The so-called ‘Surge’, and its alleged success, are based on two fundamental tactics: the first one is the so-called ‘Redirection‘ which consists of buying off the Sunni resistance, including all those groups who only yesterday were called ‘terrorists’; the second new tactic is massive increasing in the use of airpower. The blog Lenin’s Tomb has just published an excellent analysis which proves that the occupation forces are now truly engaged into a ‘rolling wave of massacres’ as ‘Lenin’ writes:
Both countries have taken a hammering, but Afghanistan in particular has taken the brunt of a massive series of air attacks in part due to the ‘risk-transfer’ conception of war, in which civilians are to bear the brunt of death and destruction rather than US combatants. The hostile terrain of Afghanistan, and the fact that few are actually covering it very extensively, makes it an ideal target for this kind of ferocious assault – with, as we saw last year, a rolling wave of massacres in the country. Inevitably, since the air war hasn’t been covered much by the media, and given its insensitivity to ‘enemy’ casualties, those massacres reported are a tiny sample of the true total. Without a Lancet-style survey, we will remain very much in the dark about the true nature of this assault and its effects.
Arming the Sunnis + using air strikes = a successful ‘Surge’, at least statistically, for the time being. In reality, this will make the situation even worse as the Sunnis will inevitably turn on the occupation force they hate, the Shias will be even further alienated by their betrayal, and the thousands of new civilian casualties will only result in more hatred for the brutal occupation. Add to this the US support for Turkey against the Kurds and you have all the ingredients of a complete nightmare and even more bloodshed. The ‘Surge’ will go down in history as one of the dumbest and most immoral political stunts ever devised.
the entire business in iraq has forced on my attention all sorts of things that i probably knew, but wasn’t thinking about. recently i had a short, roaring, pointless argument (on the web – not in person, i shudder to think about it) with a few u.s. military types who get a kick out of wearing t-shirts that say “taking out the garbage”, a reference to iraqis. their trick is a tautology, to call anyone on the receiving end of an american bullet a person who likes to behead others and film it. i wondered if that included the 5-year-olds? no answer. no-one’s a civilian, no-one’s innocent:
“Inevitably, since the air war hasn’t been covered much by the media, and given its insensitivity to ‘enemy’ casualties, those massacres reported are a tiny sample of the true total.”
this attitude has been true of wars since the first one ever, i’m sure, but now the endless attempts to bury talk about “enemy” casualties makes a person sick.
Air strikes on Iraq have dropped recently. There have been days without any air strikes in Iraq. Violence of all kinds are down. Overall, to the lowest level since the temporary post election dip in early 2005.
What will happen is uncertain. But the difference this time is that the IA and many but not all IP are in the lead.
So far, social and ethnic cohesion in the IA has held. It is respected as the least sectarian and partisan institution in Iraq (the IP, INP, FPS, much less so–especially by sunni arabs.) Why do you think that the IA, and its coure de sprit will not hold?
Regarding the ANA, it was run on a shoestring budget until Nov’06. Only after firing Rumsfeld did Pres Bush request congress for $10 billion in grants for Afghanistan over two years. This money will take some time to be reflected in end state FMC ANA capabilities. (Until 11-06, Rumsfeld’s public plan was to dramatically slash the ANA’s projected end state to 50,000 troops (and cut back on weapons procurement) to save money and make Afghanistan “self-reliant” in paying for its own defense and reconstruction.) What I have heard about the ANA is that they are woefully under-equipped and under-resourced. While being very motivated, they are extremely green compared to the IA.
VS,
The statistics are truly depressing. To think that 600,000 Iraqis died as of 2006 at our hands is sickening. What is the figure now? 800,000 or a million? Two million? Is there no end to this?
So, basically, the surge is working because so many Iraqi males have been killed or emigrated?
I don’t know what Anand is smoking but it is some pretty potent stuff. As best as I can make out there is no Iraqi Army with a strong identity–only militias who may don a uniform by day and are militiamen the rest of the time.
Anonymous, what do you disagree with me regarding?
Total violent deaths peaked at 3 to 4 thousand a month in Iraq. Now they are 600 (many statistics . . . including from different parts of the GoI argue 500, but I am being conservative and bumping up the number.) No one in their right mind argues that Iraqis haven’t been through the depths of suffering. That is not what is being discussed. We aren’t even discussing why violence is down.
What I am discussing is the state of the IA now. You wrote: “As best as I can make out there is no Iraqi Army with a strong identity–only militias who may don a uniform by day and are militiamen the rest of the time.” Do you have “ANY” evidence for this from the last 3 months excluding MoI forces, former SIBS, IA 1-5, IA 3-5, IA 3-8, and to a much lesser degree some JAM jundi recently recruited into some of 6th IAD (and the IA 1-11) battalions.
Please feel free to provide any evidence. Would you say a snide remark like this to the face of an actual IA soldier?
