Abizaid Opposes Withdrawal, Increase in Troop Levels;
Nearly 100 Killed, including 6 GIs
Hayden: Almost Satannic Terror
Reuters was able to find out about and report nearly 100 killings in the ongoing Iraqi civil war on Wednesday. Police discovered 55 bodies in Baghdad alone, and there were car bombings, firefights and assassinations. The deaths of 6 US troops were announced.
Here's how I interpret the contretemps Wednesday between Gen. John Abizaid and Republican Senator John McCain.. McCain wants to send another division, about 20,000 US troops, to Iraq.
Abizaid told him:
1) that would produce only a temporary improvement since the US doesn't have a spare division to send to Iraq for the long term and
2) Increased US troop levels are counterproductive because they remove the incentive for the Iraqi government and army to get their acts together and fight the guerrillas and militias effectively and
3) If Iraq is going to come back to better days, it will have to be primarily with Iraqi troops and
4) Iraqi troops are not now doing the job, so if more US troops are sent to Iraq it should be as trainers and units available for joint patrols, not as independent combat troops.
I'd just like to point out that most of Abizaid's arguments could also be deployed for a phased withdrawal, which he opposed. My senator, Carl Levin supports the phased withdrawal idea, and so do I. What if it isn't just an increased US presence that would remove the incentive for Iraqi leaders to compromise and/or fight effectively? What if *present* troop levels do that? I say, let's take out a division ASAP (20,000 men) and make it clear that we're never putting a division back in to replace it. Then let the Iraqis try to fill the resulting vacuum themselves. Give them armored vehicles, tanks, helicopter gunships, and a nice wood-panelled room where they can negotiate with one another.
And then after a couple of months I would pull out another US division.
Such a phased withdrawal is not guaranteed to succeed. It has a better chance of succeeding than the current policy.
Matthew Stannard at the SF Chronicle on the Ministry of Higher Education kidnappings.
Nir Rosen's anatomy of a civil war.
Here's what Director of Central Intelligence Michael Hayden really thinks of the Iraq situation:
' MICHAEL HAYDEN: In Iraq today there is criminality and lawlessness on a broad scale. In Iraq today there are rival militias competing for power.
Any Iraqi leader, no matter how skilful, is going to be hard-pressed to reconcile the divergent perspectives that I've mentioned. Divergent perspectives that Shi'a and Sunnis and Kurds bring to the table and also unfortunately very often bring to the streets.
And to deal with that, against a backdrop of an intentional al-Qaeda campaign of almost satanic terror.'
Here's what Bush makes him say:
' MICHAEL ROWLAND: The CIA chief believes progress is being made in Iraq, but the gains are very slow. '
You can't see it because this is not video, but I am doing one of those Jon Stewart double takes at the juxtaposition of these two assertions.
Louise Roug of the LA Times reports that Iraq's health system is very ill.
The 'I hate to say I told you so' Department: French Foreign Minister Dominique Villepin let Washington have it on Wednesday, complaining that the US-induced civil war has made Western policy success in the Middle East far more difficult. I guess we'll have to go back to calling them French Fries, even if the French never knew what we were talking about in the first place in that regard. They just call them 'fried potatoes' and I think they think they are American in origin.

|
Facebook





21 Comments:
The US generals in Iraq were selected by Rumsfeld because they agreed with him, not their ability.
They do not want to go down in history as losers either. The few dead a day are something they can live with; the Iraqi dead are Iraq's problem; and the quarter a billion a day is a good price for a victory which they shall bring.
The training scam won't work. The Iraqis need heavy weapons and to control their forces not training. The US wants to, but can not block them forever.
The generals, and most of the US establishment, think they "won" Iraq in 2003 and that "the spoils of war go to the victor." The spoils being, as Secretary Powel put it: "having a say in the future of Iraq" to suit the US.
Problem 1: the USA entered Iraq as a liberator. If it wants spoils it has to forever fight for them.
Problem 2: the Americans who are paying for Iraq have had enough
If the American society wants to leave Iraq, without the risks, it must work with the Iraqis. Make sure they get the weapons and the control, not imperial orders. The Iraqis can then terminate the legal basis for the occupation. As simple as that.
The French appear to (happily) cede the origin of the fried potato to Belgium.
I agree with you 100% regarding the phased withdrawal. However, I would like to know there is a complete plan that is thought out and then the public should be prepared. the congress mobilized to create cross-party concensus. Let all the politicos have the chance to state their position.
