so-called Iraqi Volcano Brigade which committed infamous massacres on August 24, 2005. On that day, dozens of men wearing police uniforms entered a Sunni neighborhood, dragged 36 men out of their homes, shot them in their heads and spilled acid on their faces, an episode recounted in the international press. The US also runs brutal interrogation operations through its secret Task Force 626 in "black rooms" at Camp Nama, whitewashed in a 2004 report by Gen. William G. Boykin, the Christian evangelical who regularly denounces Islam. [New York Times, Mar. 19, 2006]

The hand-over of the interior ministry to the Shi'a Badr militia, an organ of the Supreme Command of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq [SCIRI] was completed in 2005, when Bayan Jabr took over the ministry from a prior Sunni official. Jabr was in charge in November 2005 when a secret prison holding 172 abused and malnourished inmates was discovered. There are up to ten unofficial jails in Baghdad alone run by a Special Interrogations Unit reporting to the minister alone, where prisoners are held without charges.

After years of flirtation, the US has rejected decisively any plans for peace talks with opposition leaders, including insurgent groups. Last week US and Iraqi troops even stormed the headquarters of an Iraqi parliamentarian known to advocate a US withdrawal and peace talks with the insurgents; six people, including a family of four, died in the attack. [see Huffington Post file]

Instead, the US is siding ever more deeply with the Shi'a parties that came to power with the assistance of US tanks, artillery and aircraft in March 2003. By 2005, US officials were "lowering their sights" from establishing democracy to "slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic Republic." [Washington Post, Aug. 14, 2005]

The wild card in this scenario all along has been Moktada al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shi'a cleric representing the Sadr City slums, whose Mahdi militia has fought the US on two occasions and who demands a US withdrawal. In a must-read investigative article by Robert Collier of the San Francisco Chronicle this week, an al-Sadr spokesmen said the US was attempting "to inflame a civil war", and al-Sadr himself was quoted as saying:

"if I were qualified to give a fatwa, I would do so without hesitation in order to ban the killing of our [Sunni] brothers in Iraq and outside of Iraq." – SF Chronicle, Jan. 7, 2007

Whether al-Sadr is the target of the unfolding escalation is the great unknown, but a Newsweek poll in September 2006 showed a majority of Shi'a themselves – as opposed to their party leaders – support armed resistance against the Americans [63 percent] and a one-year deadline for withdrawal. [80 percent] That from the constituency that benefited from the American invasion. If the Americans attack al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in the streets of Sadr City, it could bring down the Iraqi government where al-Sadr's 40 seats are crucial to Prime Minister al-Maliki. In that scenario, al-Sadr could align with other parliamentary blocs, attempt a peaceful coup, and demand the Americans leave. Alternatively, a "provisional government" is being discussed by some.

Poignant confirmation that the US sides with the current Shi'a rulers surfaced unexpectedly in the videos taken last week of the execution of Saddam Hussein, now causing a public relations nightmare for American officials. It is noteworthy to point out that, without the video, there would have been no public knowledge of the repellent sectarianism in the gallows chamber. Since then, US officials have sought to distance themselves from the role of executioners, but it will not be easy. The US Regime Crimes Liaison Office was the "behind the scenes organizer" of Saddam's trial, in which one judge was removed as too lenient and three defense lawyers were assassinated, according to the New York Times.[1] <#_ftn1> With the approval of Condoleeza Rice, US Task Force 134 delivered Saddam to his Iraqi executors, knowing that death would be inflicted on a Sunni holy day without independent witnesses or even the approval of the head of Iraq's Supreme Judicial Council.

In the end, it appeared that the American propaganda investments of decades were dealt a serious blow. Saddam managed to conduct himself with immense dignity, even as the noose tightened around his neck; he thanked his American minders; he told the Iraqi national security adviser not to worry. Meanwhile, the hanging party turned out to be southern Shi'a militia members shouting sectarian chants, including "Moktada." It was the forbidden camera revealed the nature of America's allies in Iraq.

