Red Harvest
Iraq the Model thinks the suicide attack on a Baghdad Shi'ite mosque may have more serious political consequences than one would expect.
A closer look at the targeted mosque makes me think that the ramifications of this massacre can possibly be much worse than the immediate death and pain this terror attack brought, the Buratha mosque is not an ordinary mosque, it has a special religious value for Shia Iraqis as it's thought to be one of the places where Imam Ali stayed and prayed. But that's not the most important thing because this mosque is of considerable political significance, the preacher in this mosque is Jalal Addin al-Sagheer, a cleric from the SCIRI who was the first SCIRI member to publicly urge Ibrahim al-Jafari to withdraw his nomination for office. This mosque is one of the headquarters of the SCIRI and its clerical wing in Baghdad, even that Abdul Aziz al-Hakeem's son Ammar al-Hakkem preaches occasionally in this mosque when sheikh Jalal is not available.
Omar goes on to speculate who might have done it and comments on the diabolical cleverness with which it was executed.
Let's also take a look at the planning for the attack that is very well studied too, the suicide bombers did not start striking during Friday prayers when the place is usually heavily guarded and security personnel are at high alert but the first strike came more than 15 minutes later when an attack is less expected and after guards felt they accomplished their mission in protecting the worshippers during the main ceremony to be followed by the other two bombings that took advantage of the state of panic created by the first bombing. This in addition to the use of disguise has of course made the breach easier to make.
Apparently Coalition intel knew something was up, but didn't know the specific target. Bill Roggio says:
The attack in Baghdad followed a warning from the Interior ministry that "it received intelligence that insurgents were preparing to set off seven car bombs in Baghdad." The ministry "cautioned people in Baghdad to avoid crowds near mosques and markets due to a car bomb threat." The only good news that can be taken out of this is the Iraqi security forces' intelligence seems to be improving, as this attack was anticipated, but not enough to the point where this specific attack could have been deterred.
Commentary
It's tempting to speculate extensively but it is probably best to stay on safe ground. The mosque attack may well be connected with the political wrangling within the SCIRI in relation to the formation of a unity government. And it increasingly looks -- "looks" being an uncertain term -- like the shape of the fight is changing away from encounters between insurgents and coalition forces (such as in Falluja) to something that looks like the Battle of Algiers, pre-war Shanghai and Prohibition-era Chicago all rolled into one, but relocated to Baghdad with the addition that some of the gangs have international backing. With the MSM providing the play by play.
posted by wretchardthecat at 4/07/2006 10:19:00 AM
120 Comments:
I can speculate in comments and hope someone who knows more can help out. First, this could be a signal to Addin al-Sagheer that it's bad for his health not to play along with the Sadrists. Like leaving a horse's head in his bedroom, so to speak. Or it could just be an excuse for certain militias to go on a rampage. Or maybe it's a setup. The best thing is to see how it plays because that'll give an indication of how this move is understood.
The problem for the Coalition will be how to act without joining the game themselves. Simply rounding up the probable suspects may in itself be viewed as partisan. But there may be no help for it.
"Speculating"
Without a civil war, the ISF and coalition have the manpower to track down the real insurgency like the dogs they are.
Last year, anti-occupation sentiment was being exploited to create "background noise".
This year it is sectarian violence.
This specific act is probably designed to maintain the deadlock on forming a unity government, while simultaneously flaming sectarian violence.
Is it sectarian violence if it's Shiite v. Shiite? It's all powerplay now and the big fight is how much influence Sadr/Iran is going to have in Iraq.
It matters only marginally to Iran whether the PM is Mr al-Jaafari or Mr Mahdi or facsimile.
The SCIRI is sympathetic to Iran, that's a fact. Most all of the SCIRI big shots found Sanctuary in Iran, when Saddam was in charge.
The degree of sympathy to the Iranians is all that differs.
It has been what, a week, since some in the SCIRI called for a different candidate to represent the UIA.
Still Mr al-Jaafari hangs on, while the Kurds still balk at his re-election.
Time moves on.
Mr Bush's letter to Mr Sistani lies untranslated, the seal on the envelope not yet broken.
Weeks after it's delivery.
The deeper implication that the response of coalition forces is predictable/ineffictive enough for the terrorists to raise the level of violence with impunity. That further implies that the terrorists have inside information, or at least accurate strategic insight, into the thinking of the Iraqi-U.S. command.
The US has left the close security of the Shia Mosques to the Shia, since the Occupation began. It became an early bone of contention and US decided to back away.
The response of US after the Golden Mosque was well studied, by everyone concerned.
Could this be what Iraqi power politics is all about. Bombings, executions & book burnings.
Are these are just Parlimentary debates, Iraqi style.
And then you have the possibility of "reichstag fires" where people hit themselves so they can "retaliate". Or blowing up an enemy in order to say he blew himself up in order that he could retaliate, so that you can "pre-retaliate" first.
Ali-Baba and the Seven Thieves....
Insurrection 101
Make the people feel insecure.
Show that the Security Forces cannot protect anyone, anywhere.
Sow distrust of the Security Force amongst the people.
All this is being done in Iraq, as we read & write. Well beyond the scope of the Battle of Algiers, the multitude of players in the Battle of Baghdad makes the French Challenge in Algeria pale by comparison. Depending, of course, on how Victory is to be defined.
The French had a long history in Algeria and minimal language problems when speaking to the locals. These were great advantages the US does not enjoy in Iraq.
Remember, too, France won that war. There was an later decision--de Gaulle's--to open the French/Arab Axis (against the anglo/american hegemony) by 'freeing' Algeria.
Yeah, and that was Jacques Chirac's fault. Interesting how everything Islamofascist has him at the root.
Do we know who did the Golden Mosque bombing, was it AlQ? The Sunnis would be committing suicide in creating civil war. So, it seems likely it is a "Reichstag fire" by the Shiites, but if they're already in power, why do they need a civil war? Seems to point to AlQ in these cases.
Of course, this conjecture assumes somebody is in charge. Maybe it's the Apocalpse now moment where Willard asks the grunt: "Who's in charge here?" The grunt answers "Ain't you?"
----------
Off-topic:
US freezes aid to Palestinian government
Dan,
"If only more mainstream journalistic attention - and more op-ed attention - was devoted to the actual political parties, players, affiliations and intentions. ... A journalistic failing of the first order. And we know how much they love pointing out failings."
There were expectations that the manuever force that implemented OIF should have adapted faster to the insurgency. Maybe it should have. But by comparison the MSM doesn't seem to have adapted particularly well to covering stories in places where intimidation, disinformation and propaganda ops are not only practiced, but are actually a principal mode of combat.
Maybe the MSM should get more language capability for their correspondents, find ways of operating more securely (perhaps clandestinely) to avoid intimidation; run stringers like agents so they can cross check reports, etc. Perhaps they can realign resources too. I read somewhere that the CBS News Anchor's salary is equal to 50 correspondents. Maybe the MSM simply isn't structured to cover a story like this very well. Just speculating.
Katy Couric's total package would pay 50 correspondents $400,000 each. So, CBS could actually field 200 very professional 100K/yr correspondents, and just let the execs--or mail room staff--take turns spending a few minutes reading the teleprompter into a camera, come 6PM.
'course if all they can see happening is the Roman Orgy going on in the Green Zone while "desperate, dark faces strain outside to make a few daily dinars", then, why demote Katy? It wasn't about "news" anyway.
wretchard wrote:
"But by comparison the MSM doesn't seem to have adapted particularly well to covering stories in places where intimidation, disinformation and propaganda ops are not only practiced, but are actually a principal mode of combat.
Maybe the MSM should get more language capability for their correspondents, find ways of operating more securely (perhaps clandestinely) to avoid intimidation; run stringers like agents so they can cross check reports, etc. Perhaps they can realign resources too."
I read this and I keep nodding my head, but that is primarily because I keep substituting CIA/Intel in place of MSM. From my perch (armchair) it appears that our Military intel is not much better then the MSM's.
Ash,
"I read this and I keep nodding my head, but that is primarily because I keep substituting CIA/Intel in place of MSM. From my perch (armchair) it appears that our Military intel is not much better then the MSM's."
