On How al-Anbar isn't that Safe
and on How its "Calm" is Artificially Produced
Bush made a surprise visit to Al-Anbar Province on Monday, as part of his propaganda drive to get Americans to think we should stay in Iraq because "progress" is being made.
The debate over al-Anbar province is driven by the Bushies' desire to find any 'good news' to grasp at. Indeed, from 2003 forward, their criterion for objective reporting on Iraq was that it gave the 'good news.' When there obviously wasn't any good news, they started ignoring Iraq, as at Fox [Republican TV] Cable News.
Now the 'good news' appears (I swear to God) to be that you can "walk" in Iraq. That's the good news. The 7 billion people in the world walk every day, in most of the world's locales. Now it is an achievement to walk. That's good news of the highest order. Only, if you are American in Fallujah you might need a company of Marines with you so that you can . . . walk. (See below).
Is al-Anbar Province really paradise, as Bush suggested?
Al-Anbar residents killed 20 US troops in July. The total US fatalities in July were 79 according to icasualties.org, and some of those were presumably from accidents, etc. So al-Anbar, despite being reduced to the stone age, managed to kill a fourth or more of all US troops killed in combat in July. Al-Anbar is roughly 1/24 of Iraq by population. So it killed six times more US troops than we would have expected based on its proportion of the Iraqi population.
That's what the Bushies are celebrating, that the deadly al-Anbar has been wrestled down to only killing a fourth of the US troops killed in a month. It used to be more.
In mid-July, There were about 100 violent attacks in a single week in al-Anbar. That's a bright spot. That's progress. Since the year before, there were 400 violent attacks in that same period.
Well, yes, that's a relative improvement. But a hundred violent attacks in a week? That's being touted as good news to be ecstatic over? There were probably on the order of 1100 attacks that week in all of Iraq. So al-Anbar generated nearly one-tenth of all attacks. But it is only 1/24 of Iraq by population, so it is more than twice as dangerous with regard to the number of attacks than you would expect from its small population.
Fallujah, of course, was a trouble spot for the US military. I entertain dark suspicions that Bush had it destroyed for reasons of revenge. The November 2004 US assault damaged 2/3s of the buildings. Tens of thousands of former residents are still refugees.
One of the ways "calm" has been produced in the city is to simply forbid vehicular traffic. Since May, if you wanted to get somewhere in Fallujah, you have had to walk. So when the National Review tells us things are suddenly miraculously "calm" in al-Anbar, this is being produced artificially. Things would be calm in most hot spots if you could ban all forms of locomotion save walking.
The problem with producing calm by banning traffic is that it leaves you with a Somalia level of economic activity. IPS notes,
' Residents say unemployment is above 80 percent. Most of the rest who have some work are government employees. The huge industrial area has been closed by U.S. and Iraqi Army units '
80 percent unemployment? Now that is calm.
"Calm" has also been produced by death squad activity. IPS notes,
' Hundreds of suspected resistance fighters are now held at the Fallujah police station. Many have been killed on the streets; the police speak of finding "unidentified bodies". Several of those found dead had been arrested earlier, eyewitnesses and families of several of the men killed have said.'
So obviously if you round up a lot of young men and hold them without charge, and if you wipe out some others, "calm" is produced.
Another way of producing "calm" is to silence local journalists. Some have been arbitrarily arrested and then let go, with instructions to report the news as the Iraqi police tell them to. So we don't really know much about what is actually happening in Fallujah.
IPS quotes a local Sunni cleric:
' "To say Fallujah is quiet is true, and you can see it in the city streets," said Shiek Salim from the Fallujah Scholars' Council. "The city is practically dead, and the dead are quiet.'
So, all these measures-- banning traffic, rounding up young men, silencing the journalists, etc.-- have at least ended the attacks on US troops, right? Wrong.
