35 Killed in Bombings, 73 Wounded;
Petraeus Leaves Iraq Better than He Found It
In Baladruz, in Diyala Province east of Baghdad, a female suicide bomber attacked a homecoming party for an Iraqi soldier just released from nearly a year of detention in a US prison in Iraq. The bombing killed 22 persons and wounded 33. The returning prisoner, Ahmad Shukri al-Tamimi, appears to have been a Shiite who was accused of fighting for Iran-backed militias. Likely he was killed by a Sunni group such as the Islamic State of Iraq or the 1920 Revolution Brigades. The bombing killed a number of high-ranking police officers in Baladruz,who were at the party. A lot of police in Diyala are Shiite because the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim won the provincial elections there in January, 2005. Diyala is though to actually have a Sunni majority.
In Baghdad, guerrillas set off 2 bombs near the passport office, killing 13 people and wounding 40, about half of them police.
Gen. David Petraeus is leaving Iraq, refusing to engage in glib talk of victory, and providing the best rationale for deploying politics to end the war I've heard:
' In a telephone interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, Petraeus said experience in Iraq shows it will take political and economic progress as well as military action to tackle increased violence in Afghanistan. "You don't kill or capture your way out of an industrial strength insurgency," he said.'
I hope the next president is listening.
Petraeus has great virtues as a commander, the chief of which in my view is that he genuinely cares about people. He really, really wanted to stop shoppers in bazaars from being blown to bits, and by God if he didn't in fact cut down on that sort of thing. He is too smart to think the 'surge' did it all, and knows that the situation is still fragile. Another of his virtues is that he understands the need to deal with people where they are. He did not try to ignore or crush the Sunnis and the Sadrists. He dealt with them. A lot of supporters of the Da`wa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, both fundamentalist Shiite parties, are annoyed with him for striking those deals, because they are convinced that they can crush their enemies. And as long as the new Iraqi government has that attitude, the peace is fragile indeed.
Of course, he's a general so you also have to expect him to act like one, i.e to kill the enemy. We won't know for some time all the on-the-ground policies he deployed, and of course Bob Woodward intimated that he presided over a Phoenix Project-like dirty war of assassination of Sunni insurgents. My own guess is that even if such a tactic was pursued, it was the politicking that made the real difference.
Aljazeera English reports on the transition:
Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni, warned Monday that the current policy of the Iraqi govenment of arresting members of the Awakening Councils for past crimes risks pushing them back into the arms of the Sunni fundamentalist radicals.
Labels: Iraq

|
7 Comments:
Petraeus went much further in a recent BBC interview titled "No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus" (see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7610405.stm
"The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there. "
A military victory over a country the size and state of Iraq is not something to brag about. It is like a gang of armed men fighting a child. Spending years and trillions to do it proves how weak the US is, not how powerful.
It is true, however, that "victory" talk makes the average American feels good ... because he/she is so dumb!
The last US military commander quit Iraq with very similar warnings about the need for political solutions, as I remember, ... and Petraeus glibly ignored him.
It would be nice to think Petraeus has learned a lesson, but more likely he advanced his career while it mattered to him, and now feels free to speak more sincerely, just as his predecessors have once their CVs have been adequately padded out.
Iran has control of the Iraq government. It is only a matter of time until America is totally out of the Middle East
This is somewhat off topic but it is still relevant to the general discussion.
Some readers may find this 9/13 interview with John Zogby interesting and informative. Zogby International has done extensive polling in the Middle East as well as the US. Mr. Zogby talks at length about changes in attitudes towards the US in the Middle East over the past several years.
John Zogby On How Will
America Vote?
The interview lasts about an hour and a half and was done at the World Affairs Council in San Francisco.
Re Cole on Petraeus:
I'm sure you'll get lots of dissent on anything that sounds like an appreciation. Like Petraeus and Crocker we should all be grateful, amazed at the rollback in Iraqi civil casualties, and the even greater drop in US KIA's. It's almost like the sunny Autumn days of 2003 again.
