The surge and the Sadrists and the Sunnis (and the AP)
When I read this article, entitled “Iraqi rebel army expressing siege mentality,” I found myself doing a double-take: this is the AP?
The piece seemed relatively upbeat about, of all things, the “surge,” the new commanders of US forces in Iraq, and their plan.
Far more important than the AP and its editorial politices, of course, is the actual information contained in the article. It touches on a concern of mine about whether the announcement of our plan might possibly give the enemy enough warning to be able to evade the net more easily (see here and here).
According to Steven R. Hurst, author of the article, the Sadrists are running scared. Something about this one’s got them worried–that is, if we can believe what they are saying:
[Sadrist commanders’] account of an organization now fighting for its very existence could represent a tactical and propaganda feint, but there was mounting evidence the militia is increasingly off balance and has ordered its gunmen to melt back into the population. To avoid capture, commanders report no longer using cell phones and fighters are removing their black uniforms and hiding their weapons during the day.
The key to the new notion the Sadrists have of the potential seriousness of this particular campaign? President Maliki sounds as though he might be on board this time against them, instead of providing them protection.
And why? According to the article, Maliki told Bush at a meeting in November that he would no longer stand in the way of our going against Sadr. And what’s behind that change of heart? Well, one begins to wonder whether Psychology Today might be correct after all, at least about certain political conversions to conservatism being motivated by fear–someone seems to have put the fear into Maliki, at least.
And whom might that be? Here’s the money quote:
Jordan’s King Abdullah II was said by al-Maliki confidants to have conveyed the increasing anger of fellow Sunni leaders in the Middle East over the continuing slaughter of Sunni Muslims at the hands of Shiite death squads.
That just may be the most important sentence in the entire article. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the surrounding Arab nations with their largely Sunni populations are not at all cheered by the possibility of a Shiite (read: Iranian-allied) ascendance in Iraq.
Jordan has always been an interesting nation among the group–the most clearly moderate and Western-friendly of all (or what passes for moderation in that neck of the woods). What’s more, Jordan has not been at all shy in the past about using power against other Arab states or peoples when its own survival warrants (see Black September).
As noted before, what the Sadrists are telling the AP might be the equivalent of a psych-op. Hard to tell. But here is some more:
The third commander, who also spoke anonymously to protect his identity, said U.S.-led raiding parties were now also engaged in massive sweeps, having rounded up what he said was every male old enough to carry a gun in south Baghdad’s Um al-Maalef neighborhood Tuesday night.
As for the US, the military seems to be aware of the potential for running and hiding on the part of the enemy, and to have prepared for this eventuality:
Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said the security strategy and the additional American forces would allow the crackdown to be sufficiently broad to sweep up those who try to escape Baghdad and operate elsewhere.
“On the militia, the Baghdad plan itself is integrated to a holistic, countrywide plan that the multinational corps is developing. And security for Baghdad won’t just come from securing the inside of Baghdad,” Casey said at a briefing on Monday.
“It comes from the support zones around the outside as far away, as you suggest, Baqouba and Ramadi and Fallujah. It goes all the way out to the borders to stop the flow of foreign fighters and support coming in there.”
Again, one wonders about the motivation for the Sadrist commanders in divulging the following news to the AP, but here it is:
The Mahdi Army commanders said they were increasingly concerned about improved U.S. intelligence that has allowed the Americans to successfully target key figures in the militia.
With this as background, I say “give the surge a chance.” But just tell that to Congress. Many of its members seem determined to stop a program that represents the only present hope we have to get these people.
But I suppose some of them consider it more important to “get” Bush, and to get themselves re-elected. And if I sound a bit cynical about that, it’s because I am.
[NOTE: Tigerhawk has some further thoughts about Maliki’s motivations.]
Surprisingly good news, though I’m not going to dance a victory jig just yet–like you, neoneo, I wonder about the Sadrists’ motivations in telling all this to the AP. I guess we’ll see. (I also share your surprise at seeing a relatively positive story like that from the AP as well.)