You are probably right about that. Or were right about that. If things have improved it will have been as a result of being in contact with the enemy. Information is one of the things that comes from contact. Nelson's revolution at Trafalgar was not entirely about tactics. It was about information. "Nothing is sure in a Sea Fight beyond all others ... But, in case Signals can neither be seen or perfectly understood, no Captain can do very wrong if he places his Ship alongside that of an Enemy."
The biggest downside to withdrawing from forward positions in the War on Terror is the loss of information. You pay for information one way or the other. By losses in combat. Or by the surprise of not having it. Being in Iraq versus experiencing a surprise 9/11 attack.
I think the biggest reason the US hasn't had another attack since September 11 is not because Homeland Security has kept the terrorists out. It's because US forces are in contact with the enemy. Pinning them down yes; but getting information, more importantly. Apparently there are thousands of intel documents, gleaned by contact, which haven't even been translated. No peacetime espionage operation would have come close to getting that trove. There are apparently quite a number of officers and enlisted men who are on their second or third tours. They've learned some language, customs. Made contacts. How do you value that?
Some won't. They'll take the last helicopter out. Disengage all along the line. Everything will be peaceful for a while, but only because intel will have gone back to the status quo ante.
ash,
Everyone's Intel in the Region is bad, excempt for the Natives.
Betcha Mr Sistani and Mr al-Sadr shared some Intel when they met, last week. Or perhaps they were just coordinating Mr al-Sadr's next Regional Tour. Mr al-Sadr declined comment, after the meeting.
Mr Sistani still calls for the Shia to speak with one political voice in Iraq. So far, for Mr Sistani, that voice is Mr al-Jaafrai's.
Perhaps these bombings will change that, perhaps they just reinforce Mr Sistani's decision.
Mr Sistani cares little for the words of Mr Bush, that's for certain.
This is probably a minority position, but I'll guess that al Queda had no part in this. The tactics look like al Qaeda, but they've been around long enough for others to look and learn.
My bet is on Sadr, which (probably) makes this intra-UIA "politics." I see only two possibilities, really; either this is about preserving Jafaari's nomination, or it's about blocking all political progress entirely.
SCIRI's reaction will tell us a lot. If the next attack is on someone outside UIA, that will tell us even more.
W wrote: Apparently there are thousands of intel documents, gleaned by contact, which haven't even been translated.
We should only be translating the ones that are most useful, translating everything first is a huge bottleneck. We don't need to translate docs to determine which are most valuable. Here's how it should be done, if it's not already being done, and I haven't read anywhere that it is being done this way.
1. Scan the docs to get them into digital form;
2. Use Arabic OCR (optical character recognition) to create Arabic text;
3. Put Arabic text documents through "connect the dots" software like Able Danger used;
4. Finally, only use our precious translators on the most valuable docs which have been sifted out of the piles by the above process.
All of the above uses COTS technology.
Peaktalk has a very interesting post which summarizes key testimony at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Islamist Extremism in Europe. Testimony is from Clinton era officials, academics and current administration people. But they are nearly all of them agreed that Europe is facing a huge problem. Here's Daniel Benjamin, former Clinton NSC:
"A Europe distracted by intercommunal tensions and violence will make a poor partner for America in many areas, not least dealing with the global threat of radical Islam. As we all know, pressing broad reform agenda in the Muslim world will, over the long term, be a vital part of a strategy for rolling back the jihadist threat. Yet if European countries become absorbed by strife within their borders, their willingness to work with the United States on a more global approach could well decline."
The current world crisis is not an invention of neocons, as events in Europe independently show. How can one remain engaged with the Old Continent in the face of Islamic extremism and yet be committed to taking the Last Helicopter out of Iraq? I know there are some who will argue that Europe's Islamic troubles are all caused by Iraq. Or was that Palestine? Or Algeria ...
...might add to Wretchard's that the locals are also learning much about the best of our own people, too, via the prolonged everyday contact. May or may not be providing a dividend, but my guess is yes, emphatically, it is.
tony,
Re: US freezes aid to Palestinian government
If only. Look closely, "while increasing humanitarian aid to the Palestinians through U.N. agencies, the State Department said on Friday."
How clever of Dr. Rice. And on a Friday afternoon. Not just another pretty face.
Yesterday, Abdul had to worry about beans OR bullets. Thanks to those compassionate conservatives, he only has to worry about bullets, today. Sweet.
I agree with Buddy. The Iraqis are interacting with some very fine people from the coalition countries.
They are learning that they were fed lies about who we are and what we value.
Perhaps this has influence elsewhere in the ME. The soviet approach, which was to ban everything American, is not likely to work in an environment based on fuzzy borders and under the table transnational deals.
How long before the average syrian knows that he's being lied to about America?
As for this bombing, what a sad event. but I believe that there are some upsides:
first, as Wretchard points out, the enemy is engaged in Iraq. if this is Al q' or iran or whoever, they are spending time and resource planning attacks in Baghdad, not Boston.
further, the civilized world is getting a long hard look at some truly evil people. People who would perpetrate this type of crime to advance an agenda are not to be ignored or treated lightly.
finally, the failure of the elected officials in Iraq to get something going is costing them legitimacy. This is an Iraqi issue and a response will require a functioning Iraqi government.
Buddy, I really don't think they experience 'the best' of US by interacting with our military in Iraq. What they most probably will experience is the view of a nervous soldier peering through his sites as he is all 'prickly' on patrol or the wakefulness one is forced to as a patrol searches your home or...you get the idea. For further clues as to what the Iraqis experience from our forces reading some of the soldiers blogs can give some clues. Unfortunately redalpha2 took his blog down but I came across
http://funwithhandgrenades.blogspot.com/
yesterday. An excerpt:
I know this is being EXTREMELY unfair to a lot of Iraqis who take their jobs seriously and truly want to make their country better… but every time I drive through a checkpoint and the guys manning it smile and wave at me, especially around here, I wonder about it:
“Tee hee hee! You think I’m smiling at you because you think I appreciate you being here and like you, but in reality I’m smiling because I just let some guys embed a huge IED half a mile down the road! You’re going to fucking die! Praise be to Allah! Tee hee hee hee hee!”
Looking at it from my point of view, it’s hard to even TRY and differentiate the corrupt Iraqis from the respectable ones. They all look the same! When we drove “through town” my interpreter would tell me what police stations were corrupt and which ones were full of good, upstanding Iraqis. I can’t tell which ones give fuck and which ones would shank me if given the chance. So now whatever line of distinction you had is totally blurred. Then you start thinking about how whenever you drive around Iraq you see a bunch of people sitting around on their asses doing nothing. Every time I see that, which is everyday, I want to put my head out the window and yell the following:"
http://funwithhandgrenades.blogspot.com/2006/03/blog-post.html#comments
Anyway, in short I don't think this the is best way for our two cultures to get to know each other.
Wretchard:
I've got problems with "forward bases on our war on terrorism". I seems to me terrorism is much more amorphous then that and the fighting in Iraq that we are mired in seems to have terror as a tactic but it hardly seems like we are squaring off against AQ there just seems to be so much more involved then US against them.
Ash, not to dump on a long post with a drive-by, but your point (1) is anecdotal ("cherry-picking") and runs against a vast amount of counter-anecdotes--as well as data--per coalition "helping hands" and follow-on appreciation. Your point (2) is solipsistic; to say that if it's meaningless to your knowledge and experience, then it is objectively meaningless.
eggplant,
Re: How can a mere human have such insane hate?
Consanguinity
PRESS RELEASE #04-07.1
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq – An Iraqi Army soldier allegedly shot and killed a U.S. Marine on a coalition base near Al Qaim April 6. The Iraqi soldier was also wounded in the incident. He was evacuated to Balad and was listed in very serious condition. The incident is under investigation.
Dan,
Turkey is Europe as Mexico is USA. 'k?
Serious question: did I miss the memo on who was responsible for the last mass mosque murder under the Golden Dome in Samarra?
In most murders, atrocities and genocidal acts the perpetrators are clearly identified. It's been six weeks, someone must have a clue by now. How black is this hole if we can't clearly say who done it?
tony,
Are you an Atzlander, at heart?
