Bush Hints that he Will send More Troops
Dozens Killed in Continued Violence
Bush seems likely to try the "surge" tactic in Iraq of putting in substantially more troops, perhaps 20,000, in an attempt to take Baghdad and clear it of 'terrorists.'
Hope springs eternal in the human breast, which is the only explanation for adopting this stupid idea. The Iraqi masses are now politically mobilized, and they are well armed. There are 27 million Iraqis, and some 6 million of them in the Sunni Arab areas. 20,000 US troops is a drop in the bucket. Some are saying the US should try to destroy the (Shiite) Mahdi Army. The Mahdi Army is an urban social movement, and cannot be destroyed by conventional military forces. Bush is about to take us on another destructive wild goose chase.
Bush will come to Congress for another $100 bn. for Iraq and Afghanistan (it mostly goes to Iraq). Bush puts this money "off budget" and then reporters don't count it as part of the budget deficit!
Iraqi national security adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie suggested a new security plan for Baghdad, involving turning over patrols of more neighborhods to Iraqi troops. This has been tried before and it does not work.
Former appointed PM Iyad Allawi is calling for martial law in Iraq. Martial law is something you do when you have a strong army, and politics has broken down and threatens security. It isn't something you do when you have a green and ineffective army and the political negotiations are ongoing.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that Iraqi Shiite cleric and politician, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim said Wednesday that Iraq has become a base for terror and that no one is happy with the state of security in the country.
Al-Hakim recently called for US troops to remain in Iraq.
Ben Lando of UPI reports that negotiations between the Iraqi central government and the Kurdistan Regional Government over who is in control of petroleum found in Kurdistan and what the terms will be for its development are stalled. Qubad Talabani, the KRG spokesman, said that the Kurds would no longer be held hostage by Baghdad. The idea, seemingly enshrined in the Iraqi constitution, that regional governments can claim 100% control of all new gas and petroleum reserves is a way of guaranteeing the break-up of Iraq. Lando writes:
' News reports over the weekend claimed a deal on the oil law was close, though Talabany explained each glossed over major remaining issues.
He said while the Kurds have compromised on oil revenue sharing and allowing the central government to be responsible for this collecting and redistributing it, "the mechanisms for distribution of revenues have not been agreed upon yet."
He said oversight, technical and constitutional details "to ensure regions get their share of revenues" have not been finalized. This comes from the fear a central government, be it fueled by greed or a sectarian agenda, will not deliver on the money a region may be due. '
Jordan and Iraq may sign a protocol on security cooperation. Something like 15% of Jordan's population is now made up of expatriate Iraqis, and its own security is wrought up with that of Iraq (which is to say that that little kingdom is in big danger as we speak).
Some say there are as many as a million Iraqis in Syria, or around 5% of the some 19 million population. The UN High Commission on Refugees has run out of money to help them.
A kind reader sent along a link to this article from the SF Chronicle on Prince Turki al-Faisal, who recently resigned as Saudi Ambassador to the US. Excerpt:
' On the future of Iraq, Turki is encouraging direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, and is cautioning Washington not to consider partitioning Iraq into separate states of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. '
That doesn't sound very much like Riyadh's foreign policy, and may be among the reasons Prince Turki is outgoing. If so, a shame.
Reuters reports political violence in Iraq on Wednesday. Dozens died from car bombings and assassinatons.
Be sure to catch the new Engelhardt and Schwarz pieces at Tomdispatch.com.
Check out this new Iraq news site, Iraqslogger.
Peter Bergen and Michael Lind argue that terrorism is fueled not by poverty but by humiliation.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/14/2006 12:30:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
19 Comments:
Bush proposing 20,000 more troops and asking for $100 billion more are cynical, self-serving face-saving maneuvers and have nothing to do even with "hope."
If the Democrats go along, they share the blame again -- as they have by voting for the war in large numbers the first place -- and are committed, or will be painted again as weak flip-floppers.
If they don't go along, they'll be blamed for losing the war. ("If only we had stayed committed we'd have won, but the Democrats cut our knees out from under us.")
