US Fights Three Wars in Iraq;
Tom Ricks of WaPo says that the US military sees itself as fighting 3 wars:
1. The war against Arab volunteers ("al-Qaeda")
2. The war against Sunni Arab Iraqi dissidents
3. The war against Shiite militias.
The officers he talks to feel good about the second war, which they feel has petered out as Sunni Iraqis have joined the Awakening Councils. They also think they have made progress against the foreign fighters, which they call "al-Qaeda." But they worry most of all about the third war, against Shiite special groups, which they allege deploy roadside bombs against US troops.
In my view, Washington always vastly overestimated the foreign infiltrators, who are a small group that cannot possibly be responsible for as much of the violence as Bush charges.
Likewise, they underestimate the activeness of the Iraqi Sunni Arabs. While the latter may not be fighting US troops as much in al-Anbar, they are still militant in Diyala, Salahuddin and Ninevah Provinces. And some of the operations blamed on "al-Qaeda" are actually those of local Sunni Arabs instead.
The US military seems to read all uses of explosively formed projectiles as Iranian and Shiite. I don't find that plausible and I see notices of US troops being killed by them in Sunni Arab neighborhoods.
As for the Shiite militias being the most dangerous of all, that would depend on what exactly you were planning to do to the Shiite population. It is certainly the case that the Sadrists could well take over Iraq in the 2009 elections, and that their Mahdi Army would then form the National Guard of Iraq, and that they are hostile to the US.
McClatchy reports political violence on Saturday:
' Baghdad
Police said that the final toll of the two explosions of Ghazil and new Baghdad markets reached 98 people killed and 125 others injured.
Five people (3 policemen and 2 civilians) were injured in an IED explosion that targeted a police patrol in Khadhraa neighborhood west Baghdad around 10:30 am.
Two civilians were killed and three others were injured in clashes between gunmen and the Iraqi security forces (police and army) in Kadhemiyah neighborhood north Baghdad around 5;00 pm.
Gunmen driving 13 cars (sedan cars) kidnapped three policemen who were in a check point near al Ferdous mosque in Ur neighborhood north Baghdad around 5:15 pm.
Police found five bodies in Baghdad today. Three bodies were found in Rusafa, the eastern side of Baghdad in the following neighborhoods (2 bodies in Sadr city and 1 body in Husseiniyah) the two other bodies were found in Amil neighborhood and Bayaa neighborhood in Karkh, the western side of Baghdad
Tikrit
Four members of Sahwa council (awakening council) were killed and nine others were injured in an IED explosion that targeted their patrol near Tal Mohammed village in the west bank of Shirqat town north of Tikrit city around 11:10 am.
A combined force (Iraqi police and the a force from Samara emergency brigade) raided al Jallam area east of Samara city south of Tikrit city today morning. The force killed four Arabic insurgents and the captured Safa’a Mohammed Abdullah al Khadawi, the assistant of Abo Mutasim, the prince of princes of Qaida.
The police of Sulaiman Bik area released two kidnapped people and arrested their kidnapper when they raided an area near Toz town east of Tikrit today morning.
Nineveh
two members of Sahwa [Awakening Council] were killed and six others were wounded when a suicide car bomb attacked a gathering for sahwa in the area between Makhmoor town and Qayara town south of Mosul city today afternoon. '
Reuters adds:
' SAMARRA - Six gunmen were killed and two policemen were wounded in clashes on Friday in central Samarra, 100 km north of Baghdad, police said.
HAWIJA - U.S. forces killed one gunman and arrested another after they had opened fire on a U.S. patrol near Hawija, 70 km southwest of Kirkuk, police said. Kirkuk is 250 km north of Baghdad.
TAL AFAR - Police killed three gunmen and arrested three others in Tal Afar, 420 km northwest of Baghdad, police said.
ISKANDARIYA - Two decomposed bodies with gunshot wounds were found Friday in Iskandariya, 40 km south of Baghdad, police said. '
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/03/2008 06:30:00 AM
16 Comments:
I wish I had sympathy for the dilemma the US is in.
But, I do not. The US got what they deserved. If you break into my house and start to hurt my family, we are going to fight back. We will escalate it until you get out of our house and leave us alone.