Because much of the USA was once part of Greater Mexico.
Much as what is now Europe was ruled from Istanbul, I mean Constantinople, no before when it was Byzantium, a Greek city.
So if the Greeks are Europeans, then yes, Turkey is historicaly European.
Just as Santa Fe, El Paso, Los Angles, San Diego, San Fransisco, Tucson and Los Cruses were all Mexican towns, founded before there was a United States.
Allen at 2:37,
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funds programs that help people living in the West Bank and Gaza lead healthier and more productive lives.
Since 1993, Palestinians have received more than $1.7 billion in U.S. economic assistance via USAID projects - more than from any other donor country.
USA Aid $1.7B to Palestinians since 1993
This means Condi cut their dole in half, based on their recent long-term avg.
Good question, tony. We never hear any followup on ANY of these atrocities. "X# Bodies Found In Baghdad" says the headline. Who were they? Do they have names? Is there a family somewhere mourning?
Maybe if we saw faces and names, as Time/Life made sure we did, and ABC, for US KIA in VietNam and Iraq, the somnolent see-no-evils in this country and others would face a little soul-searching, and then maybe develop a little righteous anger. Maybe a "screw root causes, STOP it, ya crazy bastids!"
To a Mohammedan it would be apparent that Turkey was part of Europe. It is a secular Government, with the Army standing as the enforcer of moderate Islam in Turkey. It has been attempting to enter the EU, which it feels deserving of, as part of Europe.
Also to be factored in is that most of the Muslims in Germany are ethnic Turks. So Turkey extends into the center of Europe, demographicly, from a Mohammedans viewpoint.
Just as 13 Million illegal Mexican migrants, when added to the 45 Million or so ethnic Mexican US citizens means that Mexico has encroached on US. Reclaiming ground lost in the last cycle of US expansion,
that's from a Mexican flag waver's perspective
You might want view George Packer's Lessons for Tal Afar slideshow. Your impressions will be appreciated.
Back in 03, when I was first learning about Islam, I read a book written back in 1970 by Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind . I had to get it on interlibrary loan as our podunk library didn't have it.
For those of you who have not read it. (BTW Robert Spencer recommended it). Read this review of his book, then if you would, get a copy and read it.
Part I: The Arab Mind
I think after you do, you will decide that: Us westerners trying to figure out what, why and how concerning Iraq and the Iraqis, Iranians and other ME Arabs and subsets is like the average American trying to determine actions and/or understand the primates that live in deep jungle.
We will continue building our Megabases in Iraq and continue to sharpen our blades for our next fights. Not withstanding what happens in Iraq today, tomorrow or even the next several years.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
George Packer wrote a book called Assasin's Gate. I listened to Packer's slide show with ambivalence. He obviously admires what happened in Tal Afar but can't seem to credit it to anything but insubordination. "Speaking truth to power".
Packer says Tal Afar is "an exceptional case" and maybe America should prepare to leave. But on the other hand he sounds like he is trying to convince himself to reject the evidence of his own eyes. Is Packer right? Listen to the slideshow and weigh in.
Desert,
When the bus broke down and I got stuck in a junkyard in Thessaloniki for a couple of days, I felt the change between Europe and Asia. Even Greece gives you the feeling that Europe is far behind, as the alphabet on the signs change, and a head nod means "no" not "yes."
When we crossed the barbwire border into Turkey, everything changes more drastically, and while we could barely make out the signs in Greece, we can't do the same when we get to Istanbul.
It was fascinating to see the city filled with cars from my childhood, somehow living a second life decades later as cabs, clogging the streets and broad circles. The fact that they could keep our ancient discarded technology alive was something I saw all across Asia, to the startling 3-wheeled Harleys they used for cabs in Delhi.
Sort of like Tijuana.
tony,
your 5:25 PM
Does that mean that Abdul will only have half the bullets he might have had otherwise? That will make all the difference in the world to his victims, probably women and children if he stays true to form.
Well, in an attempt to get a real feel for Mr Mahdi and the SCIRI I had to check out the DEBKAfile.
"... On March 17, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources in Baghdad revealed as a result of a discreet scan that almost 130 of the 275 candidates the Shiite Alliance posted for the December election were connected in some way or other with, or on the payroll of, the Iranian bodies pulling the wires of Iraqi politics from across the border.
Six Iraqi lawmakers elected on the United Iraqi Alliance ticket were identified as undercover “amid” officers – brigadier-generals - of the Iranian revolutionary guards and intelligence service. They used political fronts to disguise their undercover missions on behalf of the Islamic republic.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly reveals the names and functions of those six Iraqi politicians-cum-Iranian brigadier generals.
Abu Muchtabi Sari – former secretary general of the Iraqi Hizballah.
Abu Hassan Al Amari – the last commander of the Badr Force at its base in Iran.
Abu Mahdi al Muhandis – former Badr Force officer.
Rajah Alwan - former Badr Force officer.
Dager Moussawi – Head of the Lord of the Martyrs Movement, which Iran’s military intelligence established in the Shiite regions of central and southern Iraq. (Lord in the Shiite sense refers to the holy Imam Hussein)
Tahsin Aboudi – a high-ranking Iraqi interior ministry official, under which cover - and as an Iraqi member of parliament - he is aan undercover brigadier general of Iran’s external intelligence service, which is operated by the foreign ministry in Tehran.
Given the subversive nature of the high and mighty of Shiite politics, it is hardly surprising that obstacles are being piled up against the formation of a Shiite-led coalition government. The problem runs a lot deeper than sectarian disagreement over a prime minister. Most of the key players know exactly whom they are dealing with, behind the facades of Shiite Iraqi politicians and officials. Their resistance is not just focused on prime minister Jaafari, but aimed at thwarting the rise in Baghdad of a government that is a stooge of Iranian intelligence.
It is no secret to Baghdad’s political insiders that the Iranians are in the middle of an artfully contrived program to exploit Iraq’s democratic process for the capture of positions of political influence in Baghdad and the southern Shiite regions of Iraq. ... "
So Mr Mahdi, Mr al-Jaafari, six with one, half dozen with the other.
Also:
" ... The US military command in Iraq dispatched large-scale Marine forces with armor, tank and helicopter support to the two Shiite shrine cities south of Baghdad before dawn Friday, April 7. DEBKAfile’s military sources report the action followed a threat by radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr to overrun the Shiite cities and Baghdad’s Shiite suburb, if the Americans force the Iran-backed interim prime minister Ibrahim Jaafari to step down.
Armed Shiite tribesman have smuggled senior Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and his staff out of the city and harm’s way, amid fears the Mehdi Army may take him hostage. The tribes have taken him under their protection.
While US forces took control of central Najef, they are keeping to Karbala’s western suburbs; Sadr’s men occupy the center and are building military positions.
In the summer of 2004, US and Iraqi forces crushed a rebellion staged by Sadr at the head of his militia. DEBKAfile’s military sources reveal that since this defeat, the Mehdi Army has developed into the strongest and best equipped armed force in Iraq, outgunning its two Shiite rivals, the Badr Force and Wolves Brigades. The buildup is entirely the work of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and undercover agents.
Saturday, April 8, formal talks aimed at breaking Iraq’s political stalemate begin in Baghdad between a US delegation headed by ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and an Iranian delegation. Jaafari’s refusal to stand aside is the main hurdle in the way of a unity government. ... "
Not always the MOST reliable source, but these seem reasonable.
tony,
Re: This means Condi cut their dole in half
One other thought, may we say that Dr. Rice's policy is only half-immoral, like being a little pregnant? Again, the victims will appreciate the fine ellemosynary porclivities of State.
Rufus - No one's trying to make bogus distinctions
I wish!
That's the good thing about the USAF, they're not expected to make these fine distinctions. That's why the libs loved the Clinton Air Wars. At the end of the video everything turns to smoky static.
Do the libs and Arabs want us to go back to that?
This thinking drives me back to the conviction that we should have acted fast and dramatically, before the sun ever set over the smoke in Manhattan on 9/11/01.
None of our enemies, neither the Islamofascists nor our liberal brother defeatists love us any more for this do-gooder nation-building approach.