Potatoes are American in origin.
A note on the war on French fries:
The origin of French fries, like French toast and French dressing, is not France. It is French Canada. Try eating the local food next time you're in Quebec and this will be clear. They were probably imported to American cuisine via the great (yet overlooked) French Canadian migration to New England & upstate New York in the 19th century.
Neither French Canadians, nor the French themselves, refer to any of these items as "French" - just as Italians don't refer to Italian dressing as anything other than normal salad dressing.
So, taking the "French" out of French fries could never bother the French - or the French Canadians. It's actually an assault on an age-old American tradition of associating our foods with the immigrants who brought them to us.
In other words, "freedom fries" are anti-American.
We backed into this mess because we decided we were going to carry Sharon's water for him. Sharon, wily Likudnik that he is/was, recognized that the demographic bomb was going to destroy Israel as a theocratic state. The nuclear threat is minor compared to population and demographic shifts over the next fifty years.
One aspect of Likudnik home security is to have your potentially hostile neighbors under the control of a pet strong man (Mubarak, for example) or else have the country such a basketcase that it is only a threat to itself. Think Israeli policy in Lebanon since 1976 or so.
Iraq drawn and quartered gives Israel a bantustan buffer against Iranian land armies, a natural ally in the Kurds, who can also help keep Syria, Iran, and Turkey offbalance with their persistent nationalism, and a source for oil. Add in the possiblity of stabilizing Israel's water needs and Sharon's grandchildren can safely retreat behind their wall. The irony of a self imposed Pale seems to elude many of the ME planners at this point.
Don't forget "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."
How much longer do you think the Chinese will continue to finance our imperialist adventures? I mean, if they let us do it until we've ruined ourselves, we won't be able to buy their cheap imports. Sooner or later Wal Mart will have to step in and say enough is enough.
Or maybe that's what happened on November 7?
Iraq is a political problem, not a military problem. Congress would do best to give up on military tweaking and find a way to jumpstart a political process.
Congress should hold hearings with foreign policy wonks and diplomats instead of military commanders. Congress needs to demand that Bush justify his lack of pursuit of diplomacy in Iraq.
The Guardian : “President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources...”
Four-point strategy :
· Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq
· Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
· Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others
· Increased resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces
...still no call for the American People to do anything: eg., a national energy imperative to sharply reduce energy consumption in general, petroleum products in particular ~ perhaps with a J.F.Kennedy type of "within ten years, this nation will land a man on the moon..." vision for virtual energy independence coincident with large-scale University, institutional R&D to result in (similar to the Space Programme) stunning advances in Energy technologies, including HVAC, preservation/refrigeration, packaging/recycling, and of course transportation methodologies; and, less anyone failed to take note ~ none of the above "Last Plan for IRAQ" has anything to do with the real threat to America itself; ie., terrorism, and your neglected border, vital infra-structure security, and lack of competent response to natural / man-made events of Mass Destruction.
Professor Cole: "Give them armored vehicles, tanks, helicopter gunships, and a nice wood-panelled room where they can negotiate with one another."
Professor - I am puzzled by your suggestion that armor and gunships would help reduce the insurgency, much less the civil war. Could you elaborate? (If you have addressed this in detail elsewhere, I have missed it.)
As nearly as I can tell from following the news and analysis, armor and gunships haven't helped the US defeat the insurgents, and by at times applying firepower indiscriminately in civilian areas, they may have turned many Iraqis against the US effort.
I can understand the Iraqi army's need for heavy weapons to defend against conventional armies, such as the Turks or Iranians could field, but I don't understand why you think they would be necessary in the current "low-intensity" conflict (i. e., small-unit, hit and run), where many military professionals are advocating a change to what amounts to special forces tactics. I don't see the need for heavy weapons in that context, although well-armored Humvees would certainly help. Developing a robust Iraqi logistical capability -- including pay arrangements that don't require soldiers heading home with cash -- would seem to be much more useful to the Iraqis for the foreseeable future.
I'm not a military expert by any means, but I commanded a tank company for a year in the 60s, and I can assure you that except in open terrain, tankers don't like moving without infantry -- witness what happened to the Israeli armor in south Lebanon without infantry -- and that developing effective tank and infantry teams requires a *lot* of training and experience. I imagine the same would also be true of coordinating gunship support.
How do the heavy weapons fit into your view of winding down the insurgency and sectarian killings?