It was only last week; I mean, August 28 was not that long ago, but this one is already forgotten:
"BAGHDAD -- A suicide bomber detonated a vest packed with explosives in a Sunni Arab mosque in Fallujah yesterday, killing 10 worshipers, including the imam, and shattering what had been a period of relative calm for a region once the most volatile hotbed of Iraq's insurgency."
Now, if ten worshippers were killed in a church just last week in a small US city of 200,000, would Congressmen be flocking there to proclaim how wonderful the security situation was?
Just a month before, a bomber killed two policemen in Fallujah and wounded 11 others.
On July 23, a female suicide bomber killed 7 policemen at a checkpoint in downtown Ramadi.
On July 8, a truck bomb killed 23 persons at a police recruiting center in Haswa, al-Anbar province.
On Monday there was this in Ramadi:
' A suicide car bomb attacked an Iraqi security checkpoint on highway near the city of Ramadi in the western province of Anbar on Monday, killing two security members and wounding three others, a provincial police source said. '
Think Progress noticed this exchange between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and starry-eyed returnee from Fallujah, Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA).
"BOUSTANY: We’re clearly seeing some major improvements. Clearly in the Anbar Province, we’ve seen significant improvement. We were able to walk the streets of Fallujah. Sectarian deaths are down.
[…]
BLITZER: And Congressman Boustany, you say that the number of casualties is going down. But we took a closer look — and The Los Angeles Times did as well — citing Iraqi Health Ministry numbers. In June, it was 1,227 civilian deaths in Iraq. In July, it went up to 1,753 civilian deaths in Iraq. And in August, the month that just ended, 1,773 civilian deaths in Iraq. Those numbers are going in the wrong direction.
BOUSTANY: Well, I think what I mentioned earlier, Wolf, was the number of attacks. And, clearly, we have to look at all the metrics very carefully.
BLITZER: But statistics — you can play a lot of room with statistics. In terms of dead people, civilians, Iraqi dead people, those numbers are high and they’re getting worse, despite the increased military troop levels of the United States, the so-called surge having been in effect over the past couple of months.
BOUSTANY: Well, Wolf, I want to point out that just two or three months ago, I would have never thought that four members of Congress would be able to walk through the streets of Fallujah. That’s a major…
BLITZER: But you had a lot of security with you. You had a lot of U.S. military protection.
BOUSTANY: We had a platoon of Marines.
BLITZER: Yes, well, a platoon of Marines is a lot of Marines to walk through Fallujah. . .
Good for Wolf!
As for Bush,he knows that good news would be the Sunni Arabs in al-Anbar gladly signing on to the al-Maliki government.
Labels: Iraq


21 Comments:
Things were so bad in Anbar that what you mock is actually a great improvement! For some months in 2006 most, or nearly all, of US casualties were in Anbar.
You simply cannot stop suicide attacks by people wearing belts, so it is not a valid measure. What is valid though, is that there aren't no-go areas anymore. Soldiers walking there is near miraculous considering that they did not dare go to thos areas even in tanks before!
Falluja is much worse than the rest of Anbar because of the hatred towards the Americans who destroyed it (BTW the timing and an important reason for that was to enrage the Sunnis enough to keep them out of the elections few weeks away.)
The ban on cars is more to do with western Baghdad, ten miles away, than Falluja itself. It is now very likely counter-productive because of the very real improvements in terms of denying the Salafis a safe haven and the (temporary) ceasefire between the Americans and the Sunni resistance.
Speaking of security, in an earlier picture in the NYTimes, it looked like most of the people at the table with Bush in his 'war council' had been wearing body paint to sneak into the meeting. Here is the best picture I can still find -- notice the hands:
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20070903/i/r1325721302.jpg?x=380&y=217&sig=F.ISWLW5O.cnzxE2fQtDxA--
It probably is too much to expect that Democratic Senators would arm themselves with such information to challenge Petraeus when he comes to lie to them next week.
Who is Ali al-Fadhily and where does countercurrents.org get its data?