Seen in this light, the surge is actually a purge, a forced removal of Sunnis from Baghdad to the enclaves of al-Anbar, al-Diyala, and other parts of the Sunni Triangle, where they will be subject to assault by American troops and air power far from the scrutiny of journalists. A key element in the cleansing process will be special units from Kurdistan, the peshmerga, whose sole interest is dissolving the Iraqi state. If Baghdad's Sunnis succumb to forced ethnic cleansing, they will be fulfilling the proposed agenda of a partitioned "end of Iraq" long favored by Peter Galbraith and Leslie Gelb. In this scenario, the Sunnis are being asked to end support for the insurgency in exchange for second-class status in an Iraq dominated by Shiites, Kurds and the United States. Relocated and trapped in their enclaves, the Sunnis will likely become more radicalized, not less, allying themselves with homegrown al-Qaeda units and Sunni exiles next door in Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. There they will continue fighting for the restoration of Baathist officers to protect their zones, and demand an equitable share of oil revenues and job funding. If necessary, they may even create a parallel entity seeking diplomatic recognition from their neighbors. [al-Qaeda already claims to be establishing a provisional Islamic state in Sunni-populated areas.]

It is little remembered that President Bush spoke of such a scenario just after the September 11, 2001 attacks. He promised not only to pursue those he termed terrorists and states harboring terrorists, but also of plans to "turn them one against another" until they would have "no refuge and no rest." Those words are coming true in Iraq. [speech to Congress, Sept. 20, 2001]

But the escalation can flounder. More American troops means more hated occupiers, even if they come promising jobs. More American troops mean more targets for snipers. If the American surge becomes overwhelming, the insurgents always can retreat to other battlefronts, and wait, like modern Lilliputians against Gulliver.

First, however, the battle will be at home, state by state, district by district. Bush must convince the Democrats and several wavering Republicans to join him in snubbing the November 7 election results and the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. That will not be easy, but the Democrats may compromise on funding some sort of escalation with the usual "benchmarks." In that case, the 2008 elections will play out as a struggle to either uphold or reverse the peace mandate of November 2006.

 

[STING2]

Here's another article to supplement your other one, Irvine.

Both General Casey and General Abazaid have repeatedly said, they do not support any sort of pre-mature withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq. They do not support some arbitrary time table to withdraw troops or the ISG's recomendation that most US combat brigades should be withdrawn from Iraq by early 2008. It is the Democrats in congress, not President Bush, who are out of step with the recomendations of the US military on the ground in Iraq.

The only disagreement between the President the and some in the military as well as within the military is over the nature of a 20,000 troop "surge", which based on the plans that have been released so far, is not actually a troop increase at all, but rather simply the delaying of return and speeding up of deployment of various combat brigades in and out of Iraq so as to achieve a temporary increase of the number of forces in country for a few months. It has happened before, and no one complained last year when it brought the number of US troops in Iraq to over 160,000. The latest "surge" will bump the troop level up to 153,000 briefly.

The above article also leaves out the fact that the Presidents plans either continue or adopt several of the recomendations made in the ISG report. Everyone seems to focus on two of the recomendations that the President does not agree with and don't bother to read or discuss the other 70 or so recomendations that are already being implemented by the administration or are being adopted by the administration to a certain degree.

 

[STING2]

Congress should actually try to come up with an alternative plan that will stabilize Iraq, and reduce Al Quada's presence there. If they really believe withdrawing US troops is the answer, then they need to explain how an Iraqi military that is years away from being able to operate on its own is to be expected to be able to suddenly take over the entire mission that the 160,000 man coalition is performing. Even with the political compromises that are needed between various factions in Iraq, without a strong and capable security force to implement any such plan, it will fail. That is why any plan that withdraws US forces before the Iraqi military has the capability to peform the same missions will fail. There are Sunni and Shia factions that will never compromise, and the central government must have a military force to defeat and roll back such factions. None of the Democratic congress's proposals does anything to insure that the Iraqi's will have all the capable security forces it needs prior to any sort of US withdrawal. All it is, is a blind and mindless attempt to get US troops out of Iraq as soon as possible without seeming like it is a total abandonment of the country.


If Democrats believe that a stable Iraq that is not hostile to its neighbors is vital to US, regional and global security, then they need to develop a flexible strategy that has a chance to accomplish that rather than the blind rush to simply withdraw troops regardless of conditions in Iraq or the capability and strength of the Iraqi military and government.

The ultimate irony is why if Democrats are serious about fighting Al Quada, they are in such a rush to leave Iraq where Al Quada is more active, but say nothing about a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan where Al Quada operations(not Taliban operations) or rare or non-existent compared to Iraq. Al Quada's leadership which is primarily Arab would continue to have an easier time operating in an abandoned Iraq than they did in non-arab Afghanistan where it was easier to detect their presence among the population.