There was no anti-war movement during Clinton's cynical air wars.
No one's trying to make bogus distinctions
Allen,
Yasir Arafat was Clinton's most frequent "head of state" guest to the White House. C'mon dude, we're making progress.
tony,
Re: Arafat - White House
I had never considered the connection to Mr. Arafat's demise. What was the cause of Abu's death? Arafat - White House. Real food for thought here.
Shocking news! San Francisco is not part of the United States! Who would have thought?
"San Francisco Refuses To Enforce Any New Immigration Laws."
http://garfieldridge.typepad.com/garfieldridge/
Sorry,
"eleemosynary proclivities"
to read something definitely encouraging, link thru Austin Bay's summary to the National Journal's assessment of the Western Alliance.
(snip) "When the history of the long war with Islamic extremism is finally written, it may reflect that in this period of disorder and uncertainty the alliance of democracies rediscovered some common strategic ground, at least for a time."
I have read the many comments preceding this and agree with most and disagree with a few. It is obvious that events in Iraq as insane as they appear make sense to someone. But do they make sense for The US? We have no natural ally in any of the three internal parties. The Kurds are a liability in our relationship with Turkey. They can have as much affect on US policy as Portugal. The Sunni Baathist sect is antithetical to our stated policy of nurturing democracy in the ME. They have learned to survive by the ruthless exercise of disciplined thuggery. The Shiites do street dances beating themselves to a bloody pulp with bicycle chain. Is it a surprise that we are perplexed trying to understand Iraq? All the people that understand Iraq advised us to take up another hobby. The stated goal of democratization of Iraq is neither in our interest (democratization did bring Hamas to Palestine) nor is it attainable unless the Iraqis want it. American interests are security, stability and accountable governance. Ideology was the stated goal of winning the Cold War. I have a beautiful proof silver US dollar that proclaims " The Triumph of Democracy". It is slipping. An objective look at the world shows a retreat in Latin America, a resurgent Soviet Russian sphere and a very dismal Islamic world. We better rethink our goals and stated strategy. If something looks like a chaotic mess, it probably is.
Hugo Chavez needs an attitude adjustment. Be prepared.......
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/04/us-ambassador-to-venezuela-attacked-by.html
2164th,
Who can argue with the proposition that it sucks to be in Iraq? Would it be better never to have gone in? The pre-OIF world of "containment" was a known one we can reflect upon in hindsight. I remember when the Gulf War was called Triumph Without Victory because the US didn't go in all the way. The constant harping on betraying the Kurds, the Shi'ites. The millions of babies "killed" by the embargo. The Navy pinned down in the Gulf. Etc etc. It was primarily the dissatisfaction with "containment" that led to this Triumph of Democracy plan. Now some people are beginning to have second thoughts. You could make the argument that in retrospect things were better then, despite the inspections, no-fly zones, the this and the that. Maybe it was better and we ought to seek some way to return to that world.
But if we do return to that world, what would the new containment look like? Would there be bases in the region? Or would the presence be entirely naval? How would the intel lapses of the past be avoided? Because the worst thing would be to disengage and discover two or three years down the track that we want to go back in after all. Or worse, need to go back in.
Without answering the question either way it seems unexceptionable to suggest some way of measuring the costs and the benefits; find some way of measuring progress or loss. So one doesn't go around in circles.
"Containment" was falling apart, our no-fly patrols were burning treasure, wearing out people and equipment, and were being fired on, Saddam was playing the most cynical games with the UN and step-by-step turning it to his own ends, the likes of Hans Blix held far too much power over our future, journalists, suicide bombers, Galloways, and bagmen for G8 government officials were collecting bribes and following orders, a vast domestic torture/murder program proceeded apace with hardly a peep from the world press, and none of these horrors were ever going to come to any good end.
We could always elect Al Gore. He's now completely insane, would come into office ready to push every button on the football the first time anyone looked at him wrong. Talk about 6 billion people walking on eggshells and being very, very quiet.
doolz,
Yes the title is from Hammett. The novel was set in a nameless town in the grip of a mob and the Continental Op had to set about getting the factions to bump each other off. Totally amoral novel, which includes a lunger (remember TB?) getting slapped around by a statuesque dame and getting sent out to buy the tough-gal dinner of those days: a steak, some asparagus and a bottle of whiskey. Hammett brings you back to a lost world. Steel towns. Mining towns. Pre-gay San Francisco. Sinister fat men getting off steamships or trains and showing up in your living room -- without a key. Narrow, dark corridors of the kind you still find in some cheap New York apartments. A less regulated world. Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Coen Brothers homage to Hammett, "Miller's Crossing" has a good line: "It helps to have a reason."
Wretchard said: "Maybe the MSM should get more language capability for their correspondents, ... Perhaps they can realign resources too. I read somewhere that the CBS News Anchor's salary is equal to 50 correspondents. Maybe the MSM simply isn't structured to cover a story like this very well."
Wretchard, you touch upon several important points here. More language capability would certainly be helpful. And yes the salray multiples are extraordinarily high in this star-driven media industry that we have now. Most important, I think, is your conjecture that the MSM may not be appropriately structured to cover a story like this correctly.
As I see it the incorrect "structures" are two kinds: organizational and cognitive. These are distinct but very much related.
Regardless of how the formal structure got the way it is, a firm's existing physical, financial, human, and organizational resources can always be reconfigured to meet new challenges. New resources can be acquired and new capabilities developed. At least in theory.
As everyone here likely knows from experience, organizational restructuring often fails because of the difficulty attendant to redesigning the structure of managers' and workers' cognitions, particularly the ones about the firm and its place in its industry and in the broader world.
If you want a glimpse into just how difficult this would be in the mainstream media of today, take a look at Molly Ivin's insufferably arrogant and remarkably naive analysisof why major news papers and mainstream media organizations are in such dire straits.
Here are a few choice excerpts.
Molly on Bloggers:
We are in trouble. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, run by Columbia University, has a new report out that finds the number of media outlets continues to grow, but both the number of stories covered and the depth of reporting are sliding backward. Television, radio and newspapers are all cutting staff, while the bloggers of the Internet either do not have the size or the interest to go out and gather news. Bloggers are not news-gatherers, but opinion-mongers. I have long argued that no one should be allowed to write opinion without spending years as a reporter -- nothing like interviewing all four eyewitnesses to an automobile accident and then trying to write an accurate account of what happened. Or, as author-journalist Curtis Wilkie puts it, "Unless you can cover a five-car pile-up on Route 128, you shouldn't be allowed to cover a presidential campaign."
Molly on the future of the industry:
"I've thought for years that newspapers should all be owned by nonprofits. There is a chance something like this will actually happen -- the Newspaper Guild, in alliance with the Communications Workers of America, is getting ready to bid on the 12 KR papers McClatchy has to sell. Eight of the 12 are Guild papers, with combined employment of 7,000 and circulation of 1.3 million. Among the 12 are such outstanding newspapers as The Philadelphia Inquirer, San Jose Mercury News and St. Paul Pioneer Press. McClatchy can't swallow all of them, and so the two unions have turned to a "worker-friendly" investment fund to back their bid. Keep an eye on this: It is a most hopeful development."
The News Guild, you may recall, is lead by Linda Foley, the women who last year claimed that the US military was intentionally targeting journalists in Iraq and who is an avowed advocate of agenda journalism." I wrote about her here and here.
If this is the mindset of even a small number of the MSM's leading lights, expect things to get much worse before they get any better.
But, hey, what do I know? According to Molly, I am not even qualified to offer an opinion in writing. And for that matter, neither are you! ;-)
starling david hunter,
Thanks for the links.
Wretchard,
Guilty as charged. I thought it a mistake for Bush 1 not to cross the Rubicon and finish Hussein. I also thought it a grave error for George Hotspur to "complete" the family business. From my point of view it is timing. In Gulf 1, the Iraqis were totally defeated. Armies were destroyed and the pillaging hordes decimated at "the turkey shoot". It was a matter of picking up the keys. One could hope that the civil service in Iraq would have stayed around and there would have been a real Post-Saddaam era. It was the Perfect Desert Storm. We had to be there. Hussein was the perfect villain.