You may be familiar with the Fadhil brothers, Omar and Mohammed, who run a pro-US Iraqi blog called "Iraq The Model". You may know that these neocon favourites were invited to the White House in late 2004, where they were feted by Bush and Wolfowitz. You may even have read their WSJ Op-Ed in March this year, which was cited by Bush in a speech as proof of positive developments in Iraq.
But this time they have really out-done themselves. Here's how Omar Fadhil explains away reports of up to 4.5 million Iraqi refugees:
"...a good percentage of Iraqis who flooded Syria in the beginning of the summer season were just trying to escape the summer heat and enjoy a simple vacation, like my family did."
Can you believe it?
The surge-- "they created a desert and called it peace"
"Relative calm" is such a catchall. One Palestinan is killed per day on average, but when a half-dozen or more are killed, suddenly it's reported that the "relative calm" has been shattered. Does that mean the regular rhythm of killings is ordinary, that it's still calm and the status quo?
There was an article about it in Fair back in 2003.
As I noted yesterday at my site, they werte playing with the numbers. Better to compare Jan 06 with Jan 07 and proceed month by month:
Shown are Jan 06 deaths/Jan 07 deaths, followed by Feb, Mar, etc.
Jan: 62/83
Feb: 55/81
Mar: 31/81
Apr: 76/104
May: 69/126
Jun: 61/101
Jul: 43/79
Aug: 65/81
So the normally reliable McClatchy News got their graphic wrong for August. EVERY month has had higher casualties than in the year before.
We’ve declined from the May peak, but there was a similar 3 month decline from April to July last year. And more importantly, 462 troops died in the first 8 months of 2006, and 736 have died in the first 8 months of 2007. That’s a 59% INCREASE, as a result of Bush refusing his own Iraq Study Group’s recommendations to withdraw troops.
At this rate, Bush’s war escalation has achieved three noticeable differences: more US troops are dying faster, more Iraqis are dying faster and our main ally - Great Britain - is getting the hell out of Bush’s deadly folly.
Bush story is much a do about nothing, although I've wondered why he choose to go in an isolated military base in the desert of Al'Anbar : why not pay a visit to the new ambassy of Baghdad which, I've recently read, is just finished ? may be he was fearing for his own life ?
Alas this pseudo news eclipsed another one, which could be much more encouraging and is reported by the Guardian:
A small number of Iraqi politicians met lately in Finland in order to find a path to national reconciliation. Among them were Sunni of the Al-Dulaimi currents and Shiites of the Al'Sadr current, as well as another Shiite whose political link I don't know : Humam Hammoudi, the Shia chairman of the Iraqi parliament's foreign affairs committee. It seems that Martti Ahtisaari, a former UN official and the former Finnland president played a role in the organization of the meeting, where both South Africans and Irelandese told about their experience in how to overcome internal conflict/civil war. They were able to agree on twelve points, included the aim to end occupation and get foreign interference in Iraqi affairs and to get a time table for a withdrawal.
ref : Mr. Bush visits al Anbar in IRAQ
easy enough to pooh-pooh this news -not- news event as yet another example of Mr. Bush failing to command American troops, while shamelessly using them as photo-op props in his chosen rôle as cheerleader -in- chief.
otoh, brilliantly timed, quite effective propaganda:
(1) the retreat while under fire of British forces from Basra was effectively covered by Mr. Bush's event ~ at least, it was so in The States, where the British withdrawal (if it was mentioned at all) was effectively knocked from HEADLINE NEWS item 1 to mere mention news item 2, 3... most Americans would be shocked to be told directly that the ~5,000 remaining British troops are now gathered in defensive posture at the airport, slowly executing their final Misson = to exit airlift out of IRAQ.