For Bob Gaines:
Of course tanks and armor would help the Iraqi army. If there had been a couple of tanks stationed outside the Ministry of Higher Education ready to blow away the Mahdi Army vehicles as they approached, Tuesday's kidnapping would not have been possible.
Tanks and armored vehicles cannot destroy the insurgency-- that is the point of the wood panelled rooms for negotiations. But if properly deployed they can be a force multiplier for the Iraqi military in providing more security than now exists.
The US armor and tanks aren't useful for this purpose because they aren't being deployed for Iraqi but for American purposes. E.g. the Pentagon has consistently refused to guard Iraqi ministries for over three years except if they happened to be in the Green Zone.
Trivia department: We have to thank the Belgians for waffles and French fries.
Folks -- they ain't insurgents! They are Iraqis, Shia and Sunni, trying to get rid of an unwanted conqueror much like their ancestors did, centuries ago, when the Mongol hordes laid waste to their land. This debacle can begin to unwind only when this realization totally replaces the neocon/neoKissinger mind warp.
The "reframing" of troop withdrawal as part of a positive strategy to put pressure on the Iraqi government seems to be catching on. Juan Cole was one of the first (if not THE first) to articulate this idea, promote it to the U.S. public, and make it available in domestic political discourse. Until this way of speaking was established, any thought of withdrawal without "victory" was deemed cut'n'run weakness. If this indeed turns out to be the path out of there (even if it is only a way of saving face) Juan Cole may have made a real contribution to ending one of the worst chapters in recent history. This is what being a public intellectual can really mean.
Now let's get this straight. Karrada is controlled by SCIRI. The interior ministry is controlled by SCIRi. The police force brigadier for Karrada is wait for it ... a member of SCIRI. The cars were police cars according to eyewitness reports.
And somehow or another you've come up with:
"ready to blow away the Mahdi Army vehicles as they approached, Tuesday's kidnapping would not have been possible.
On what evidence, Juan? The jaish are no saints, I'd be the last to say they are. I'd like something more than mere assertion for that statment though.
mfi
Gandhi's Plan For Peace In Iraq
Here are some concrete and much-needed steps that will make an IMMEDIATE difference to the situation on the ground:
1. Bush must announce immediately that the USA will be withdrawing 100% of its forces from Iraq as soon as possible. He must also pledge to remove US government advisorsfrom Baghdad.
2. Bush must announce immediately that the USA will not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq. He must also hand the Green Zone and other US-held assets over to the Iraqi Government.
3. The USA must immediately stop pressuring the Iraqi government to sign the proposed Oil Law, which will give US-based Big Oil control of Iraq's oil resources for generations to come. The Iraqi government must announce immediately that any changes to laws governing revenue from Iraq's oil resources will need to be approved by the Iraqi people in a referendum.
4. The current Iraqi government must immediately announce new elections, to be held after the last US forces have withdrawn.
5. The USA must immediately pledge to finance these elections, and the UN must be prepared to monitor them and deploy peace-keeping forces at short notice. The USA must also finance these UN missions.
5. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other regional powers must immediately pledge to respect Iraq's borders and support the elected government.
These simple steps will have the immediate effect of removing support for fanatical anti-US propaganda and terrorist groups. They will convince people that there is a peace dividend to be reaped if only they can wait for US forces to withdraw and elections to be held.
The Iraqi people have already shown that they are more than capable of holding their country together (mostly through religious and tribal cohesion) during such a period of instability.
These are immediate steps which can easily be done right now. In particular, let me say this:
If Bush is not prepared to renounce permanent US military bases and control of Iraqi oil, nobody should take all this talk of US withdrawal seriously.
As for withdrawing "with honour", the most honorable thing the USA can do now is to honestly confess to past mistakes, including the political manipulation of WMD intelligence, pledge to make amends to the Iraqi people, and hold those responsible for this disaster accountable.
I wish that when Generals like Abizaid testify before congress they read into the record a preamble such as this:
"I wish to make it clear that the testimony I am about to give is completely consistant with, and supportive of, administration policies. My purpose in being here is to lend the dignity and respect of the uniform to these policies. Please do not interpret my testimony to be the best judgements of an officer with my 40 years of experience. Such judgements will be amply covered in my memoirs upon retirement."
Hi Ghandi,
I agree with your proposals as they echo my own. However, the only way they have a chance of implementation is through the total overhaul of our current executive branch through impeachment. And the way things look now is for that to happen WE THE PEOPLE will have to rise-up and make it reality. Indeed, it looks like even a phased withdrawl will only be implemented through impeachment.