Take two. Hotspur had to find a reason to go. Our good friends, the Turks stabbed him in the ass. Without the 4th ID insufficient number of the Iraq Army were shocked and awed in the North. It was more of a shuck and jive and they strolled home. Lesser minds fired 400,000 men with weapons. They forgot that the mission was to make America more secure. Had they remembered they would have given them a raise and ordered them to return to barracks. Surely 300,000 of them would have been useful in preventing the chaos and stupidity to follow.
That was then. This is now. Situations change, America’s interests do not. Yes Hussein should have been removed. He should have been removed to make a point. The point was that after 911, Bush declared, "you are with us or against us." His removal would have proved to several very un-innocent bystanders that they are "with us or against us." To be against is not a good thing. They would have noticed. Any C- or better student of history knows that any post war occupation has a very short shelf life of good will. Hell, the locals did not like us in Biloxi. We can all agree that the military occupation of Iraq had room on the upside for improvement.
My argument is simple. Politically, diplomatically and strategically we have done nothing to enhance the perception of American power in Iraq. Nothing. We do this in a time where our interests would be better served attending to our greater and urgent interests.
On an unrelated point. This Club of yours is one of the great achievements of the Internet. Congrats.
wretchard said..."starling david hunter, Thanks for the links."
You're welcome. I added a few more and posted them here
You might find the image interesting. It seems to be from an old pulp fiction novel by the name "Red Harvest." Interestingly, the text under the title reads "Dashiell Hammett's famous story of a city torn apart by murdering gamblers, gunmen, crooked police."
For anyone interested, Mr Seymour Hersh has written again, on Iran.
This is the redeeming paragraph, for me, in that vis a vie Iran the Administration, according to Mr Hersh, has taken my advice.
"... If the order were to be given for an attack, the American combat troops now operating in Iran would be in position to mark the critical targets with laser beams, to insure bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian casualties. As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast. The troops “are studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds,” the consultant said. One goal is to get “eyes on the ground”—quoting a line from “Othello,” he said, “Give me the ocular proof.” The broader aim, the consultant said, is to “encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime. ... "
Not that it was solely my idea, as buddy said, it was right out of Mr Truman's working options for fighting the Commies.
Mr Hersh is decidedly anti Mr Bush and his Administration but the article THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? in the New Yorker is interesting reading, none the less.
At the Counterterrorism blog, Mr Walid Phares echos warnings of probable Iranian blowback to any US strike. He believes, however, that the Iranians WILL use their Foreign Assets preemptively. In the US and across the World.
" ... Let’s review the sequences telegraphically: Tehran wants the bomb(s) built and deployed: There are no other options in the Mullahs mind. The US and its allies can’t tolerate this development. Iran knows that. Tehran is preparing for the confrontation. It has ordered all its assets to prepare for battle. Hizbollah, Tehran’s main strategic weapon is on a full steam campaign to “saturate the battlefield” ahead of time.
It is only through this prism that one can understand Hizbollah’s current moves inside Lebanon, in Gaza and the West Bank, in Iraq and across its bases around the world: Elimination of the Cedars Revolution’s cadres in Beirut; deploying units to Palestine; activating its assets in Iraq, along with Iran’s resources; and more importantly readying its cells in West Africa, Europe, Latin America and North America. Hizbollah is not initiating its planning on future chores overseas, including in the US. That is not its logic or modus operandi. Hizbollah has already prepared its resources on American soil and across the Atlantic. By the time the Iranian Navy is showing the world its “fast torpedoes in action in the Persian Gulf,” the architects of the 1983 attacks on the Marines in Beirut have absorbed al Qaida’s experience around the world and here at home. ... "
" ... According to Barbara Newman, a former ABC’s 20/20 producer and a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, cells are omnipresent within the US. In her book Hizbollah: Terrorists on American Soil, Newman warns from the “other army” ready to engage us. In my book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America, I not only project a Hizbollah upcoming wave, but I argue that it has already acquired its strategic targets. Like al Qaida, Hizbollah won’t warn America first. If you listen to or watch Nasrallah’s speeches and his Iranian inspirer Ahmedinijad’s, their rhetoric is already a battlefield one. Furthermore, Hizbollah will attempt to paint its future strikes as “legitimate responses to aggression.” Signs of this approach are abundant. Last week, on al Jazeera I shared a panel with an Islamist activist who shouted loud that “America is preparing its massive invasion of Iran by sending its Secretary of State to Baghdad!” The propaganda preparation for “striking the upcoming invasion” is widening. The show of force –and of weapons- in the Gulf is on. The machine is moving. It all depends on when and how will the Mullahs, in consultation with their Jihadi allies, unleash the wrath onto the Kuffars (infidels). Short of a change in Western posture on a nuclear Iran, the collision is bound to happen. ... "
ARE YOU READY FOR HIZBOLLAH'S PREEMPTIVE TERROR?
Just remember Club members, we discussed it here, first.
The media front of the Culture War has already been lost. Evidence is that organizations like the Newspaper Guild are acting in concert with the Communication Workers of America to consolidate their victory by institutionalizing their control of the MSM and the "Conversation."
There is already a list of cultural topics which are taboo to the MSM: the possibility that war is a positive instrument of social change, that despite its history of racism that minorities in the United States today are and should be responsible for their own future, or even topics so seemingly obvious such that men and women are different creatures.
If traditional conservatism, the voice of free-markets, is to have any sway at all it will have to be through the alternative media.
Hezbollah has been the premiere terrorist organization since the early 80s. I always wished for the day that the Israelis would turn the Bekka Valley into an abbatoir but it never came.
The real danger with Hezbollah is that the Stalinists will push hard to legitimize it as a political party outside of Lebanon. The proper outcome is to put a Dead or Alive sticker on each and every swinging richard in the organization and deal with them individually and completely.
Two articles, both reference recently translated Iraqi documents are at the Weekly Standard's site.
Putin Vindicated by Dan Darling is interesting but the killer...
"... ... We are engaged in a difficult war. It matters a great deal to the country how the Iraq war relates to the broader war on terror--just as it matters whether President Bush was honest in making the case for the war. The administration's timidity in taking on its critics, openly and publicly, is self-defeating. It's awfully hard to win a political struggle without fighting.
-William Kristol ..."
When even Mr Kristol wants the President to Show Your Teeth the lack of Offense is apparent to all...
This is currently being reported by the BBC.......John Sawers, a Foreign Office high-flyer who is currently the political director met Mr Blair on a trip in May and one memo headed "Iraq: what's going wrong?" dates from the same month.
He wrote about the US administration in Baghdad led by retired US General Jay Garner: "No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis... Garner and his team of 60-year-old retired generals are well-meaning but out of their depth."
He criticised just about everything, calling it an "unbelievable mess".
His current views on Iraq are not publicly known. Mr Sawers is a discreet diplomat and is anyway now grappling with another problem which is proving intractable - Iran's nuclear programme.....
I would not be too anxious to put my trust in this administration on an Iranian venture. Lack of success is one thing , lack of accountability is quite another.
If Hezzbollah is already locked and loaded inside western nations, what should our response be? Step aside and let the Bomb be built & deployed? Would this stand-down the cells?
How much new international political power will accrue to the Bombed-up Mullahs?
Would they then not continue to intimidate via the cells, and to an even larger degree?
Will not the cells be given the "go ahead" piecemeal, per the 80s/90s, anyway--and now behind the new nuclear umbrella (and 'umbrella' is not the right Mullah Bomb image--more the Sword of Damocles)?
Is a Nebraska Beslan more likely with a Bombed-up Mullahs, a de-fanged Mullahs, or No Mullahs?
Just wondering what we're looking at here.
re: George Packer and Iraq
I would say the most obvious implication of Packer's commentary is that we had way to few troops in Iraq.
The theory of Rumsfeld and the generals--that one had to balance between security, on the one hand, and appearing as an occupation force on the other--is compelling, but is it right? Are that many Iraqis so sensitive that an increased American presence would have pushed them into the insurgency?
Our success in Tal Afar argues otherwise. Of course, we don't know whether rampant insurgency in the city was a pre-condition for local acceptance of American oversight, but I would say Tal Afar, on the surface, is exhibit 'A' against Rumsfeld and the generals.