Cutting off funding to US troops in the field or restricting the Presidents flexibility as Commander In Chief does NOTHING to address the security challenges the country faces and will only embolden the enemies of the country that seek to create domestic political division at home so as to force a pre-mature withdrawal of US forces from the region. Insurgencies usually succeed because they are able to effectively raise the cost to the occupier to a degree that causes enough political opposition domestically for the occupier, that the effort can no longer be sustained.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Right now in Somalia the war on terror is being fought; a similar model could be employed in a lot of places.

For all the talk of fighting a different type of war it seems as if the model has regressed.

 

[yolland]

In what way do you see Somalia being a model?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I mean that rather than occupation and having your troops do grunt work of security it is better to augment other forces with intelligence and satellite information, naval and aerial support and the possible use of special forces to kill Al Qaeda terrorists. I thought that was what 'a different kind of war' meant.

 

[Irvine511]

I mean that rather than occupation and having your troops do grunt work of security it is better to augment other forces with intelligence and satellite information, naval and aerial support and the possible use of special forces to kill Al Qaeda terrorists. I thought that was what 'a different kind of war' meant.

and this is what i thought we were talking about way back in October of 2001.

but i suppose we need land wars across the desert to guarantee re-election.

 

[deep]

Geoffrey Wawro, 46, director of the Military History Center at the University of North Texas in Denton. Once a Republican, he is now registered independent.

"To say that the only way to bring peace, tranquillity and security to this troubled region is to implant democracy there is a fool's errand. The United States can't be in the business of creating democracies in countries that have authoritarian traditions…. I find it to be stupefyingly naive….

"Why we are even tolerating talk about more troops for Iraq baffles me…. We should leave [the Iraqis] to settle their affairs their own way. It won't be any messier and bloodier than it already is.

"Why should American boys and girls be standing in the line of fire? The only argument you can make is that we created this mess and we should fix it. But the American people aren't going to accept that anymore."

 

[namkcuR]

^
Great quote.

 

[deep]

U.S. raid on Iranian consulate angers Kurds


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military operation Thursday in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil that resulted in the arrests of six Iranians has drawn a sharp denunciation from Iraq's Kurdish regional government.

A spokesman for the autonomous regional government and its presidency expressed their "alarm" and condemned the Thursday morning operation.

They characterized it as a raid on the Iranian consulate in Irbil, "which opened in the provincial capital in an agreement between the Iraqi government and the Iranian government."

The Kurdish regional government is based in Irbil.

The Kurdish statement, which includes a call for the immediate release of the detainees, says the consulate is entitled to immunity in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.

The statement also says the Kurdish government, which covers the provinces of Irbil, Sulaimaniya and Duhuk, needs to be informed when such actions are taken.

Iraqis, the Shia and some Kurds have and want relations with Iran.

The Kurds considered them allies against Sadddam and the Sunnis.

Do American troops have any right to interfere?

 

[Irvine511]

for those who support either the upcoming "surge" or who think that staying the course is an acceptable option, there's a fundamental misunderstanding: there is no national democratic government in Baghdad defending itself against attacks for Jihadist insurgents that needs American support so that democracy might flourish.

this government does not exist -- the government that was elected and is so championed by Bush and others is little more than a guise for various Shiite factions and death squads. this is the realitly on the ground. it doesn't matter what our intentions are or what we wish to believe. when we support the current Iraqi government we are aligning American soldiers and their resources with Shiites thusly sending a terrible message to the Sunnis of the Middle East.

it is not "democracy vs. insurgents." it might have been in early 2004, but no longer.

would it really be worse if we pulled out or redeployed? or would the withdrawal of American troops and their transition into more of an advisory role (from Kurdistan) remove the Western/colonialist element to the current civil war that might, then, keep it contained to Iraq's borders and not involve Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others?

how do we ask more American soldiers to die for a strategy that has no chance of working and will likely spur more regional violence?

(and shall we mention that none of our "allies" wants anything to do with the current "surge"?)

 

[STING2]

The same things were said about Bosnia and the professor is ignoring the fundamental security priorities that the United States cannot simply walk away from in the region.

 

[STING2]

Iraqis, the Shia and some Kurds have and want relations with Iran.

The Kurds considered them allies against Sadddam and the Sunnis.

Do American troops have any right to interfere?