Maybe this will help alleviate your cynicism: not only Democrats are opposing the surge. You can’t possibly have missed this news item:
Retired generals bash Bush on surge plan
By Gordon Lubold – staff writer (Navy Times)
“The first wave of “surge” troops soon will arrive in Iraq as part of Bush’s plan to send in about 21,500 more troops. When they get there, they’ll be working alongside Iraqi forces, but the Iraqis will have the lead in stabilizing Baghdad.
That’s a big mistake, according to retired Gen. Jack Keane, former Army vice chief, who advised both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on an Iraq strategy that was strikingly similar to the one Bush announced…
Putting the Iraqis in the lead for the Baghdad surge “makes no sense to me. I don’t understand that,” Keane told senators Jan. 18.
Keane…said Bush’s plan means Iraqis and Americans will be working alongside each other on the same streets — but with separate commands. Until now, many Iraqi forces, even when they’re in the lead, are effectively under U.S. command. Under the new strategy, they’ll be going it alone.
“We don’t have unity of command, therefore you don’t have unity of effort,” Keane told a Senate panel. “Every time we do something like that… we have military problems.”
Retired four star Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey was even more scathing about the new “surge” strategy. “I personally think the surge of five U.S. Army brigades and a few Marine battalions dribbled out over five months is a fool’s errand,” he said.
Retired four star Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former head of U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, which includes the Iraq theater of operations, urged a full pull-out of U.S. forces from Iraq.
“In the Marines, we say, ‘When you’re in a hole, stop digging,'” he said.
These guys seem to have some relevant experience. Should we consider their opinions?
unknown blogger–what gives you the idea that I said here that it’s only Democrats against the surge? I’m well aware that there are some Republicans against it, as well, and have indicated as much in previous posts. You’ll notice, if you read carefully, that in the present post I wrote:
Many of [Congress’s] members seem determined to stop a program that represents the only present hope we have to get these people.
But I suppose some of them consider it more important to “get” Bush, and to get themselves re-elected.
See anything about it only being Democrats? I purposely wrote it to be inclusive. There are many Republicans who detest Bush and his policies. Some of them are isolationist paleocons; some have other reasons.
It’s funny (and once again, I don’t mean “funny ha-ha”) that so many people assume because I support Bush’s foreign policies and criticize many actions of Democrats (and especially the Left, which is not synonomous with “Democrats”) that I think Democrats are the only ones worthy of criticism. I’m not inordinately fond of politicians as a whole, in case you haven’t noticed.
As for the retired generals–I’m well aware retired generals support a host of different positions and strategies. If the MSM wants to quote those who are against Bush (and why, oh why, would it ever want to do that?), I’m sure there’s no scarcity of candidates. I’m more interested in the reputations of those who are in charge right now, and Petraeus seems to know what he’s talking about. The proof, of course, will be in the pudding–the results. We’ll see, in time.
That is, if the program is ever allowed to be implemented.
Plus, Neo, many of these guys have been out of the loop for years. Retired generals are always carping about how their successors are doing. It was ever thus. I prefer to let the guys who are commanding now dictate the course of the war; they’re the ones in harm’s way and the ones with the most current intel.
We want the Iraqi government to be 1) powerful enough to govern, and 2) liberal enough to allow freedoms and economic successes heretofore unseen in an Arab government. This crackdown demonstrates that the Iraqi government is more powerful than it was yesterday. The behind the scenes work is beginning to show results. The Iraqi government is stronger, partially b/c of a) the slow, successful buildup of the Iraqi military, and b) growing economic strength from the slow, successful buildup of oil industry infrastructure.
But I suppose some of them consider it more important to “get” Bush, and to get themselves re-elected. And if I sound a bit cynical about that, it’s because I am.
Let’s call it that you have learned wisdom from your experiences ; )
The absolute worst thing about retirement from a “position of trust and responsibility”; i.e., access to classified information and briefings; is being out of the information loop. Retired senior military, including senior NCO’s, are reduced to the MSM, latrine rumours, the ‘Net and tea leaves for information. They uniformly hate the condition and tend to fall back on pre-conceptions such as distrust and dislike of Spec Ops and Intel dweebs. The condition is especially hard for those with careers based on facing Ivan coming through the Fulda Gap.