Stephen Biddle, who advised Team Petraeus the 'surge' risk/benefit was not worth another 1000 US KIA's, is now advocating an open-ended MNFI management of local cease-fires, as the best US option on the table. He would have us remain as active armed peacekeepers, policing by air, Stryker and foot patrol, crushing any local cells that threaten to excite the local militias back into open war.
Biddle's picture of 'post-surge tactics, at lower force levels' is not the same as the 'pull-back to large FOB's and open-ended overwatch' that many in congress pictured as the next phase of occupation. Or the phased 16 mo. withdrawal that Maliki and Obama talk about.
The question I raise vis any appreciation of Petraeus 3 war tours, is what his orders were in 2005, when the Shiite army was manned and geared up for a nasty ethnic war in greater Baghdad?
It seems likely to me that the US 2005 vision, when a 3-star Petraeus ran the MNSTC-I training command, was for a quick and dirty Shiite victory to the civil war, leading to a negotiated settlement with the Sunni.
As we know, Cheney's 2005 prediction of 'a collapse of the insurgency' didn't work out, leading to a Democratic victory in US mid-terms. Against the advice of the Joint Chiefs, Petraeus' troops were sent in to halt a humanitarian disaster in Baghdad, the destruction in detail of the Sunni forces and communities there. (Call it 'surge' if you like, but Woodward points out that the manpower was generated by holding occupation troops in theater an extra three months.)
A total victory for Shiites in early 2007, accompanied by Casey's expectation of reducing US troops, was likely to transition into lebanon-type warfare between Sadr and Hakim Shiite forces, increased intervention by Arab countries to rebuild Sunni arms, and siezure of Kirkuk and Mosul by Barzani's forces.
The problem with the devolution to 'ground-up' peacekeeping (that is the default at the end of Petreaus watch) is that the cease-fire doesn't disarm, in spite of the infowar pronouncements. As in Lebanon, it's an opportunity for all to re-arm with heavier weapons. At best, it leads to MAD thru non-nuclear arms, like at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, but 'waiting for the next war' seems like a likely fit for a model.
The good news is that we're not likely to see 50,000 US troops freed up for the invasion of Waziristan, unless/until the Iraqis actually kick us out. Our NATO allies in Afghanistan will want to restrain us from indirectly involving them in a broader occupation. And even then, Petraeus-CentCom will be wanting a reserve force, to re-enter Iraq from Kuwait, as needed.
The idea the Petraeus will be hard for an Obama presidency to over-rule cuts both ways. He will be harder to over-rule than Fallon was, if he holds out against Cheney or McCain-Olmert, to discourage an air attack on Iran. And Petraeus will press to re-establish CentCom oversight on SOCOM black ops in Iran and Pakistan.
The "surge" was about accelerating the partition of Iraq, bribing more thugs, and making sure Ahmadinejad remained a convenient and powerful counterpart in Iran.
The "reconstruction" was about building a wall that makes reconciliation impossible.
The "war on terror" was about fueling hatred, accelerating the recruitment of new terrorists, and providing a real size training ground courtesy Uncle Sam. The new generation is now ready to strike anytime anywhere.
Coming soon to a theater near you.
Petraus, Mullin, all of them. Were they not behind baffling at the Baghdad Palace? Were they unaware that contractor's were protecting THEM and making 5 X our Troops pay?
Of course this woman did this. We probably murdered her entire family, we destroyed her culture, her way of life. So call 4 and 5 stars pleasant names, or Admirals a nudge and a wink, my Sisters and Brothers over there murdered with the same egregious assault as we have murdered civilians, would you not have wanted all DEAD for the DEATHS of ALL you've known, had or been?
If these young people that were never bad teens or young adults, the thoughts of Terrorism never entering their heads before this Illegal Invasion, now an Occupation I can assure you, Mr. Cole that they most certainly are now.
So please salute Gen. Petraus, Admiral Mullin, and assuredly the Sociopath in Chief on this our Constitution Day[irony]for contributing to the decimation of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and the United States of America, the 4,159 MURDERED Troops, the 1.3 MN murdered civilians and the Millions more to come as they sit behind the baffling of the Baghdad Palace.
www.ivaw.org
Rhoda Ozen
USAF honorably discharged disabled veteran, 75-77
VFP
Post a Comment
<< Home