There are plenty of disputes among the Kurds about what type of relationship they want to have with Iran. In any event, the Kurds have a much stronger and involved relationship with the United States than they have had with Iran since 1991.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Changes in tactics if delivered will do more than any troop surge.

 

[Judah]

As expected...

(click here for complete text of Bush's speech)

Does this:

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity ­ and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Mean this? (Say it ain't so):

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001869.php

January 11, 2007
Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran?

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

 

[STING2]

for those who support either the upcoming "surge" or who think that staying the course is an acceptable option, there's a fundamental misunderstanding: there is no national democratic government in Baghdad defending itself against attacks for Jihadist insurgents that needs American support so that democracy might flourish.

this government does not exist -- the government that was elected and is so championed by Bush and others is little more than a guise for various Shiite factions and death squads. this is the realitly on the ground. it doesn't matter what our intentions are or what we wish to believe. when we support the current Iraqi government we are aligning American soldiers and their resources with Shiites thusly sending a terrible message to the Sunnis of the Middle East.

it is not "democracy vs. insurgents." it might have been in early 2004, but no longer.

would it really be worse if we pulled out or redeployed? or would the withdrawal of American troops and their transition into more of an advisory role (from Kurdistan) remove the Western/colonialist element to the current civil war that might, then, keep it contained to Iraq's borders and not involve Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others?

how do we ask more American soldiers to die for a strategy that has no chance of working and will likely spur more regional violence?

(and shall we mention that none of our "allies" wants anything to do with the current "surge"?)

The current Iraqi government goes far beyond the 30 seats held by Al Sadr's supporters. Not all Shia's inside or outside of the government are engaged in militia's and ethnic cleansing. The Kurds, Sunni's and other minorities are well represented in the current government. There are certainly a lot of problems, but the government does exist. It may be very divided, but that was the case with Bosnia's first democratic government.

One could also make the arguement that when we support the government in Kabul, we are really supporting the Northern Alliance against the Pashtun in the south of Afghanistan. But this is not the case. Supporting the central governments in both Kabul and Baghdad is the best way to bring about stability to these two countries.

Many of the same "power players" that were there in 2004, are still there in 2007. The key difference between 2004 and the start of 2007 is that 3 years ago, there was essentially no Iraqi government or military, but you did have a Sunni insurgent movement and Shia militia's unwilling to cooperate with the coalition. Now in 2007, there is large and growing Iraqi military and a central government that represents every part of Iraq. The strength of Sunni insurgents and Shia's militia's is unchanged since 2004, but now they have to contend with the growing strength of an Iraqi central government and military. The Sunni insurgents and Shia militia's while still a threat are locked at the same level of capability they had three years ago. In contrast, the Iraqi military and government are rapidly growing and are supported by the strongest country and its allies, on the planet.


If you pull the coalition out now, all of what has been built over the past 3 years is at risk of rapidly crumbling. While the Iraqi military has made great strides and grown rapidly, it cannot logistically support itself, has no aircraft, and very little in the way of armor or artillery. Only a fully formed and capable Iraqi military will be able to protect the central government and bring security to the country. Pulling out prematurely will likely cause the collapse of the Iraqi government and military, and create the civil war that so many love to believe is already happening. A real civil war with 2 million Iraqi's murdered in the years following a pre-mature withdrawal would be likely.

No one suggest that the US military should withdraw from Afghanistan to Uzbekestan in order to help develop the Afghan military, nor does it make any sense to exlusively train and develop Iraq's military forces essentially outside of the country.

Without US forces in Iraq, elements from Syria and Iran will find it easier to interfer inside Iraq, especially if the United States withdraws prior to the Iraqi military being ready to handle the countries security problems. A total collapse into a Civil War could see Syrian and Iranian military units on the ground in Iraq. The only way to contain any sort of instability inside Iraq is to stay inside the country. Just look at what happened to Afghanistan after the Soviets left in 1989. Al Quada will find it much easier to base themselves in a broken and lawless Iraq created by the pre-mature withdrawal of coalition forces. Much easier than in Afghanistan where they did not speak the language and were ethnically different and easy to spot.