In addition to the Iraq turmoil, we have Afghanistan going out of control. Our militia wins the direct confrontation, but the Taliban control or influence all others. Gates directly asked the Germans for more troops and to lift the caveat to their fighting in turmoil areas. German government to the highest levels denied any further aid. The Canadians said that of other NATO countries do not provide troops, they are pulling out. The new Jones report issued last week is not favorable. This is another fiasco like Iraq was. The next president has a lot of challenges. NO ON THE JOB TRAINING for this one
The US desperately needs al-Qaeda in Iraq, real or imaginary. Most of the 30% of Americans who still support the war either believe the "we are fighting them there so that we don't fight them here", or think that the Iraq war is a clash between Islam and the West they have to win. If al-Qaeda were to be declared defeated then support for the war may sink into single digit.
As for the article about the 3 wars, it is quite reasonable for a middle ranking US officer to think like that, but the view from the top is very different.
The idea that the USA is investing so much in order to build a strong free and wealthy Arab Muslim state is ridiculous -- remember Big Oil and the Zionist neocons? Its clear objective is to maintain Iraq as a client state, and eventually as a tool against Iran too.
The US does not want ANY wars in Iraq. Just listen to the 2008 candidates. Before the invasion, the Americans correctly assumed that the Kurdish warlord will deliver the Kurdish population to them. They wrongly assumed that Hakim would deliver the Shiites, and that the secular Iraqis worshipped the USA. The plan was then to scare the hell out of the only remaining group, the Sunnis, into joining the others by using the Shock and Owe tactics. No war is necessary.
The USA still thinks that a client state is feasible (their extreme optimisim does not allow them to see reality,) otherwise they will be out like a shot. They will continue to fight some groups and befriend others in the pursuance of that goal: nothing strategic about who their friends or foes might be.
Ricks/WaPo link doesn't work.
Juan Cole said:
In my view, Washington always vastly overestimated the foreign infiltrators, who are a small group that cannot possibly be responsible for as much of the violence as Bush charges.
I don't think that Washington "overestimated" these types at all.
They may have over-dramatized their role for domestic U.S. propaganda purposes in pushing their continued commitments to the same occupation policies.
But I don't think they actually believe in a disproportionate military role of these 'infiltrator' types; it's just a useful way to sell the war.
If you talk about facing down the indigenous Shiite forces, it makes it harder to sell the continued occupation as being against foreign and global worldwide terror.
It makes it sound as though you're involved in controlling a civil war, which is of course the reality.
The fact that successful domestic propaganda needs are chosen over accurate portrayals of the occupation situation should not surprise us.
When John McCain says he will not surrender in Iraq, which of the three wars is he talking about?
Anyway, is it really accurate to call it three wars?
Isn't it really one occupation with three opposition groups?
It just seems like they (the administration) is continuing to make it up as they go along.
Off Topic, but I have to link to an absolutely brilliant essay concerning US/Iranian history with the roles reversed.
It is almost too good to excerpt but:
Some level of trade across the USA-Mexico border continues, as it always has. However, Mexican society has disintegrated into endless conflict, and tens of millions of war refugees pour into the United States. The American government sends agents to monitor the situation in Mexico and search for solutions to the instability along the southern border.
Iran cites this involvement as proof that the USA is secretly behind the Mexican insurgency. The idea that the Mexicans themselves want to resist the foreign, Iranian occupation is still not allowed on Iranian television.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan2.html
I very rarely come across an essay this good.
Sunni Arab insurgent groups have certainly released videos showing them using EFPs; where they get them from, whether they're sold on or however is something entirely different.
EFPs ? High tech ? Iranian ?
Not necessarily !
The IRA started using EFPs in 1919 .
All it takes to build them are pipes , a machine shop that can do welding and/or tap and die pipe cutting , and some explosives .
Any " full service " auto body shop on the planet can make EFPs - if there's a source for explosives .
Does anyone remember how many thousands of tons of h.e. disappeared from the Iraqi armories while their liberators guarded oil ministry property ?
If after almost five years of military activity the US military thinks its still got 3 wars on its hands (maybe 4 counting PKK/Turkey), then there is one thing we can be sure of. We don't have to worry about the new Iraq's capability to defend itself against outside forces.
