Latest Iraq thread
 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...urgents_clash/

but that's not all... better news:

http://www.twincities.com/ci_7490271...nclick_check=1

On a Deadly Day, U.S. Reports Drop in Iraq Attacks

BAGHDAD, Nov. 18 — An American official announced Sunday that attacks and attempted attacks across Iraq last week dipped to their lowest point for any week since January of last year, and that attacks had dropped by more than half since the United States increased its troop levels in June.

The official, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, made the announcement at a news conference here, adding that civilian deaths have dropped by three-quarters since June as well. But even as officials were announcing the figures, Iraq had once of its deadliest days in weeks, with 22 people killed in attacks nationwide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/wo...hp&oref=slogin

At face value this is good news. But I'm not sure we should take it at face value. There are plenty of groups in Iraq that are rivals for local power and influence. Did this group decide to take out their foes, and had the bright idea to keep the US off their backs by telling them they were going after AQ? Maybe, maybe not.

The surge has peaked, and the drawdown has begun. It certain has bought Iraq some breathing space. But it was crucial that the Iraqis get full value from this opportunity to build political stability. They've done a little but not much that I can see. Will this stability last? I doubt it but time will tell.

Meanwhile here is a less upbeat analysis via the Australian ABC, citing Professor Hugh White, the head of Canberra's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.

His report is that Afghanistan would take a generation or more to turn into a stable, self-governing country, but that this would make little strategic difference because AQ can simply operate from a different county, such as Pakistan. Regardless, the coalition there now will likely get tired of constant bleeding for the next 30 years.
Iraq is strategically important, but White argues that the country would likewise take a generation or so stabilize, and he doesn't see the public will in the west to stay the course. Summarizing Iraq: keeping the troops in won't make it better, but pulling them out will make it a lot worse.
It seems to me that the best option is to stay there and take the losses. I'd hate to have to explain that to the mother of a fallen soldier.

Washington Post: Iraqis Joining Insurgency Less for Cause Than Cash

That's a lot of dough. Where does the money come from? Partly from Syria, partly from mobster activity:
Lastly, what remarkable reporting by the WaPo:

Just another day in what is really only an American created civil war.

NY fucking Times: London, Glasgow terrorists had ties to AQI

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/wo...=1&oref=slogin

Attacks that turned out to be very feeble? Good propaganda about the 'impotency' of Al-Qaeda.

"AS 2007 comes to close, how should we understand the situation in Iraq? Are we witnessing the greatest American military comeback late in a war since Sherman’s march to the sea in 1864? Or is Iraq still a weakly governed and very violent place where sectarian reconciliation is starkly absent?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/op...=1&oref=slogin

"The war's not over, but signs are the tide is turning

MEMO to ABC's Media Watch: Iraq is now "the good news story". The judgment comes not from the Pentagon, but from some of the war's fiercest critics, including The Guardian. This week, the British daily ran two reports describing how "hopes of a remarkable recovery are rising" and noting that Iraqis were "taking back the streets". When The Australian's political editor, Dennis Shanahan, reported from Iraq at the end of August that the Commander of US forces, General David Petraeus, would tell Congress that the troop surge was working, Media Watch accused him of being a "Coalition barracker". In fact, the surge was already having an impact and creating a more favourable sentiment by the US public to the war. Though the accuracy of his report was later confirmed, Media Watch had no qualms about using post-dated articles in an attempt to discredit Shanahan and this newspaper for its allegedly partisan reporting. "

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-16382,00.html

"December 22, 2007 -- An uncertain chapter opened in Iraq this week, as British forces officially ceded control of Iraq's oil-rich southern province of Basra to the country's fledgling security services.

What comes next is unclear, but the handover is certainly evidence that - even in Iraq - time marches on.

The move formalizes the situation on the ground since September, when British forces retreated to the outskirts of the province's major city. By spring, only 2,500 British troops will remain in all of Iraq, almost exclusively in a support and training role.

In important ways, this is a good sign."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12222007...raq_528659.htm

It is a good sign I suppose. I agree with the professor from Australia, it will take more then a generation for the kind of change to take place that we are trying to facilitate.

Same in the Balkans, same anywhere.

Look at the U.S. the civil war was in the 1860's. It is the end of 2007 and there are still people who really believe that the south will rise again.

The civil war has been boiling for years before we got there, we just took the lid off. Believe me, Iraqi's care if you are a Sunni or Shia. We really don't give a damn. Over all U.S. policy has been a bit uneducated and naive, but not malicious. I know that just our presence in Iraq has a huge impact, as well as actions on the ground..good, bad, and indifferent; a civil war in Iraq does not help us, we did not set out to facilitate one. We are certainly aware that a civil war does not help the Iraqi's.