How can we abandon the only strategies that have been proven to work in nationbuilding and counter insurgency, and have accomplished so much already in Iraq? How can we simply leave Iraq to be Al Quada's play ground, leave Iraq to the slaughter of a war that will claim millions of lives, perhaps resulting in a new power within the country just as hostile or more hostile than Saddam was? The Planet remains tremondously dependent on Persian Gulf oil and will continue to be for years to come regardless of what happens with alternative energy development. The future of Iraq given its proximity to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will have an obvious impact on the security of the planets most vital energy reserves.

The arguements being advanced to call for withdrawal from Iraq could be used to call for withdrawal from Afghanistan, yet I don't here any Democrats calling for that despite the fact that Al Quada(not the Taliban) is more active in Iraq than Afghanistan currently.

 

[STING2]

As expected...

(click here for complete text of Bush's speech)

Does this:

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity ­ and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Mean this? (Say it ain't so):

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001869.php

January 11, 2007
Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran?

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

The better question to be asking is if Iran and Syria have been engaged in a low level secret war against the United States. Most of the information shows that most Sunni insurgent groups and Shia militia's operate independently of any real serious support from outside the country. But if new intelligence is starting to show that Syria and Iran are engaging or esculating any sort of involvement in the conflict, than at some point this will have to be addressed. Syria and Iran need to know that they do not have a free hand in Iraq, and if they seek to destabilze Iraq and threaten US and regional security, they may face serious consequences for such actions.

 

[Irvine511]

you've missed the point. this isn't a "stay or go" discussion. it's a change in TACTICS because what's currently going on is most assuredly not working.

the key assumption in the above post is that the alternative -- total chaos -- to what is currently going on -- chaos -- is far worse and we therefore have no other option than to continue to pour more blood and treasure into the current sinkhole. it sounds suspiciously like the tired, debunked WMD argument -- they pose a threat! if we don't act we'll be annihilated!

(it's also laughable to compare desperate Afghans to pissed-off Sunni jihadists, or the tiresome and irrelevant Bosnia comparisons -- tell me, again, how Bono supported Bosnian intervention and therefore he supports Iraq, even though he doesn't, but that support for military intervention in one situation is therefore support for military intervention in ALL situations, please, let's hear that one again -- but that's another matter, but hey, whatever convenient comparison you can muster)

many are proposing a withdrawal to Kurdistan that will allow the Shia government/death squads to come to some sort of settlement with the Sunnis without a foreign element mucking things up and making the wider understanding of the conflict less "Islam vs. America" and more "Islam vs. Islam." we might have to abandon control of the region in order to let the region stabilize itself.

by blaring into a bullhorn (which doesn't seem to garner any support) about the impending disaster if there is some sort of change in tactics causes an ossification of thought that has been the downfall of this administration since it took power in 2000.

 

[Judah]

But if new intelligence is starting to show that Syria and Iran are engaging or esculating any sort of involvement in the conflict, than at some point this will have to be addressed. Syria and Iran need to know that they do not have a free hand in Iraq, and if they seek to destabilze Iraq and threaten US and regional security, they may face serious consequences for such actions.

Riiiight...reliance on, er, reliable intelligence. I can't wait for them to contract Powell to make another presentation to the UN.

I thought that one commentor (after the blog's post) implied an interesting angle: the U.S. may be able to gather "evidence" that shows that Iran and Syria are getting more and more involved and use that as an excuse for an exit strategy. "Hey, you guys are meddling and making things worse, so you fix this. We're outta here."

But somehow i doubt that'll happen.

 

[STING2]

you've missed the point. this isn't a "stay or go" discussion. it's a change in TACTICS because what's currently going on is most assuredly not working.

the key assumption in the above post is that the alternative -- total chaos -- to what is currently going on -- chaos -- is far worse and we therefore have no other option than to continue to pour more blood and treasure into the current sinkhole. it sounds suspiciously like the tired, debunked WMD argument -- they pose a threat! if we don't act we'll be annihilated!

(it's also laughable to compare desperate Afghans to pissed-off Sunni jihadists, or the tiresome and irrelevant Bosnia comparisons -- tell me, again, how Bono supported Bosnian intervention and therefore he supports Iraq, even though he doesn't, but that support for military intervention in one situation is therefore support for military intervention in ALL situations, please, let's hear that one again -- but that's another matter, but hey, whatever convenient comparison you can muster)

many are proposing a withdrawal to Kurdistan that will allow the Shia government/death squads to come to some sort of settlement with the Sunnis without a foreign element mucking things up and making the wider understanding of the conflict less "Islam vs. America" and more "Islam vs. Islam." we might have to abandon control of the region in order to let the region stabilize itself.

by blaring into a bullhorn (which doesn't seem to garner any support) about the impending disaster if there is some sort of change in tactics causes an ossification of thought that has been the downfall of this administration since it took power in 2000.