I think the militants told the AP what they felt about the situation because they generally trust the AP completely to spin it and help their cause. It basically amounted to “We’re not doing well, help us!” Perhaps hoping for a few more pictures of violence and gaining the headline “Surge is on, but violence in Iraq continues” or some such inane choice.
neo: See anything about it only being Democrats?
I’m sure you didn’t intend your careful phrasing just as a trap for the anti-Bush partisans, neo, but it functioned well that way nevertheless. And it underlines the blinkers that such partisans always wear — the sky could be falling, the world ending, but it would all be of little interest to these people unless it could somehow be pinned on Bush, or at a minimum on the Republicans. Of course — what was I thinking? — it always can be pinned on Bush, can’t it, for the monomaniacal left?
We have a few surge critics (Gen. J. Keane) who want a super-surge—a piecemeal surge is not good enough. The super-surge critics are somewhat convincing in that they want to win. Most surge critics, however, seemed to argue for pulling out. Winning does not appear to be the objective of the ‘pulling out’ surge critics.
However, there are some ‘pulling out’ surge critics who say their objective is to win (Biden). Their assumption is that it is only a matter of will on the part of the Iraq government. Thus, removing our troops and putting more pressure on the Iraq government would make sense and the surge would be wrong if true. This should be the key debating point. Is the lack of current progress primarily a matter of will on the part of the Iraq government?
Those who think the surge (or super-surge) is worth trying need to continue to make this point: lack of security is the main impediment to creating the political will, and that Iraq is not ready to create a good security environment in Baghdad on its own. Pulling our troops out of Baghdad is not the answer; rather than create an incentive for Iraqis to provide security, it will likely provide the incentive toward increased sectarian identity—the greatest threat toward winning. We need a new “WIN” button: Whip Insurgents Now.
Still-a-Neocon
The problem with most of the retired generals who are speaking out is their background. Promoted by Slick due to their ability to drop to their PC knee’s and kill a**, not because of any leadership ability. They’re the same generals that had to be led by the hand while junior officers, by the senior NCO’s to stop them from destroying every unit they ever commanded. Any former of current senior NCO has been there, done that.
Very good post — thanks for sharing
These guys seem to have some relevant experience. Should we consider their opinions?
Considered, ripped apart, and thrown away.
When we start hearing from the troops in Iraq that the jig is up, then I’ll be willing to accept that this experiment in trying to plant democracy in a Muslim country has failed. Until then I wish all the retired Flag Officers and nit picking politicians would say, “Let’s ask the boys and girls on the front lines what they think.”
Check out what Michael Yon, Michelle Malkin, Bryan Preston, Bill Roggio, and Bill Ardolino, all bloggers who are in or have been in Iraq are saying. They are all reporting that the morale and optimism of our troops is high.
Those men and women are keeping the faith and working the problem. Why can’t we do as much?
“However, there are some ‘pulling out’ surge critics who say their objective is to win (Biden).”
The problem with that belief is that it is so terrible one has to wonder why? Does the individual actually believe what they are saying or are they just covering their political butt?
I’m sure some believe that, some believe a economic “theory” I heard a congressman recently state called “trickle up theory” (that increasing the minimum wage will flush the economy with cash and spending power making the dollar worth more than ever – economies flush with cash in that way experience something called “inflation” and it isn’t considered good, they always have, always will, and a basic education in economics will show that).
If they really and truly believe that the path to victory (and they want victory defined the same as the rest of the world) is to quit fighting then they do not deserve to be in the position they are in.
Rather, I suspect that his definition of “victory” is one that most of us will not agree with. Possibly “stable at any cost” (an Al Qaida controlled sharia law system fills that role just fine) or no US troop casualties. That is, it is just double speak to get reasonable people to support an idea they would otherwise find unreasonable. Kinda like someone who thinks it is OK to lie if they cross their fingers – no one really think that they just use it as an excuse.