An analysis of http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/FINAL-SecDef%20Signed-20071214.pdf will be up shortly. The IA has real problems with leadership due to very rapid growth, and attempting to re-create an officer and NCO corp without major reliance on the old Iraqi army (45% of authorized NCOs, 60% of authorized officers, 150% of authorized jundi are assigned.)
But please try to find loyalty problems. The IA obeys the chain of command. And so far, they are effective in most of Iraq. Other than the ISF surge, what other explanation do you have for the drop in violence?
“So, basically, the surge is working because so many Iraqi males have been killed or emigrated?” This makes no sense. The population in Iraq is greater now than in 3-2003. (Iraq had 4-5 million refugees before 3-2003, and many returned—especially from Iran according to the much repeated claims of the resistance. Iraq also has high birth rates, and most of Iraq’s post 3-2003 refugees are internal within Iraq.) Most Iraqis have died because of terrorist attacks, militia violence, and crime and hasn’t targeted Iraqi males any more than Iraq women, children and elderly. Where is the evidence that Iraq’s make-up by sex has substantially changed?
You could argue that many potential resistance fighters are in prison, or that many previously violent areas are more ethnically homogenous, but this is not what you said.
The Sunni under Saddam, despite being in the minority, seem to be the better bet in a diffuse clan based war. Shiites have gambled that they could leverage the US occupation and lip service to democracy to attain power, and they have sort of been right, except now the US has switched sides back to the Sunnis again because we want a kick ass scaffolding of toads that can champ peace on the area like Saddam did. Sooner or later, both the Shiite factions , Sadar and the Badr brigades – Maliki that runs the current Iraqi government, will become restless with the shadow government of Sunni tribes that the surge has established, and the will go at it because there both sides will not consider the current trajectory of the political process to their liking. Even the Kurds will be pissed at us for helping the Turks go after the PKK. We need to understand why we are in Iran, the real reason. The Iraqi’s all understand it. We want a US-boots on the ground presence in the Middle East to find a way to menace Iran and Syria and advance the Israeli strategic agenda.
Those US bases are like the forward basing of the pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941. They are an inviting target to tempt enemy hotheads to strike. If deputy prime minister Avigdor Lieberman or somebody like him, allied to the radical settler movement, comes to power in Israel, they will hit Iran, calculating that if they do, Iran will strike at US interests in the middle east, and the troops and giant embassy in Bagdad in particular. We will have our second middle east Pearl Harbor (911 was the first Middle East Pearl Harbor but I guess we need a new one from time to time to keep our war face on). All that is required is to establish a sitting duck US presence in a mostly pacified Iraq, and wait for the inevitable retaliation from Iran. Then the neocons and their Israeli partners will have their regional war, which they feel can remove Iran and Syria as a long term powerful military regional rivals. That’s my feeling about what the little scamps at after.
People that think the US would never wade into a wider adventure don’t forget the way being attacked focuses the mind in the US, and enables a wider mobilization which changes the entire equation, so the current troop levels are not what will be in play, but some expanded post-attack red-faced madder than hell attitude will enable much more serious commitments and will silence anti war voices. Think strategic and big is their posture, not tactical and small. Virgil said “Fortune favors the bold”. Unless we remove all the forces from the Middle East, and adopt a more neutral foreign policy like Ron Paul suggests, we will not be able to avoid the wide regional war planned for us. Almost no democrats and no republicans but Ron Paul advocate really leaving the region in the way that could cause this plan to fail.
With perhaps hundreds of US troops in Iraq killed in an Iranian counterstrike, no congressional or media opposition to strikes (with wide scope) against Iran would be possible. It will be too late, like it was too late on December 8, 1941. We are then hostage to the foreign policy agenda of some settle movement fringe on the Israeli political landscape.
Anand,
““So, basically, the surge is working because so many Iraqi males have been killed or emigrated?” This makes no sense. The population in Iraq is greater now than in 3-2003. (Iraq had 4-5 million refugees before 3-2003, and many returned—especially from Iran according to the much repeated claims of the resistance.”
See the new Jamail article:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18925.htm
“Mirage Of Improvement In Iraq”
Iraq and Afghanistan are in a different stage and bombing is not the solution, it will only anger more and more people. Anyway that’s how bullies act, they think they can get rid of a problem if they destroy it, then the problem will re-appear a few years from now, and we’ll be back to square one.
I’d say pull out the troops, bring them back home and throw Bush’ ass in jail (with a good lawyer).
We can understand the geopolitical stakes but still .. it is inhuman and it does not even reflect the way we should practice capitalism. We are taking over nations because they don’t like us, and God knows they have many reasons to hate us, then we install puppets governments to make sure everything will be traded in dollars while we are losing our technical know-how compared to other countries (China and Russia for example). How long is it going to last? And who is going to stand up for real values?
Ron Paul is probably the only guy that understood the system is broken and it needs to be fixed before it is too late.