"5. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other regional powers must immediately pledge to respect Iraq's borders and support the elected government."
Of course Iran would support the new Shia dominated government. Would Saudi Arabia? Who would draw up the rules for the elections? What would they do if Sistani was not satisfied (again)? (I am not saying that I don't like your idea, just had some questions pop into my mind.)
You write: "Give them armored vehicles, tanks, helicopter gunships, and a nice wood-panelled room where they can negotiate with one another."
Who is "them"? Sunni or Shia commanders? It's guaranteed that whoever controls the copters would have upper hand in suppressing an opponent's militia formations or havens. Instead of reading about abductions by thugs "disguised in police uniforms," we'd soon read about "aerial attacks" on Sadr City by helicopters "disguised as Iraqi aircraft." Ministries and perhaps even the Green Zone would be targets. Next: a coup. Finally: the next Saddam.
The command and control of heavy weapons and aircraft would be the deciding factor in the "monopoly of force" that underlies the surviving regime. It would nulify any talks staged in paneled rooms. And, yes, it would suppress the opposition if the decision makers had no qualms about carnage.
Professor - I appreciate your reply, and would like to respond even though I suspect this thread may be moot now. (Over the weekend I was outside the front gate of Ft. Benning along with 20,000 others commemorating the many victims of the Latin American soldiers trained there at the School of the Americas; I am proud to say that there were at least 150 members of Veterans for Peace present, including one who had taught in the SOA.)
I've been reading your blog daily since 2003, and I recommend it to all of my friends interested in "informed comment" on Iraq. That's why I hope for two reasons you may be persuaded that advocating heavy weapons for the Iraqi army may not be such a good idea.
First, I agree completely with John Koch: "The command and control of heavy weapons and aircraft would be the deciding factor in the "monopoly of force" that underlies the surviving regime. It would nulify any talks staged in paneled rooms. And, yes, it would suppress the opposition if the decision makers had no qualms about carnage."
Given the reported despair of "democracy" among some Iraqis and the new enthusiasm in Washington policy circles for a "strongman" to replace the current Iraqi government, providing heavy weapons seems a dubious bet on some future government. In a situation such as Iraq is becoming, heavy weapons are mainly useful to a ruthless leader caring little about collateral damage and facing primarily civilians or untrained and poorly-equipped fighters.
Second, I am concerned about the specifically military problems with providing heavy weapons.
Apart from having ridden in them, I know almost nothing about gunships and their tactics, but my impression is that as with artillery, the person on the ground identifying their targets would be key to successful deployment against insurgents. If that's the case, training and allegiance become crucial issues. As I'm sure you know, in at least some instances in Iraq and Afghanistan, locals have provided targets for air strikes that had more to do with settling scores than defeating insurgents.
I am somewhat more familiar with tanks and their uses. The last place a tanker would want to be in combat is in a city where there is lots of cover close by for anti-tank weapons. As we have seen recently in south Lebanon, if the infantry can get within a few hundred feet, even heavily-armored tanks are vulnerable to relatively cheap and widely available armor defeating RPGs, such as the RPG-29.
A tank parked in front of a ministry would be a sitting duck without a continual infantry (or police) cordon to keep RPGs at bay (here's a chilling picture from Iraq: http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/rpg-threat.htm). That's not an insurmountable barrier to using tanks in this way, but it again raises issues of training and motivation for the infantry, and most acutely the problem of distinguishing potential attackers from friendly police or civilians.
The Iraqi insurgents have also demonstrated that IEDs can destroy even main battle tanks, like the Abrams. Avoiding IEDs requires close coordination between tanks and infantry, which means highly motivated (i. e., willing to investigate suspicious or innocent-looking objects for possibly booby-trapped IEDs) and well-trained infantry.
Finally, tanks -- and I suspect gunships -- are extremely dependent on good maintenance and availability of repair parts (tankers spend almost as much time on maintenance as other operations). Iraq is an extremely harsh environment for vehicles, and there's a good reason the Army says it needs $26 Billion just for repairs and replacements. If the US is having trouble with maintenance, you can bet it would be a very major problem for Iraqis.
To me, your argument for the best course for the US would be strengthened by dropping the suggestion of equipping the government with heavy weapons.
Again, thanks so much for generously sharing your expertise with us!
Post a Comment
<< Home