It is essentially a stay or go discussion given the proposals to withdraw all US forces from Iraq. The nationbuilding and counterinsurgency process that has accomplished so much already will be stopped in its tracks if the US military is forced to withdraw prematurely.

The United States military is performing an enormous number of security tasks throughout Iraq currently. Who exactly will be performing these vital tasks if the United States military is no longer there in a year or so? The Iraqi military currently is not large enough or capable enough to take over the vital security role that the coalition military currently plays. Without the coalition forces in place in Iraq or something equal to replace it, disaster would likely ensue.

Saddam's Iraq posed an enormous threat to the region. His invasion of Iran, Kuwait, attacks on Israel, and Saudi Arabia risking the planets energy supply are not fairy tails, nor was the fact that he used WMD more times than any leader in history. Given Saddam's past behavior, the huge war the USA had already fought against him, the Billions being spent every year in trying to contain him that was failing, the only way to insure that Saddam would not create more problems and put the global economy at risk was to remove him from power.

Now with that accomplished, a stable Iraqi government and military must be built that is not hostile to its neighbors to insure the security of the region. Abandoning the process now will only increase the chances of mass death in Iraq, create a stable base for Al Quada, and eventually lead to a new power in Baghdad that is potentially hostile to its neighbors in the south and a serious threat to US and global security given how vital energy reserves in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are.


I never once said that Bono supported the initial invasion of Iraq. He did support the war in Bosnia and Afghanistan though. I have no idea what he thinks would be the best way to bring about a stable and secure Iraq.

Bosnia was a real civil war. You had three ethnic groups that waged a vicious war for 4 years that murdered nearly 10% of the population. Iraq's will be stepping much closer to what happened in Bosnia if the coalition withrdaws from Iraq prematurely. Bosnia has important lessons for Iraq and other conflicts around the world.

Afghanistan has many of the same fundamental problems as Iraq does, although it does not have the Al Quada element that it used to, although Iraq does now.

All of these conflicts involve nationbuilding and counterinsurgency task and can be compared and provide lessons for similar conflicts.


Withdrawing some US forces to a small area along the Turkish border does nothing to help the current process that is under way. It is an abandonment of that process. It is a recipe for instability and massively increased violence on the ground in Iraq, with no or little ability to control any sort of an outcome. A real civil war in Iraq will not create the stability that is needed, it will kill millions of people though and lead to involvement of countries like Syria and Iran.

Why would the Shia be more likely to make more compromises with their Sunni partners if the United States is no longer helping take care of the vital security functions on a daily basis? How long would any government be able to survive without coalition forces on the ground, given that the current Iraqi military could probably at best compatently replace only about 30% of the daily security functions that the coalition performs? How would they be able to deal with the Sunni and Shia insurgents and militia's that will NEVER compromise and will have to be destroyed or greatly rolled back?

If you think the Iraqi government and military is ready to take on all the tasks that the coalition military is currently providing, then you would have to believe that the current strategy has been vastly more succussful then even I think.

Withdrawal to Kurdistan or out of the country is NOT a strategy or a new tactic. You can only prosecute a new strategy or tactic if your actually engaged, and withdrawal is disengagement.

Democrats need to start talking about what they really believe in instead of focusing on their own political situation and opposing the President. The only way you could honestly support a pre-mature withdrawal from Iraq is if you believe that stability in Iraq is no more important than stability in Somalia to US security. If Democrats do believe that a stable Iraq is important to US Security, then they need to explain why abandoning all of what has been accomplished the past four years will make Iraq more stable and benefit US security. How can the Iraqi military replace the vital functions that the coalition is currently performing when it is still likely four years away from having all the resources and capabilities it needs to function independently of any outside aid. There is a process in place that is working, and its not at all clear how abandoning the process, doing nothing, will bring stability to Iraq.

 

[deep]

Syria and Iran need to know that they do not have a free hand in Iraq, and if they seek to destabilze Iraq and threaten US and regional security, they may face serious consequences for such actions.

Sure they don't have a free hand.

But, what if Iraqis or Iraqi Government invites them in?


Does America (Bush Admin.) have a free hand in Iraq?