(2) though Secretary of Defense Gates does say, "the dynamic of Sunni tribal leaders accepting American $$ aid, turning against the al Qaeda -type anarchists & criminals in their midst ~ pre-dates the 'Surge' by several months" ~ through the usual dissemblilng and verbal mashups, as well aided by the stenographic "echo journalism" of the American media ~ President Bush has effectively joined in the American mind and media the entirely bogus idea that "the Surge is responsible for some sort of pacification process taking place in al Anbar province."
Juan should be in a better humor. After all it's not every day we have Bush calling Anbar Province "one of the safest places in Iraq".
Also the Lebanese "Daily Star" has an editorial on al-Maliki today (link below). They write: "Maliki now possesses something truly unique among Iraqi politicians: considerable experience captaining the ship of state through one of the most turbulent periods of the country's history - and this while having constantly to cope with the ever-present impact of an American political season fueled by the arrogance and incompetence of US President George W. Bush and his administration."
However Anbar is more secure and we should laud their progress, because some very courageous clerics and tribal leaders are standing up publicly to denounce al Qaeda and related insurgents. In Fallujah they apparently have electricity 80% of the time now that the "Volunteers" are helping provide security. The US military was working with the Iraqi government to re-open a state-owned ceramics factory to provide some more employment.
Anbar province is still a very dangerous place and some tribes remain corrupted by insurgents. The Marines are also starting new combat operations in western Anbar. However thousands of Anbar men have became police officers.
Also I question Juan's focus on number of Iraqi deaths. Blitzer didn't mention that in August 500 Yazidis were killed by 2-4 truck bombs.
Finally US military deaths declined significantly in August from July. Link: Daily Star: "Better late than never: Iraq's prime minister finds a better way to rule":
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=17&article_id=85013
It's always "Three to six months" before "the light at the end of the tunnel"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraqi government has failed to take the political and military steps needed to cut sectarian violence, a U.S. congressional report said on Tuesday and a U.S. general said the next months were critical for creating security in the country.
They've been saying this since 2003
"Fabius Maximus" - DNI
Dr Cole - your Anbar assessment doesn't stand up to examination.
Using the Iraq Coalition Casualty count as a reference point:
In the 36 months 2004/05/06 Anbar averaged 30 US deaths (rounded up) per month. In first 8 months of this year, averaged 18.
For Baghdad, same time period, averaged 19 per month over 04/05/06. First 8 months of this year: 42.
Diyala, Salahaddin, Babil, percentages remain pretty much the same. In Ninewah have dropped from av 4 per month to only 1 per month this year.
The trends are clear: US casualities in Anbar have dropped dramatically this year but in Baghdad have increased just as dramatically.
Given that between 04 and 07 Anbar far exceeded Baghdad as the heart of insurgency activities accounting for 1118 coalition deaths compared to Baghdad's 810, it is plain that the situation has rapidly turned around for the US in that province but deteriorated in Baghdad.
The question is: who has been killing the US troops in Baghdad this year - is it the Mahdis? If so US casualties should drop now that Muqtada has ordered a ceasefire. Interesting times.
I wish Bush or someone under his command would explain how supression of violent deaths in Iraq and US arming of Sunni "tribal" forces to kill Sunni "al-Qaida in Iraq" leads to a modern, democratic, egalitarian state, or even close.
The reduction in violence, if it ever really occurs, cannot be a predictor of political behavior. I've seen and heard many Iraqi comments in the media about how the streets were safe under Hussein. Iron fists and calm streets have a healthy history throughout the world.
Dr Cole has repeatedly spoken of the relatively minor role al-Qaida in Iraq plays in the massive conflagration. So total elimination of that faction is unlikely to pruduce significant change. But when they are gone the tribes will be much more powerful because the US has taken them under its wing. A "Northern Aliance" come lately?
What it boils down to is Bush staring at a raging forest fire and pointing out trees that aren't burning yet. "Stop looking at the fire you idiots, and look at the trees I'm pointing to."
Are you denigrating the act of walking? If you had no legs, this would be a notable accomplishment!!!