If it is true that there are no short-cuts, that quality of police trainees must come before quantity, then it follows that what we needed in the interim was absolute American control of territory. That takes troops.
With an overwhelming presence from the beginning, using the oil-spot strategy advocated by Krepinevich, it's a defendable position to think we could have accomplished a hell of a lot more in Iraq than we have to-date. Controlling the cities and unapologetically eliminated behavior we deemed harmful or unproductive could have, over time, stabilized what is now a boiling cauldron of bad actors.
The next implication of Packer's commentary is that it is now too late to go back. We've already turned Iraq over to the Iraqis. We no longer have the freedom to impose anything on anybody without first acquiring permission. Furthermore, it is now politically impossible to substantially raise the level of troops in Iraq.
Instead of being the forge, our strategy now is to be the vice and the shield: the vice to hold the whole thing together while the glue sets, the shield against any outside interference. Whether this is enough for success remains to be seen.
In sum, it is very plausible that, because of decisions based on theory, we missed a golden opportunity to occupy, cultivate, and in the end transform Iraq without this irresponsible dependence on the civic virtues of Iraqis. That is what I took from Packer's reporting.
Rummy is facing this question continually, and has distilled his response to (paraphrase) 'unless people have forged it themselves, they will not support the government'.
It IS easy to see how an American installation would lack the propaganda power to stave off the 'lapdog' charge from everybody from NYTimes to AQ & the Mullahs.
Conversely, whatever emerges from the current process will be unassailable as anything but the real thing.
And I agree with that, too, Buddy. The problem lies in the knowing: both strategies had pay-offs, but which was the highest?
that'll be an interesting debate question if we win the war, and a ghastly one if we lose.
sorry--that was to aristides' post--
I agree with bobalharb--should the Mullocracy be suddenly decapitated, might not many cell-members just forget to check their email, in favor of disappearing into our suddenly relieved and attractively joyful population?
We went from 10,000 to 50,000 and then the term was "fifty thousand more" in Viet Nam. We got to 550,000. At no time did any extra troops project strength. It was incremental and was always reactive. Each addition made the US look weaker in world opinion. Certainly not to the NVA or VC, but in the context of politics we got worse with more. The same thing would happen if we added more troops now. The Russians did the same in Afghanistan. You get one good shot at being right.
bobalharb said...
"I may be entirely wrong--I am about 50% of the time--but I think people may be overestimating the potential for terrorist stikes in America."
I think he is probably correct. But just in case we need to demonstrate that we will remove regimes that support terrorism and agression against US interests. That is our best defense. It is direct, brutal and gets us out of what is happening in Iraq. The longer we stay, the more difficult it will become to muster support for future engagements regardless of merit. To parrot the opinion that everything depends on a certain goal being achieved in Iraq is both nonsense and counter productive to our interests.
Yes, buddy, if the Mullahs were suddenly gone. But there are few scenarios where that is the outcome.
Suddenly is the sticking point.
As Mr Hersh wrote we now have people in Iran, passing out day money. Have no doubt that the Iranians have day money distributors in the US, as well.
Well, bobalharb, of all the scenarios available, the success of the 9-11 attacks and the sheer number of intercepts that were considered "threats" by the NSA, would lead me to believe otherwise.
The flow of infiltrators across our frontier, the prayer blankets found, discarded on the trail from Mexico, lead me to believe otherwise.
The Iranians have had decades to prepare, they will push the envelope, but if they truly believe what they claim to believe.
The economic fallout could be devastating, here, there & everywhere.
Iran's support of Mr al-Jaafari is one of the things that make Mr Mahdi more palatable.
Mr Mahdi also spent years in Iran, so if that creates "strings of attachment" Mr Mahdi is puppetized as well.
I'm surpirised it is even much of an issue, Head Gaming 101 is easy to see through.
Anyone that believes that Mr Mahdi and the SCIRI ruling Federal Iraq is more advantagous to long term US interests, in the Region, than to Iran's are kidding themselves.
It took a political genius to get us in a position to contemplate Mr al-Jaafari or Mr Mahdi as the results of our efforts at establishing Democracy on the Euphrates
Ms Rice and Mr Straw are under great pressure to "move things along".
Mr Sistani is unavailable, but demands Shia vote as a Bloc. He is still obeyed.
The Bloc voted for Mr al-Jaafari, he is their and the only Candidate for PM.
I have read of Deadlines of acceptance demanded of him, he refuses to budge, as does Mr Sistani.
When or if another Candidate forms a Government or when Mr al-Jaafari finally does, both the UK & US will rejoice.
The theology or ideology of the "winner" will be little discussed, just that "consensus" has been obtained in Iraq.
If debka is to be believed, then the Iraqi Government is and will be riddled with Iranian agents, regardless of whom is chosen PM.
So it truly matters little, but by degree, to the Iranians. They may have a preference, but their fallback position is secure, regardless.
Our preference, Mr Allawi is not even in the running.
That is telling, I'm afraid.
Rat, right, "suddenly" is the sticking point. But dig deeper--the psy effect is front-loaded. We don't have to've finished the job--for that effect--if we start it right.
I'm too ill-informed to have any confidence in my opinion re Iranian capabilities. I'm just reflecting generally on human nature and stimuluis/response. The jihad was back on its heels hard until USA began the 2004 election debate. In a way it is still back on its heels (no more 911s). The Mullahs are pouring on the intimidation because we are still by choice in the zone of intimidation.
There's the chance that if we emerge on the war side of that zone, the Mullahs will fold their tents for now. Goal one is stop that nuclear ballistic missile program.
Another thing that may stop concurrent with that program is the assault on Iraq, as the Mullahs may face the old disengagement problem of a petered-out attack.
We gotta look at these upsides, too. Luckily, we apparently have some time--the Bomb isn't ready, world opinion as expressed by the UN is turning against the Mullahs, and despite the horrible random bombings in Iraq, the politics are still politics.
The trick will be too get American public opinion ready to topple the Mullahs--it's the only way to avoid at some point in the future having to actually do it.
As I said a couple of days ago, the drums will be beating all summer.
If the Public responds and the Republicans hold their own come Fall, perhaps.
But if the Dems can gain either body of Congress, then it'll really be a "long hard slog" for Mr Bush to convince US of the necessity of another Preemptive War, in the face of electoral setbacks.
Mr Hersh's description of a massive air strike campaign against Iran may do the trick, or it may strengthen their resolve.
I know what reaction a direct Iranian attack on the US would result in. A strengthened resolve of the US Public.
Why that would not be the case in Iran is arguable, at best.
It's going to happen. GWB's historians are going to observe that he's a lame duck with nothing to lose politically (at 30% approval ratings), and the New Fascism clambering out of its cradle (like circa the 30s), still killable at a cost always less than it will be tomorrow--if indeed it will be killable at all tomorrow.
That was Mr Hersh's feeling as well.
That although Mr Bush and folk speak of a Diplomatic Solution, there is tacit admission that since the Mullahs are not to be trusted, no Diplomatic agreement can be, either.
Which is why the counterterrorism blog link's idea that Iran will act preemptively, as they've decided War is inevitable, is outside the box of my previous thinking.
All four of us come to the same conclusion.
Why would the Iranians wait, would we?
rufus
we could pull out large numbers of troops, leaving their equipment behind, prepositioned.
The troops could be in the tanks and rolling, flown in from the States almost as quickly as predeployed troops. We practiced this in Europe for decades.
It is not manpower that will be needed, if Mr Hersh is accurate, we plan on bombin' the bejeezus out of 'em.
I'm curious to have someone explain, though, how more troops would've exactly changed things. Moreover, would more troops have been logistically possible? Cost-effective? Much more abrasive to Arab pride? And so on.
Those are the right questions. Nobody knows for sure, but the supporters of the "more troops" line assert that too few troops precluded the clear and hold strategy that was so successful in Tal Afar. With more troops, we could have created oases of security and rehabilitation which, after a while, would have provided the propaganda-by-deed that we so desperately needed: life with Americans equals x, life with insurgents equals y.
2. I have heard arguments for and against the logistics here, and whether a substantial number of troops was plausible. I assume it was.