If ragtag lightly armed opponents can keep the most powerful, sophisticated, heavily armed, highest tech, infinitely funded military on earth pinned down for five years (and maybe 95 to go according to an ex pow), then I'm that sure any regional power would conclude that its own puny forces would be totally obliterated if it set foot in Iraq with hostile intent.
From Tom Ricks' article:
"The biggest thing that makes this difficult to defeat is that the Iraqis don't care" about roadside bombs, said Col. Allen W. Batschelet, the division's chief of staff. "They don't turn in a lot of tips. We don't get a lot of help."
I don't think that requires any further comment.
We have many months (a political lifetime) until the general election. We have a budget put forward by the Bush administration that would fund Iraq at the expense of Medicare and other important domestic priorities. Here in Minnesota we caucus tomorrow night. It will be interesting to see who will be willing to fund the Iraq war at such expense.
"...3 wars:
1. The war against Arab volunteers ("al-Qaeda")
2. The war against Sunni Arab Iraqi dissidents
3. The war against Shiite militias."
What was expected? These elements existed prior to the downfall of Saddam Hussein with perhaps a fourth, that of the Irani influences, and a fifth, that of the Kurds who are off in their own little world inciting and fomenting the ire of the Turks. The battles Hussein had with the foreign fighters included the so-called 'Western' 'allies' who had nothing to do but destablise the Iraqis, creating the resulting 'Balkanisation' of the country. Perhaps the Balkans are now passé as a reference for political fragmentation, supplanted by 'Iraqisation' as the paradigm for societal and cultural disintegration never before experienced on a national or international scale.
We find, of course, the advertised intent of the invaders was to allow things to settle out mostly resulting from Hussein's overthrow, with people celebrating their collective liberation from a tyrant. The Americans should have been repaid with almost priceless oil for their efforts. Conversely, the Americans are paying far too much for their experiment in Middle Eastern politics, their policies drawn more from the Middle Ages than from some enlightened (unless one counts the lack of weightiness of thought) period. 'Priceless' becomes almost oxymoronic.
The potential for the fourth or fifth fronts has yet to be developed although they have had historical precedent, with the Iranis having fought the Iraqis in a proxy war in the 1980ies and the Turks making incursions into whatever country they felt was harbouring the Kurdish separatists, not unlike the Pakistanis who have been mollycoddling the Islamicists bent on irregular warfare.
All we have seen so far have been practice sessions and exercises, with the expectation that the Americans will tire of their misadventure, leaving the Iraqis with some variation on another kind of 'Iraqisation,' much like 'Vietnamisation' was supposed to have worked to the SoViets' advantage as well as the Americans. Similarly, 'Iraqisation' is likely to be nothing more than an oxymoron, taking what was intended to unify the country and rendering it shattered.
Once the imperialists' forces have left the regions of Iraq, we can only expect the simulators, whether insurgent or Iraqi national forces, to start taking things a little more seriously, perhaps to the point of patenting the IEDs and other forms of irregular combat, making mincemeat of not only the opposition but of any hopes for a national reconciliation. The old image of the Middle East as a collection of nests of scorpions will become a reality, leaving the natural resources untapped until some future generation is able to come to some sort of resolution.
Watching the recently developed "Gangland' series on the Hostory Channel, we once more wonder just how effective the Americans can be in a foreign country with little or no language skills and understanding while they are unable to deal with a growing and burgeoning gang problem in their own cities, even to the point of allowing members to enlist in the armed forces in order to gain valued military training and knowledge of various combat systems, not to exclude hand-to-hand combat, various arms, and other means of waging combat including mines and boobytraps.
If we consider the Hispanics fleeing across the border in greater numbers to escape their plights in Mexico and Central American countries to be "refugees," we might consider that there are any number of the refused to be harbouring some grudges against the 'Yanqui' who must serve as a scapegoat. Those oppressed have been long under the rule of others who've been trying to placate the American governments. Thus, we not only have people who truly seek a better life but those who are also seeking to make life harder for those who have some birthright to and in the United States.