That, anyway, is the logic. Hopefully they won't go along, as they've promised, and will find some simple political statements of their own to show how strong that position really is. This actually could happen.
The Iraqi plan for Baghdad has a much better chance than Rumsfeld tragi-comical one:
1) US troops atract the insurgents. Baghdad Airport road was the most dangerous place on earth until the US troops left it. Now they will leave the whole of Baghdad.
2) The Iraqi Police, controlled to a large extent by the Badr gangsters, has no role in the plan.
3) The Iraqi Army check-points were kept small for fear of them attacking the US troops. Now, they will be made large enough to protect themselves, with armor whenever possible.
4) Advanced communications and video cameras will be used to ensure that death squads can be tracked until taken out by helicopters or captured. The civilians can protect themselves against small groups of attackers already, it is the large convoys they have problems with.
5) The US embeds will keep an eye on all the Iraqi units to make sure they follow orders and to prevent crimes.
"A people always minds its rulers best
When it is neither humoured nor oppressed."
20,000 more target-deaths. This maladministration is/are basket case studies...What madness...not a 'cent' of wisdom ever proceeds from them. I'm becomming speechless. What horrible ruin/usurpation to our commonwealth.
What happened to them in their infancy? The lowest-lowest-lowest self-esteem creeps in the world. They all deserve some sort of beck and bidding of a PisserPrize. How can we remain civil without saying, shit? Meditate and enjoy a bowell movement in their Name! Flush!
TomDispatch was great. If any person just spends a few moments reading, 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu...
Well, we've allowed these creeps to just about make every mistake in 'the book.' hush.
A "surge" tactic may have potent strategic impact--in W's upcoming battles with the Hill. If US troops are sent into what will be portrayed as courageous Battle of Baghdad against al Qaeda, Democrats in Congress will be loathe to cut funding and stand accused of abandoning the troops. Furthermore, Eliot Cohen, Barry McCaffrey, and the mighty AEI -Weekly Standard keyboard phalanx will all argue that it will work, provided it is sustained. Fox will do its star-spangled best to give it upbeat coverage and help W appear Churchillesque. All privately know there is insufficient money, manpower, or time to achieve any grand turnaround, but the example will serve to stoke a "Pelosi lost Iraq" legend in the US and aid the McCain (or maybe even Jeb) candidacy in 2008.
Joshua Landis just posted Six Brutal Truths About Iraq by Gen William Odom. Seems the truth is still a rare commodity in Washington's corridors of power.
Nice roundup Prof. Cole, as usual.
I think/hope that Iraqslogger site adds you to its links.
Regards,
Mark of regimeofterror.com
If I heard correctly (amid all the reports concerning Di's death and the investigation which has overwhelmed every media outlet it seems), Pakistan has released the "mastermind" in the plot to blow up ten international airliners by a jihadist group based in London. I remember the hype by the wingnut section on how this proved how insecure we are against the "Islamo-fascists" but memory seems to indicate that 5 of the plotters were released immediately and I think the rest detained in London were eventually released. This plot was the one which introduced the world to binary explosives so that the terrorists could sneak household bleach, a match, mascara and a tampon onboard a plane and blow it from the sky (when half the group lacked even a passport to get on an international flight).
Recently, another erstwhile jihadist was arrested locally (see David Neiwert's blog for an excellent rundown), who was trying to swap stereo speakers for a 9mm and 4 grenades (and the Golden Gate Bridge?) His nefarious plan was to place the grenades in trashcans, detonate them simultaneously and then to spring from hiding, firing at the fleeing infidels (too many A Team reruns?)
These came to mind following the odd story of the flatulent woman who became embarrassed by the stench of her product and started lighting matches on an airliner to mask the smell. It was laughed off but if she had been Muslim, I can imagine the headlines. "Muslim Jihadists use excess fiber to create explosive farts to disable planes"
Sorry but with the current level of ME discussion in DC, this has to be the silly season.