Unfortunately there are enough Iraqi's, and to an even larger extent foreign nationals, who believe that a civil war is what they want and need.

It is certainly a big ball of wax in Iraq. I am hard pressed to put a simplistic view to the the picture. And boy that is what we Americans want... simple, easy, prepared in 10 minutes or less. Oh, and if our congress makes a set of goals, well the Iraqi's better get with it. LOL. I am amazed at our arrogance sometimes. For the past few years and continuing through today, Iraq is like the proverbial banquet table where everyone has a fork that is too long. Different families, factions, clans, alliances, religious groups, countries, and individuals are all clamoring for what they think they deserve and will not give ground. This is made more complicated for us viewing from our couches because of the Iraqi/Arab/Muslim world view that most of us do not share or understand. Cause and affect are a way different hill of beans there.

O.K. my .02 for today.

Well said R.j. I just wish our leaders were willing to acknowlege the complexity before sticking their noses under the tent.

TW? Your comment on the remotely encouraging or positive reports back from Iraq?

So wait, lemme get this straight...
the brits pull out
the iraqis take over
it goes well
...and bush is right somehow?

Who freaking cares. Another manifesto from tw is not contributing.

My preferred narrative would be that the American and British militaries saved W from his misguided ideas.

Absolutely. We should have never attacked Iraq. It was a bad idea compounded by bad planning.

That said, it happened and sadly, we broke it. So rather than beating a dead horse, I'd rather look for solutions to the problem.
The few encouraging points of light, (that tw would wrongly call, feel good stories fabricated by the administration... Vietnam, deja vu), seem to be caused by some competent commanders that have their shit together.

Also, the Iraqis seem to have come to the conclusion that the US is not the only outside influence, but the lesser evil and a useful tool in eliminating the others. I think the realize the US will go home, if they can control their country.

It's a clusterfuck, I don't like it, but it is reality.

I think the key is that those individuals have proven their integrity to the folks they interact with. Pronouncements from Washington are meaningless, but a promise made in country by someone with known integrity and competence could carry the day.

Iraqi oil exports are now greater than pre-war levels.

Under the UN's food for oil regime?

Yes

And how much goes to the US in our quest for oil since that is why we invaded them, right?

I venture to say little to none compared to pre-war amounts.

Your probably right, but every barrel that goes on the world market creates less competition for what we buy.

Possible, but I still think there are wacko's out there that beleive that we invaded Iraq for oil. Hell we just need to invade Alaska. Wait, we already own it.

Agreed.

Very interesting and a positive step, but what is the situation with Iraq's own power/electricity generation?

That is even more encouraging.

Rk's input on this particular topic would be interesting.

Pssst. cough canada cough

:D

Let me dust off those ole plans: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=492

lol

That's right we can always blame Canada.

According to a front page article in the Washington Post yesterday, the recent improvements in Iraq are due in large part to the Iranian leadership putting out the word that the roadside bombers should scale back their operations. There is a lot of uncertainty in the US government as to why Iran is doing this, but the consensus appears to be that Iran is a big part of the decrease in violence in Iraq. Maybe the surge is simply coincidence.

So if Iran changes its mind, will the violence escalate again?

If this is true, it reminds me a little of Reagan taking credit for the Berlin wall coming down, when it was all Gorbachev's doing.

I had a long post and I timed out and lost it - left with this.
The sooner things improve over there, the better.

The narrative a few months ago was that Iran was only responsible for like a third of incoming fighters. But that was when it was important to give reasons not to attack Iran.

Whose narrative?

There's been a US surge in troops.
Iran has also ordered a reduction in roadside bombs in order to seem nicer to the Iraqis or something.

There's been a reduction in roadside bombings.

Which one caused the reduction? Did they both? It's important to know. This is the first time I've heard any mention of Iran leadership being behind the improvements in Iraq. I think it's remarkable.

If the Iraqis are mad as hell, and are not going to take it any more, and as a result, the Iranians are changing their tactics, I think that's very interesting and hopeful. But mostly I want to know how much our soldiers' efforts are paying off. That's all I ever wanted to know.

If there is little payoff, then the course of action should be different than if there is a big payoff.

Before this story, I though the lion's share of the credit for the improvements in Iraq belonged to the new US strategy. Now I hear other reasons being cited by officials in the Department of State. Remarkable. Remarkable that there are other reasons for the reductions, and remarkable that the news is coming from the Bush administration.