Those men and women are keeping the faith and working the problem. Why can’t we do as much?
Jimmy J. | 01.20.07 – 1:30 am | #
Because they are victims, and victims need protecting. Arming the victims with the tools and weapons to protect themselves is morally impure. Therefore, their opinion doesn’t matter.
They want to bring the troops home. They. As in, their views matter, nobody else’s.
It takes time to stabilize a perpetually unstable artificial country like Iraq. It will take generations, in fact.
Since the US will lose interest in Iraq long before 50 more years passes, they might start thinking about how to convert “the long war” into a short, dirty, but definitive war.
Hint: Iran first, then the Wahabi.
It wasn’t so long ago that Bush’s critics dragged out a bunch of Generals who said the problem was there were not enough troops in Iraq.
Whatever works. If being hawk gets them elected, they are hawks, if doing an about face gets them elected they turn pacifists. Some of these folks have all the principles of a high class call girl.
Or less.
So now comes the non binding resolution, which is a lot like saying keep up the good work to the terrorists, yes, keep killing our soldiers and you shall be rewarded. Just ask the US Senate.
I’m surprised that people don’t know the new terms of the foolishly coined ‘war on terror’ The people killing indiscriminately in Iraq can afford to melt back into the population and reemerge to cause a ‘terror on war’ because these my dear people, are the new rules. Silly really….. declaring a war on terror that is…. Terror on terror seems more appropriate.
The more I see of his critics and “their” ideas, the saner GW Bush looks.
As with most Americans, my brother-in- law put it well:
‘the Democrats may be in power for now, but I’m still waiting to hear what plausible ideas THEY have. I haven’t heard any from them for years.’
neo: See anything about it only being Democrats?
It’s amazing to me the facility with which you find ways to avoid the point.
“Many in Congress” are opposing the plan because they are either out to “Get re-elected” or “get Bush.”
Last I heard only about 6 Republicans had come out against the plan. So who else could you have been referring to?
The point was that there might be other reasons for opposing his plan – advice from a former commander of CENTCOM – can it be discounted so easily simply because he is retired?
But I knew that wouldn’t make a difference – anyone who opposes any Bush plan is obviously irrelevant to this bunch.
“anyone who opposes any Bush plan is obviously irrelevant to this bunch.”
No, that’s not the point. I have my doubts about “the surge”, but not because I don’t think it will work—it’ll work, but only if the ROE are changed to allow decisive action against ALL the death squads and militias, as well as Al-Sadr himself.
What most of the posters here object to is the opposition to Bush plans with NO appreciable alternative introduced. You can’t just say “the surge won’t work” without saying “because” or “this is what I would do”. So far, the Democrats have put forth no reasonable alternate plan for success in Iraq. (Deployment to Guam is not reasonable—it’s insane.)
So who else could you have been referring to?
You’re the puppet, you tell us what the puppet master was refering to.
But I knew that wouldn’t make a difference – anyone who opposes any Bush plan is obviously irrelevant to this bunch.
The Unknown Blogger | Homepage | 01.22.07 – 1:16 pm | #
You are, yes. The only real people who oppose Bush or his plans are people like me. People like you don’t oppose anyone really, you just go into that self-aggrandizement business.
You can’t just say “the surge won’t work” without
Course they can, and they love it, and we know it.
They can because they don’t oppose people, they are just there for themselves and that is about it. If they decide it is bad, it is bad. If they decide it is good, it is good. Bar nothing.
Last I heard only about 6 Republicans had come out against the plan. So who else could you have been referring to?
This is like a no brainer. Who else would then mean the six Republicans and the Democrats.
Maybe this will help alleviate your cynicism: not only Democrats are opposing the surge.
Oh I get it. Unk sees Neo as being cynical and ignorant. This means Unk can know that there are six Rethuglicans, but obviously Neo must be in the dark just because Unk thinks so. He thinks, therefore he is correct, right?