3. The cost in the short term would have been substantially higher, but in the medium and long-term the gains in terms of time and treasure would have been immense.
4. The Arab-pride question also has advocates on both sides. Some assert that the Arab is so prideful as to be unique among the races. Others have observed Arabs to be much more controllable when it is clear to them that there are no other options. Insha'allah and all that. The diehards would still be diehards, but they would be easy to exile and eliminate with 100% control of territory. In the meantime, the Arabs who just wanted life to stabilize would truck through with hurt pride but full bellies (not to mention other amenities).
This is the (incomplete) argument for more troops, and I have no way of knowing if it is right. It may be, as it often is, that all options were bad, and that victory always depended more on will and adaptability than initial strategy. My gut feeling is that the "more-troops" argument, tempered with Krepinevich's oil-spot strategy, would have made our job easier, but would not, in the end, have been determinatve.
bobalharb, look into management of Germany's High Seas Fleet post-Jutland. Ship are expensive as hell, navies with no chance to win, will protect rather than risk the unaffordable losses.
Look for Iranian command-control to break up as soon as it starts, with some high brass throwing in with the new order.
Our Carrier Battle Groups are unparalleled at force-protection. Iran's stuff is just going to be target practice. All of it, and then some. The narrow waters work both ways, and favor offense in the same way as defense.
I hope.
The less troops argument being that the smaller footprint made for less targets.
It was the tactics in Tal Afar, as well as use of ISF troops that made it a success.
More US troops would not have "secured" the Country. It was not a lack of manpower that kept Route Irish unsecure for years.
It was the overall stragey and RoE, which regardless of the number of troops deployed, would have remained similar to those used.
There are 40,000 troops garrisoned between Camps Fallujah and Anaconda, alone. They have been garrisoned for well over a year, now. There were "enough" troops, they just were not utilized as well as they could have been.
Check Mr Rumsfeld's old quotes, when he spoke of having all the wrong "skill sets" deployed to Iraq, oh, about 18 months ago, now.
The "More" troops would have had the wrong "skill sets" as well.
A better, but less discussed option, less troops sooner, would really have been perferable. That almost 2 years went by, before we started to stand up a viable ISF was a major error.
One that even Mr Bush admits to.
If we had started that training sooner, they'd have been ready, by now.
ah well.
rat, your "why would they wait?" question: because there's the American public opinion factor. They'd rather Bush without it than Bush with it.
The best thing the Mullahs could do for an admin that has already made up its mind, is grant a proximate pretext. Something with pictures, more immediate than a Bomb off in the foggy future.
buddy,
that's always been my mindset, that the Iranians would be reactive to US.
Mr Walid Phares believes otherwise, that the Iranians may take the inititive. That scenario always seemed a loser for the Iranians, from my perspective.
But it does make some, arguably bad, sense. Perhaps more from the Mullah's perspective.
There's an old expression, "gets my goat", for something too annoying to abide. It comes from horse racing, where an excitable racehorse would be stalled with a goat that the horse had been pastured with since birth. The goat's presence keeps the horse calm and rested. If a rival "gets your goat", he's messing up your horse's chance to win the race, without going too far by harming your horse. You can get someone's goat without even touching it, just stand outside the stall and stare at it and think bad thoughts--the goat will get nervous, and upset the horse. The horse will lose a few steps in race. You can pop a goat in the ass with a paperclip and rubberband, and make it nervous for the night, in an enclosed stall. Nobody might ever know why the horse didn't run true to form.
The most disturbing piece I've found on Mr Mahdi comes from this Site from November of last year.
Some took exception to Mr Dreyfuss when I first linked to this, last week, but while they disliked Mr Dreyfuss's politics, they did not dispute his findings.
The Headgame, as I see it, boils down to Iran having multiple players in Iraq.
They publicly support the most disruptive, Mr al-Sadr and by extension Mr al-Jaafari. There may be agents, and assets expended in this publicly viewed support.
Mr Mahdi and his camp followers have also had long term relations with the Iranians. In more "normal" times he would not be considered an "ally" of US. The SCIRI has not been pro US in the past. Mr Mahdi would, normally, be considered an Iranian proxy, as was the entire SCIRI until quite recently. The Iranians and SCIRI both publicly moved away from each other.
To my thinking this is just a facade, a gamesmanship move. It makes someone whom, two years ago the US would not empower, into our newest best ally.
Privately, SCIRI and Iran have conspired to accomplish taking over the new Federal Iraq, from US.
Big prize, worthy of subterfuge
If debka is right, a big if, then the choice of PM matters little, it is window dressing. They've groomed a pig, but it still is a pig.
I could be totally wrong, but I doubt it, alot.
Condoleezza Rice on Piano
Her favorite opera is Mussorgsky's epic "Khovanshchina," not surprising, given her expertise in Russian culture, language and history.
It may have special resonance today:
it tells of bloody factional strife at the time of the ascension of Peter the Great, made worse by the intransigence of the Old Believers, a fundamentalist Orthodox group opposed to reform.
The Iranians provide both the problem, as well as the solution.
Each in a different proxy.
buddy's right as rain, about the goat in the horse's stall.
My prose was evidently insufficiently compelling.
Ya see, I had some good writing in store, but Rufus' post got my goat, and now I'm lacking confidence.
"The Iranians provide both the problem, as well as the solution."
See "Mob", Extortion 101. Launder the vig, swag, skim, etcetera, thru the Nymex.
Hey, great thread, thanks guys, lots of interesting views and info I'd never find on my own. Appreciate it.
Imho, Iran's recent military demonstrations are acts of desperation, and I was glad to see VDH concur in his recent article. I also think they are advertising a military alliance with Russia, which they could really use. It would be just like the old days, where weak countries could stand up to America because the USSR was standing right behind them. The Cold days are gone, and it's hard to believe Russia would intervene militarily against US anymore than they did in Serbia.
I see the Iranian's recent actions, and the renewed ferocity of the insurgency in Iraq as signs that we are really getting the bad guys' goat.
Since Iran doesn't have Russia behind them, they NEED the bomb in the face of what MUST feel like irrestible, inexorable American aggression. The only way to get there is to buy time and tangle us up in the UN, in the Iraqi insurgency, in American domestic politics (which we got covered for them!).
In the face of all this concerted action by the enemy against our actions in their theatre, you would almost think we had a plan. And it was working, although excruciatingly slowly.
Even so, I doubt we'll ever do it this way again.
---------
As for the smaller footprint vs. 500,000 troops - that was an argument for the beginning of the war. No one thinks we would still have them there now, right? This insurgency ebbed and and then grew again in 05. For the massive presence theory to have worked, we'd have the 500,000 still there. For a number of reasons, we couldn't do that, as Rufus points out.
Rufus,
You were just getting funny, man! The thing with the horse smoking the Marlboro is toot sweet.
I see the mullahs sitting around the old hookah: "We got the Great Satan right where we want him now. Directly to our west, directly to our east, directly to our south and directly above. Perfect!"
yeh, nothing wrong with deflating obscuranticismistism.
"We got him right where he wants us!"
C4,
Now you're getting it:
That's why Fox and La Raza are the good guys, and we're intolerant vigilantes in waiting.
(None Dare Say Citizens in Waiting for some reality from DC)
Doug,
You're right, Cedarford does seem to be finally getting it. But not completely. C sez Bush's "Religion of Peace" when we all know Religion of Peace is foremost a great joke coined by LittleGreenFootballs.
tex,
I had not heard of Mr Mahdi two months ago, I had not heard of Mr Dreyfuss until last week.
Google is like that.
Google Mr Mahdi, Mr Dreyfuss appears. Google Mr Dreyfuss and he is less than totally reliable.
I think Mr Mahdi is less than reliable
Cedarford said...
What kills me about Muslims, every damn last one of them, is the total lack of surprise or outrage when Shia or Sunni blow up a Mosque.
I never understood the nonsense of American GIs at Guantanamo Bay humoring these people. There should be no prisoners at Guantanamo; they should have been dispatched in Afghanistan. They never should have been given Qurans, as Islam itself is the problem. You cannot desecrate the Quran, as it is a desecration against life, sanity and civilization.