That jibs with what Mike Yon has been saying about the Iraqis having had their fill of foreign fighters (generically called Al Q) treatment of the people in the areas they controlled. They want us out too, but first they want to wrest control for themselves, from these Islamic hardliners.

But the Shi'a will not share, and the Kurds don't care either way. A civil war can still develop.

.... and most probably will. Even if all outside forces were removed, the Iraqui's are so fragmented and the "power" so divided that its almost a guarantee they would be fighting each other again. How different will the outcome be and who can do what to promote a more peaceful resolution is what I would like to know. Not sure there really is an answer to that though.

I see this as a big step by Iran to influence Iran-US relations:

Iran does not want to be attacked by the United States so it is taking away one of the pro-war arguments.

The media does not want the United States to attack Iran so they are mentioning this when other involvements by Iran have been ignored in the past.


How this affects Iran directly, I don't know, but I do know this greatly hurts the pro-war on Iran argument so hats off to both Iran and the media for actually reporting it.

So, whats going on in Iraq?
I haven't seen a daily beating of the American military lately so I can only assume it is something good. The democratic candidates have stopped telling us about this "lost war" too. C'mon people, I'm relying on you for some info here.

That's because polls show the economy is the most important issue to voters, followed by healthcare, with Iraq a distant third. If people cared (statistically speaking,) you can be sure the candidates would be talking about it.

And immigration.

Really?, suddenly as things improved and the surge effort took hold "we" stopped caring as much? I am certainly not included in that "we"
I call BS. More likely, the liberal media couldn't report about the "unwinnable war" when our troops were in the process of winning.

Some candidates are talking about it. They just don't get the same airtime as others.

It's still an unwinnable war for us, but more people are resigned to the fact that we're stuck there, until the Iraqis sort it out.
The realization has sunk in that we can't just walk away and let things devolve like we did in Afghanistan, where it's got to be done all over again.

The military is at war, America is at the mall.

I'm not sure about any of it, but still - I find it interesting that as soon as things started to look better the coverage stopped almost instantly.

I guess there are several reasons for the drop in coverage.

Firstly, the election campaign is taking up a lot more attention. Media have limited space and time.

Secondly, things going well isn't really "news". Imagine:
"And now to our CNN live cross to Andy in Bagdad..."
"Thanks John, well, I'm standing on a corner in Sadr city with Private Smith who has been manning a checkpoint since oh eight hundred, and he tells me that it's been a quiet day except that some kid threw some stones at him at oh nine thirty five. They missed, thankfully, and the insurgent fled on a bicycle. Since then Smith has been bored and thirsty..."

Combine these two factors and that accounts for a lot of the decrease. I have briefly ventured into the media, and learned that anything with pictures of fires or explosions (or hot women) goes straight to the front page, written disasters get big coverage, while good news and thoughtful analysis gets pretty much buried in the middle. It's based on what people read and what causes people to buy newspapers and watch TV shows.

You may be right, that there is a bias in some parts of the media to reporting the bad news from Iraq but not the good news. Some other parts of the media seem biased the other way.

The war is over, and oh damn, somebody forgot to notify the media.

See, nobody is going to say "mission accomplished" this time.

Who's moving in on AQI's "last urban stronghold"? Not US forces:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Silence is Important

To give Qaida a chance to cut and run, thereby avoiding a lot of bloodshed and property destruction??
To give noncombatants a chance to get out of the way??

If Al Q, which didn't exist in Iraq before the invasion just to maintain perspective on our success, is sufficiently suppressed how long before our "allies" go back to killing shiites?

thats a big IF isn't it Griff?

Yah, we don't have a font that size.

As soon as Sahdr called off his Mahdi Army (so as to reserve strength; probably to prepare for the eventual American withdrawal), then the Mahdi Army was no longer part of Al Qaeda? How do we explain that contradiction with "Al Qaeda" spin? More IFs that somehow get ignored when George Jr's "Al Qaeda" spin somehow becomes fact.

It's called an insurgency - a civil war. A war created, in part, by the power vacuum created by American and made worse when American leadership violated most every basic military principle understood even 2500 years ago. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is the myth so that we ignore how incompetent this administration has been.

So, how does what you just said answer the "IF Al Q existed question" question? Question?

February 11, 2008

Al-Qaeda leaders admit: 'We are in crisis. There is panic and fear'


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3346386.ece

Not surprising, they made a huge mistake last year by turning their allies against them. They are probably done.

That wasn't a mistake. thats who they are!

I got this email from Michael Yon.

Bump - Couldn't find the thread where we were discussing the casualty counts and all so I put this here.