Professor,
Is there any suggestion that the size of Baghdad is shrinking? I remember before the war it being pointed out that there were roughly 9 million in Baghdad. If we assume the old rule one insurgent for 10 soldiers usually attributed to Sir Robert Thompson [although he pointed out it wasn't his idea] this quote "increased" would only be able to deal with 2000 more insurgents. Something tells me the numbers aren't that good.
Bush statement said:
"Syrians deserve a government whose legitimacy is grounded in the consent of the people, not brute force,"
Bush had 6 years to bring this to fruition. What did he do other than issuing this kind of hollow statements. His administration had proven that they are dishonest about their intention for Syria and the Middle East.
No Syrian will take this kind of statements from Bush anymore, few believed him in the first place. Their ears and hearts with an honest man, Mahmood Ahmadi Nizhad and the Islamic Republic
of Iran, they deliver, America cheats.
The President needs to understand that we live nearly in 2007 and not in 1916 Laurence of Arabia time as his VP and the Jews around him have convinced him.
America spent 400 Billion on killing 300,000 Iraqis and destroying an entire country beyond repair, a country and people that caused no
harm or threat to Americans. You are asking for additional 100 billion more.
Imagine if only 100 Billion Dollar spent on building the Middle East and saved the rest 400 Billion to pay for those American elementary
schools that are begging for handout. You will have much smarter American kids growing up. Imagine spending this cash on research and development of renewable and alternative energy. Rather, Bush chose to spend 500 Billion
on destroying the entire Middle East, claiming, this will bring in Democracy.
No it will not, it will bring terror, investing in smart Middle Eastern men and women who understand what America is and have the wish to bring this concept to the Middle East, that will bring Democracy.
Bush need to leave the Syrians people alone. This kind of comments gets Syrians in a lot of trouble and that is all.
On the 20,000 more troops thing, we actually just tried that. If you look at troop levels recently they're up around 150,000 from the 130,000 point they hovered at for the past couple of years. Between August and November we have kept or sent and extra 20,000 troops to Iraq. Here are the details. I doubt that it matters to the outcome but it would be nice to know whether this is 20,000 more to bring us to a 170,000 troops in Iraq level or if it's 20,000 to maintain the current "surge".
“When Ambassadors Withdraw”
Inter alia, having US forces in the Middle East (but not near Mecca) was intended to provide security/stability for the region and protect Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is now in a political war, facing the cascading domino thunder of Shiite ascendancy.
The US is mulling backing Iraqi Shiites as a solution for the civic strife in Iraq. To do so would be to declare a shooting war against Sunnis and bring Saudi into a shooting war.
So, America is on the brink of being on the opposite side as Saudi Arabia in a shooting war.
Might not Saudi (ahem) withdraw their Ambassador?
While it's little comfort, Bush's adoption of McCain's "surge tactic" may at least discredit McCain's status on foreign policy and prevent him from pursuing his warhawk stance in the 08 presidential race (and may even lead him to be eliminated from that race, sparing us another four years of warmongering).
Personally I think before we hand Iraq back to Iraqis for real that we, (meaning the USA, the folks that made the Iraqi mess an even messier mess) probably ought to have President Bush send 100,000 or more troops to police Baghdad. That's right. Police the place and put criminals in pine boxes or in jail. The worst violence in Baghdad isn't so much the high profile bombings engaged in by the insurgents and bona fide militia groups as it is by the criminal elements forming ad hoc "militias" and exploiting the fears and pocketbooks of their own neighbors.
American leave Iraq today, tomorrow Iraq will be a killing field and no one will be able to pick up the pieces. Except Jesus or Baha'u'llah maybe.