They seem to think they do.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The United States military is performing an enormous number of security tasks throughout Iraq currently. Who exactly will be performing these vital tasks if the United States military is no longer there in a year or so?

Unless the Iraqi Military gets ongoing support I would imagine theocratic militia; but then given the coalition support for the Badr brigades this would almost seem to be the intention.

 

[Irvine511]

so ... boiling it all down, you think US troops need to stay because the Iraqi army is too incompetent to provide stability in Iraq. accomplished "so much" already? it's been four years.

this is a total misformulation. and i'm not going to get dragged into your obfuscations.

again, as stated before, this is not a situation where Al-Qaeda occupies large parts of Iraq and is waging a battle against the Americans and the Iraqi government. therefore, sending in more American troops into Baghdad and al-Anbar to help the Iraqis retake neighborhoods that have fallen to Al-Qaeda is not an answer. it's wishful thinking.

if a guerrillia group can bomb an apartment building in a Shiite neighborhood, the civil war will continue. reprisals are very, very easy to provoke, and a state of constant reprisal is not a solution. a "clear and hold" strategy will not work in Iraq because you need a sympathetic civilian population, and polls suggests that Sunnis overwhelmingly support violence against the US.

indeed, the problem isn't "Al-Qaeda" or "the insurgency" -- these are jihadists who've appropriated either name, or been dubbed with such a name to make it easier for Western audiences to understand. note that when Al-Zarqai was killed, "the insurgency" raged on as if nothing had happened.

the American/Iraqi (read: Shiite) forces can continue to fight and to think they've pacified neighborhoods because a guerrilla does not have to hold territory to be effective. all that needs to happen are mor events like the mosque at Samarra and a wave of violence washes over the country again and again and again.

 

[STING2]

Riiiight...reliance on, er, reliable intelligence. I can't wait for them to contract Powell to make another presentation to the UN.

I thought that one commentor (after the blog's post) implied an interesting angle: the U.S. may be able to gather "evidence" that shows that Iran and Syria are getting more and more involved and use that as an excuse for an exit strategy. "Hey, you guys are meddling and making things worse, so you fix this. We're outta here."

But somehow i doubt that'll happen.

The United States did not have any troops on the ground in Iraq when Powell made his speech. US forces in Iraq have found very modern Russian built surface to air missiles and other equipment with insurgents that is obviously not domestically produced unless you think the insurgents have special powers. A dozen or so foreign arab's including some Syrians were found on Haifa street in Baghdad armed with motars and RPG's.

I still think most of the information and evidence shows that Iraq's insurgents and militia's get their supplies and funds from inside Iraq itself, but there are signs of support from outside Iraq as well.

 

[STING2]

Sure they don't have a free hand.

But, what if Iraqis or Iraqi Government invites them in?


Does America (Bush Admin.) have a free hand in Iraq?

They seem to think they do.

The Iraqi government does not want to invite forces into the country to bring down the Iraqi government obviously. As long as who ever has been invited is not there to distabilize Iraq, then there is nothing wrong with it. Iraq has already resestablished diplomatic relations with Syria and Iran. The United States has to work with the Iraqi government and military and does not have the "free hand" it had the day it first invaded Iraq.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that it is daft to suffest that Bush is looking for excuses to bring Iran and Syria into this given the degrees they have gone to to ignore or downright bury evidence such as the source of IED, missiles and light arms as well as expertiese.

 

[STING2]

Unless the Iraqi Military gets ongoing support I would imagine theocratic militia; but then given the coalition support for the Badr brigades this would almost seem to be the intention.

Most militia's have little ability to provide security beyond their own local area's, and do not have the capabilties that a national military force would have. The Badr Brigades and Al Sadr's Mahdi militia have recently engaged in combat with each other. This is definitely not something that can adequately replace the security functions currently provided by the coalition.

 

[A_Wanderer]

In the absence of a central government with a military or even an armed and regulated militia towns and cities will ally with local power and that has been shown nearly universally to be tribal / religious groups. It won't replace coalition troops doing security sweeps and anti-terrorist operations because the end of many of these groups is rule of the gun and Sharia. I would like to see a plan that can deliver and consolidate security under an Iraqi government where the secular parties have a balance of power but since that is not going to happen any time soon there are some big questions to answer.

Democracy cannot survive theocracy - especially when those theocrats view such a system of government to be blasphemous.