With The Sunday Telegraph reporting that Bush is giving serious consideration to using Nuclear bunker busters against Iran, they say: "The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said."
It may help negotiations if three of them would resign next Tuesday. It may clarify some thinking in Mullaland.
Sy Hersh has a long record in the leftic brain trust-but that doesn't mean he's not to be read. Always a bellwether.
Tex, 5:17 PM
There was no Israel in 1946.
As to pre-deployment, recall that in mid '05, Israel purchased a vast store of strategic weaponry. While little commented on at the time, Israel had no real use for all this, if the PA was the intended recipient. Although the argument is reasonable that Iran is the target, the Bush administration would not permit this, save as last resort. So, what is to become of the blockbusters etc. now in Israel?
2164th,
Re: "some officers have talked about resigning"
Regrettable, but it may be for the best. For some it might be the first noble act in a long time. Check out any one of the Navy, Air Force, or Army Times for clarification.
Yes, Sy Hersh is of dubious reputation,
Mr Dreyfuss is of dubious reputation,
Mr Powell is of dubious reputation, as well.
Jimmy Carter does not stand up well in this crowd.
So what.
Debka and Mr Hersh, read 'em all.
Mr Buckley and Mr Kaplan as well.
Insights, stray facts and out there somewhere, the truth.
It's all in the basement of the Hoover building, Agent Mulder has the file.
I doubt, tex, that the Shia in general, Mr Mahdi, Mr al-Jaafari or Mr Sistani agree with those proposed assignments of responsibility and authority. That is the real choke point, me thinks, not the name of the PM.
It is a Shia Government, they have the majority, surely they feel deserving of commanding the Army and Police.
Rightfully so, democraticly.
The extra Constitutional Council that Mr Roggio wrote of and I think our Host has mentioned, time limits and deadlines, all were to be the deadlock breakers, yet gridlock remains the only constant.
Try to get a super majority of Congress to endorse anything or anyone.
How many Federal Judges appointed by Mr Bush were held from the bench for that very reason, here in the US of A?
In Iraq, the Shia have won the in the process we helped to design and whole heartedly approved of.
Mr Bremmer says he saw the writing on the wall.
danmyers, 9:03 PM
"the truth is so precious it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies."
The US Government, danmyers, has released false information to the public concerning USAF aircraft lost in Central America in the early '80's.
Know it, cause I was there and the Public report did not relate reality.
Who ordered the "cover up" of the downing of a USAF plane, I have no idea. As to why, it would have been "difficult" to admit that our planes were being shot down, in Panama. There was no good reason for US to go public.
Especially after exPanamanian President Omar "the Bull" Torrejos was lost in a downed aircraft just weeks later.
I all go with the 48 hr rule (wait 48 hr. and more information will trickle out - certain Iraqis must know who did it).
Now, I would guess Omar's first theory that Iran was involved via a proxy (Sadr or AQ) to drag as many parties as possible into the battle is credible. Further, Iran is prime suspect because of the likelihood they will end-up in military confrontation over their nuclear weapons project - thus, they want to muddy the water as much as possible.
It's possible that Saddam and some of his thugs from Syria staged this event including the story the bodies of murdered Sunnis were buried in Buratha mosque. His legal road is coming to an end and a "scorch the earth" tactic would suit his purposes.
Or, it may just be brutal Iraqi politics as they "negotiate for control of $120,000,000.00/Day in oil revenue." (quote from rufus).
I will make to two suggestions:
1) Display pictures the heads of the suicide bombers to get leads on them as they did in the Bali bombings (if it's possible).
2) Institute a temporary policy where women will not be allowed to wear large baggy coverings that could conceal 40 lb. of explosives in large public gatherings (head scarves are probably OK). This "hide the bulk explosive in women's baggy clothing as worked successfully - and it certainly will be tried in the future.
US military reacting to the last few years of crap info?
(from gyre.com --take a look)
The Ministry of the Interior in Iraq is probably THE most corrupt department of the government. It is dominated by radical Shias who are just barely disguising their efforts at eradicating the Sunnis...just barely. If Jafaari received intelligence from the MOI about the bombings than only two things are possible: 1. The intelligence was deliberately vague so that the planned attack could not be thwarted. 2. It was a genuine tip and the MOI/Prime Minister had nothing to do with the attack. The guess by Iraq the Model is interesting and could very well be true. Jafaari is a puppet of Iran and Iran is THE most powerful player in Iraq right now, moreso than the US...by far. I am stationed in Iraq now and it is pretty evident. But I am going to have to think about this for awhile before I am willing to buy into the conspiracy.
A STRATEGY FOR IRAN?
The buzz is growing over the discussion of tactical nukes to be used against Iranian nuclear facilities. The Left, MSM, many foreign pundits and hopefully the Iranians believe Bush is smart enough, dumb enough, crazy enough or reckless enough to do it. There is talk about a bazillion ton explosive test in Las Vegas and members of JCS resigning in protest over proposed nuclear weapon use. This is the background music you would want if the decision were to put an ultimatum to Iran.
The world has heard this song before from this administration. Iran gives no credibility to the EU negotiations. They know the EUros are feckless. They also believe that Bush could do it. They know that Bush is in trouble in Iraq and would like to fix that. De-fanging Iran would take some of the starch out of Iranian leaning Iraqi Shiites. In the ME, strength attracts, weakness repels. Bush does not need a ground presence in Iran to do major damage to Iran. I am no fan of Bush but you have to take him seriously. The Iranians do. The increased tempo of Bush going it alone and as Dr. Strangelove may start some serious negotiations. May, but maybe not.
If not, Bush has the whole world in a panic. He moves forward deployed assets to advanced battle readiness, air assets out of EU bases that may not allow nuclear missions from these bases. Two members of the JCS take an early out "in protest". The Iranians know he is not kidding. Maybe not.
THE STING.
The US takes out all Iranian naval, air, missile and air defensive assets. All conventional. All Iranian nuclear facilities are ignored. The deep underground facilities are untouched. Command and control facilities are heavily targeted. The world takes a deep sigh of relief that neither the nuclear facilities were hit nor TNW were used. Iran has a huge gaping hole in its military structure and will have to pay for and restore that. The mullahs are humiliated leaving some room for indigenous counter regime response. The nuclear option is all still on the table.
I do not know that war with Iran is inevitable, desirable or even necessary. It never was with the Soviet Union and they had steel teeth. I suggest what I see as a possible developing strategy for your Sunday entertainment.
India will vote against Iran at IAEA.
Fast tracking the India-US nuclear cooperation and reducing India's oil imports is another sign the administration is positioning for Iran's takedown.
What Tex said:
To the major and any others working and fighting overseas: I just want to say that I have the greatest respect for what you're doing, even as I strain to imagine the conditions under which you do it all. May God be with you and see you through!
I second that whole-heartedly.
As for that test in Las Vegas with 700 tons of HE - that's obviously a test to see what X amount of force does to Y amount of rock/structure underground. So, if necessary, we'd know what to dial up the B61-11's to.
The Major's words are sobering, that Iran has that much influence right now in Iraq. Well, it's all one big war, grinding excruciatingly slowly.
tex,
Re: Only settlers in '46
Some of the "settlers" had been settled in places like Jerusalem since the time of David. When the Jordanians captured Jerusalem, the "settlers" were expelled, their ancient synagogues and cemeteries desecrated, and any Jew with the temerity to return to Jerusalem had the same life expectancy as a Jew discovered in Mecca.
Rulers came and went - Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arabic, Nordic, and Turkic - throughout the millennia; however, there were always tens of thousands of Jews living in Roman Palestine. And when did the pseudo-ethnicity of "Palestinian", applicable to a host of Arabic speaking expats, come into fashionable vogue? Wasn't 1968?
rufus,
Re: battles not wars
"Theatre" is even better. All in good time, I suppose.
tex,
Re: your 11:19 AM
Nothing personal, it is just that the Islamists rely on misunderstandings to carry their obscene renditions of history. We just cannot, ever, give them a break. I appreciate your posts.
The opinions expressed here are not those of the liberal intelligentsia. That would most assuredly include the MSM.
Post a Comment
<< Home