Prof. Cole,
If you have the time, I'd be very interested in learning your take on the "humiliation thesis" advanced in the Bergen and Lnd piece. The article is a nice, tight piece of persuasive writing, but does seem to suffer from the same kind of reductionism that typifies monocausal reasoning. The key most certainly can be humiliation plus poverty (plus a number of other unexamined factors). Part of the trick of writing such pieces -- and, moreover, getting them published -- does seem to be overstating the thesis, perhaps advertently in the hope that the single factor that the audience (policymakers, wonks, academics) will recognize the importance of the factor and bump it up in importance relative to others. If that is the game it really seems a pretty silly way to go about things, but at least understandable. But the alternative -- that the authors really mean that there is one and only one cause, and it can be summed up in an undifferentiated way under the rubric 'humiliation' -- speaks rather ill of the authors and those responsible for publishing it without a big fat qualification. In addition, I thought the data pretty slender. The only real engagement with history is the authors' repeated reference to Bin Laden's reference to the fate of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, a perfectly valid example. But surely one would be able to find more such historical reference pints, given the rich history of the region. And I thought the "demographic" research on terrorist cells completely inconclusive for a whole pile of reasons, not the least of which are these two: (1) even asuming that the cited studies have fixed on representative samples (a dubius assumption) the idea that jihadis cannot be motivated by concerns about the immiseration of the Arab world because they disproportionately come from middle- and upper-class backgrounds presupposes an unstated and perforce unproven premise that someone from such a background is incapable of having legitimate concerns about the overall immiseration of the people to whom they belong; and (2) picking studies of leaders of the various jihadi movements who happened to have gotten caught -- usually in very high-risk/high-profile attacks on Western targets -- does not seem to me to be a very good indicator of what motivates people to join the movement more broadly and to engage in "terrorism" or other "asymmetric warfare" on a more day-to-day basis.
Juan and other people, I have a question for you. I think right now, besides planning on withdrawal, we also need to be dealing with the very serious Iraqi refugee problem. An old estimate was that they lost an estimated 40% of their professional class, which undermines the functioning of the Iraqi economy and civil sector.
Also, the many Iraqi refugees that have left, for example into Syria or Jordan or Iran, are generally living in poverty and very poor conditions. Right now, we need to be changing our Visa policy to vastly increase quotas for Iraqis.
Anyway, my question is, how can we go about putting pressure on politicians to actually do something about this? It seems to me incredibly important, to do this NOW and do something about the refugee situation before we leave.
more on this: http://www.americanfootprints.com/drupal/
Dear Dr. Cole,
What do you think about impeachment? Is it just a partisan issue, or is it about the rule of law?
Is lying to start a war, needlessly causing the deaths of 650,000, another 1.8 million refugees, and who knows how many wounded, orphans and other casualties. Isn't it obvious that this is the very definition of an impeachable High Crime?
What can we do about it when our Congress seems intent on doing nothing?
UFPJ has another Saturday afternoon march planned- think that'll do it? ha ha
Beirut has hundreds of thousands camping during their OPEN-ENDED protest... why can't we do that?
Would you consider putting up a small side banner on your site, and encouraging others to do the same?
Wouldn't it be cool if every anti-bush blogger did the same.
If not now, when?
If not you, who?
It seems to me that the opposition we face in Iraq is not a scattered collection of madmen. They have persisted against the worlds most technically sophisticated and powerful military machine. To do this they have to be very clever tacticians.
So if we "surge" they "fade" to fight another day. Why would Bush/McCain think that our opponents would stand in place while 20,000 armed to the teeth soldiers roar through Bagdad?
I think Glue-M has certainly made a great case against America's sudden withdrawal. The refugee mess is two fold, where ultimately do the refugees end up or do we simply force Jordan and Syria to handle it with their meager resources or do we expedite things along so Iraqis can settle in Europe, North America, Brazil or whereever and do we stay long enough to create the kind of stability that will bring a respectable proportion of Iraqi refugees home again to practice their sorely needed professions?
Juan, you've said it yourself, this is a 500,000 troop problem. Perhaps that is what Bush and his Democratic (hopefully) or Republican successor ought to do.
Remember, Juan said it first. It's a 500,000 troop problem. I wonder if anyone at the American Enterprise Institute said any different? Not that I'm apologising for the neo-cons. But Bush didn't exactly go by their script, hence all the damn trouble IMHO. Kristol and Company could have gotten away with it. Rumsfeld ruined it totally.
Post a Comment
<< Home