(I'm not really saying this, but you know this is how the Chattering Classes via cable "News" would attempt to frame your comment....)
And now, breaking reaction from Nicole Ritchie about her 81 minutes in jail.
Prof. Cole:
I have noticed a theme, which perhaps you could address in a future post. What the Russians wrought, eventually, in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and what the US in Iraq, and Israel in Lebanon and the Occupied territories are creating seems to be a series of loosely controlled (or uncontrolled)'failed states.' Some refer to this as an 'Arc of Instability,' but I think we can view it somewhat differently. I think we may be seeing the creation of a 'proto-state' a region whose governing institutions have been completely and purposefully removed. This will allow for emergence of the kind of transnational Arab state that Nasser and Bin Laden have separately dreamed of, but could never create with powerful, effective states contending for power. These conditions are, in fact, similar to the vacuum created by the evaporation of Roman power in the early-mid 6th century and the collapse of the Byzantine Empire in the 15th. Do Bush and Bin Laden share the same goal - the recreation of the caliphate? It certainly seems so. In that context an Iran adventure makes perfect sense, by destabilizing yet another regime.
If only democrats would realize how easy Bush just made their job by going to Al Anbar AFB.
The fact that he couldn't get anywhere near Baghdad yet still had to sneak into Al Anbar is the clearest illustration of Bush's Iraqi failure.
Say it. Rinse. Repeat.
Denis raises an interesting point: I have thought that Dick and George's Iraq adventure was bad chess from the outset, and if the ultimate objective was to foil bin Laden's goal of rebuilding the Caliphate, then we were going about it all wrong. There is no substantial debate on the objectives, just "shut up and quake in your boots!" from our "serious" talking heads and politicians.
Why are these visits always 'suprise visits' if it is so safe?
I couldn't agree more with everything that you said. My husband is deployed in the Al Anbar province as we speak and even he agrees with you. We as Americans have the freedom of speech, but obviously Bush and his Administration have the freedom not to listen.
Two years ago, many of the Shi'ite areas in Iraq, particularly in the south, were hailed as relatively peaceful and stable, while most of the violence was centered in Baghdad and Sunni-controlled al-Anbar Province.
At that time, the U.S. was supporting the Shi'ite-dominated central government, and (unknowingly) arming and training the Shi'ite militias that had packed the security forces and the national police. The Sunnis in al Anbar saw the U.S. as working with their deadly enemies, the pro-Iranian Shi'ites who dominate the population.
Now, the Bush administration has flip-flopped. Perhaps they realized that any elected central government in Iraq would be dominated, by definition, by pro-Iranian Shi'ites. So they began courting the same Sunni tribal warlords who were instrumental in fighting the Shi'ites and their American supporters.
The Sunnis, realizing that they can now benefit from similar American arms, money, and training to better prepare themselves for future combat against the Shi'ites, have made their own "deal with the devil." In the short run, all they have to do is fight against the small percentage of the insurgency (Bush's surrogate 'al-Qaeda of Iraq) that they never trusted to begin with, in exchange for a windfall of American military and financial largess.
So, now the Shi'ites see us helping the Sunnis instead of themselves, and feel betrayed by the U.S. And, as we have seen, the Shi'ites have taken up where the Sunnis left off, killing Americans and literally running the British out of the formerly peaceful southern half of Iraq.
Of course, as the Afghan mujahideen and Arab fighters who opposed the USSR later turned their training and weaponry against their American benefactors, there is no reason to believe that the Sunnis, temporarily bought by Bush, will stay bought any longer than it suits the purposes of the tribal leaders.
The CIA have a term, "blowback," describing what many call the "Law of Unintended Consequences" that refers to short-term strategies that appear to be to our advantage, but end up being far more harmful in the long run.
The Bush administration, driven solely by concerns about the immediate domestic political effect
of its policies (and not just its war policies), is inevitably courting blowback.
Post a Comment
<< Home