We cannot see much difference in the Middle East, with Arabs and Persians taking on their own version of the 'Yanqui.' The only difference is the geography and the willingness of the various U.S.-based groups to act, now as gangs or later as freedom fighters for such entities as the "Nation of Azlan." Unstable alliances are built around ideologies, in American cities focussing on drugs and criminal behaviours and, in the Moslem countries, focussing on religious or other indigenous ideals.
Certainly, there is an idea of 'America' seen as the bastion of freedom that MUST respond to every and each call for assistance! This is the mandated or doctrinal imperative that results from an overactive imagination of the Americans about their righteousness and greater right to survive above all others. Adding the various vocal and heard minority groups that make even more fragile promises (such as Chalabi and his 'solution' for Iraq or the Zionists), the hearts bleed as fast the politicians' can make muscles pump, usually others' blood.
Just as there are foreigners who represent 'fronts' in various wars, even a portion of a majority in American culture can be seen as one or more 'front' when affronted by their own government, the same one that has created revolutionaries and insurgents around the World, even to the point of allowing them to gain access to the country itself to plot nefarious and violent acts against their hosts and hostesses. Countering these alien groups - as well as adding to their numbers - are the nascent internal forces that will attempt, like others outside the United States, to seek changes outside of the established political venues.
Like the American gangs, everyone will be concerned for their positions and will be posturing for prominence, perhaps not with drugs as the focus but with other resources that are deemed essential to existence. Iraq becomes, therefore, not only some place where 'those people' are competing for their places and positions but a model for what will be happening throughout the 'Western' World.
While it may seem 'undemocratic' to exclude various groups from any national scene, it might also be seen as humane to prevent would-be participants from entering into the fray, exposing them to unwanted and unnecessary hostile forces and actions, making them all-too-obvious targets for retribution. Thus, Saddam Hussein becomes almost mythic in his recognition of the dangers of too much inclusiveness and allocating too much power to those who either don't belong or would become internal enemies. While physical force was his stock-in-trade, the 'West' uses much more subtle means to achieve the same ends.
The direction of the 'enlightened' countries have been toward authoritarianism, even with spectres of the Stasi being resurrected in places like once-Great Britain and the soon-to-untied United States with their increased emphasis on surveillance and homegrown spying. Whether it's the UK Daily Mail revealing that "The [Regulation of Investigatory Powers] Act, which has been quietly amended several times (each time handing more powers to the public sector), now gives an unprecedented range of state agencies the right to listen to our phone conversations, tap our emails and open our post"* or the American intelligence agencies doing quite the same thing extralegally (or with signing statements), the sense of (s)elected government more and more approaches what some of us fought against in the 'Cold War' and others have battled against in Iraq.
And, what did we expect? That Iraq has been merely a 'front' for the duplicitous faces who have foreseen the potential for increasing their powers, the individual battlefronts merely diversion from the real objectives? War was once 'hell;' it is now the means for 'hell's' rebirth as a malignant tumourous growth industry.
* http://tinyurl.com/ywuse2
It's worth noting that your description isn't quite accurate. al-Qaeda in this context does not mean foreign. The coalition forces use the term Al-Qaeda Iraq (AQ-I) for a reason, because it *isn't* the same as AQ-Core. AQ-I has, for much of its existence, actually been a majority Iraqi organisation, rather than foreign. Iraqi Sunni Arabs joined up because it offered the best resources to fight the occupation and Shia-dominated government. AQ-I then overplayed its hand and that is why Iraqi Sunnis are now joining the Awakenings against it (whilst retaining their dislike of the government and desire to see the occupation ended). Hence, 'AQ-I' *has* been responsible for a significant proportion of the violence over the past few years, but foreigners haven't.
Similarly, attribution of EFP attacks isn't just made on the basis of the weapon - it is also the location, historical trends, the groups who are behind the attacks, and forensic analysis of the weapons themselves. EFPs and shaped charges have been used by the Sunni - but not to the same specifications and quality as those provided or designed by the Revolutionary Guards or Hizballah (yes, you can make crude shaped charges from pipes, but again, those recovered in Iraq are frequently of a far higher quality).
I am sorry but when did Iraq fail to be an election issue?
Since some paid propaganda idiot on TV said so?
Give us Americans some credit, sheeesh! We're not all idiots!
Post a Comment
<< Home