| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Stakes are high in Ramadi |
| 2005-08-28 |
| As Ramadi goes, so goes Iraq, many top military analysts say. But a close look at the Sunni Muslim stronghold about 70 miles west of Baghdad reveals the daunting challenge confronting Marines from Camp Pendleton and their brothers in arms. Gunmen have recently opened fire on Sunni Muslim leaders in the Iraqi city. Agents of al-Qaida in Iraq have posted threats on Ramadi's mosques vowing to attack anyone who participates in the October referendum to ratify the constitution, the drafting of which has already missed two deadlines in recent weeks. About 5,000 residents filled Ramadi's streets last weekend to protest the draft constitution, which they say excludes them, and Sunni tribal leaders have ordered Ramadi residents to attack Sunni extremists in the city who oppose the upcoming vote. Three car bombs targeting U.S. forces exploded in Ramadi on Wednesday, according to the Reuters news agency. The violence still roiling in Ramadi ---- Sunni against Shiite, Sunni against Sunni, and anyone against the Americans ---- underscores the high stakes there as one Camp Pendleton Marine battalion struggles to contain the chaos long enough for Iraqi leaders and Iraqi security forces to gain a foothold in what analysts say is Iraq's most important Sunni city. Camp Pendleton's 1st Battalion, 5th Regiment has been stationed there since March ---- the third Pendleton-based infantry unit to have responsibility for patrolling Ramadi since February 2004. At least 14 of the battalion's men have died in efforts to quell the violence in the restive town, three of them within the last few weeks. At least 80 local Marines, nearly a third of the fatalities from Pendleton, have been killed in or near Ramadi since the war began in 2003. Ramadi, a city of about 350,000 on the banks of the Euphrates River, is the capital of the Al Anbar province, which borders on Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is the seat of power for regional Arab tribes such as the powerful Dulaim and Jabir tribes, and a base for many top clerics of Iraq's Sunni Muslim sect, which was favored by Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party. Often called Iraq's gateway to Syria and Jordan, Ramadi has historically been a major hub of trade and ideas, including hard-line strains of Sunni Islam imported from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Because of Ramadi's strategic location and its importance as a political, religious and tribal center, analysts and U.S. military officials alike call Ramadi the contentious key to Iraq's Sunni heartland. "If the new (Iraqi) government is going to succeed, it's gotta succeed in Ramadi," said Col. Larry Nicholson, the new commander of Pendleton's 5th Marine Regiment ---- the regiment that includes all three Marine battalions to fight in Ramadi. The recent history of Ramadi offers clues to how it became such a make-or-break city for U.S. military forces and the fledgling Iraqi government. After U.S. forces invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein in 2003, thousands of party and military members loyal to Hussein found refuge in Ramadi, which had long profited from Hussein's patronage and offered its progeny to his political and military machine. Ramadi quickly emerged, alongside its neighbor Fallujah, as the center of gravity for the early insurgency led by Hussein loyalists, and then for Islamic fighters and foreign terrorists arriving from the west to wage holy war against Americans. Violence there rivaled ---- some say exceeded ---- the fighting that erupted in Fallujah when the Marines took over from Army units in Al Anbar in early 2004. When U.S. forces launched a huge offensive to clear insurgents from Fallujah in November, many insurgents shifted to Ramadi and other western cities and towns. Since then, Ramadi has been implicated several times for harboring terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Analysts say the Fallujah assault helped alienate Iraq's Sunni minority and led Sunni clerics in Ramadi and elsewhere to call for a boycott of the parliamentary elections in January. Only about 2 percent of Ramadi's eligible voters cast ballots during the Jan. 30 vote. John Pike, a military analyst and director of the Virginia-based think tank GlobalSecurity.org, said the Sunnis in Ramadi and elsewhere feared that the Americans and their appointed Iraqi leaders sought to exclude the Sunnis from the new Iraq, and they opted to reject the political process altogether. "They fear that they're going to get the short end of the stick," Pike said in a recent telephone interview. The new Shiite-dominated government, he said, has proved to some that their fears were well-founded. "The tribal leadership in places like Ramadi have to be convinced that they can still get a decent deal out of the new government," he said. "They have to be convinced that they'll have a place and that it will be around for a while before they'll invest in it." Pike said the U.S. military has paid the price of not understanding the cultural dynamics of the Sunni heartland, which he calls "Sunnistan," at which Ramadi stands center. In the years after the first Gulf War in 1991 and the U.N. economic sanctions that followed, Hussein held onto control by trying to co-opt and foster existing social movements, mainly Islam and tribalism. Pike said culturally conservative Ramadi and Fallujah gained unprecedented prominence and became bastions of resistance against the American occupation. "Everyone had been talking as though Tikrit (Hussein's hometown) was going to be the hard nut to crack, that it was going to be the last holdout," Pike said. "But it turned out to be these towns out west. "Saddam did a big piece of social engineering after the first Gulf War," he said. "I just don't think anyone yet understands it." At first military leaders insisted that the insurgency had to be defeated in Ramadi to achieve stability in the region. When the American brass in Baghdad added several Army battalions to help the beleaguered Marine battalion in Ramadi last fall, they conducted large offensive sweeps to flush out insurgents. While they discovered large weapons caches and killed many insurgents, the military campaigns had little lasting effect. The latest Marine battalion to take over there in March has also found Ramadi to be a tough, frustrating place. A recent article in USA Today described the difficulties facing the newest Marines in Ramadi ---- at least 150 of whom are on their third tour to Iraq in some of the heaviest fighting in the country's most violent regions: first in Baghdad in 2003, then in Fallujah in early 2004. The Marines say they think there are about 2,000 potential insurgents in Ramadi, led by a hard-core cadre of about 150 full-time fighters from Iraq and other countries who have expertise in weapons, bomb-making and guerrilla tactics. Since they arrived in Ramadi in March, the battalion has lost at least 14 Marines and sailors in combat, mostly roadside bombs that do not give the survivors targets against which to fight back. "I don't think the Battle of Ramadi can ever be won," said one company commander, according to the recent article. "I just think the Battle of Ramadi has to be fought every day." Nicholson, the regimental commander back at Camp Pendleton, said the successions of local Marines who have patrolled and fought in Ramadi have worked and sacrificed for progress that is real but difficult to measure. "Change has been glacial in Ramadi," Nicholson said in a recent interview at Camp Pendleton before leaving to check up on the Marines in Ramadi. "It's slow going. Tough going. You don't see change every day." Despite the insurgency's grip on Ramadi, Nicholson said the Marines' mission will remain one of supporting the Iraqis so that maybe they can defeat the insurgency or at least sap its steam themselves. "If we can keep the pressure off there, allowing the government to sink some roots, that's probably the only way they'll survive," Nicholson said. "The more the people of Ramadi see the Marines and the Iraqi forces working together, the more I think you'll see change." Juan Cole, an Iraq expert who teaches Middle Eastern history and politics at the University of Michigan, said the U.S. cannot afford a bold military strategy or heavy hand in Ramadi, least of all now with the constitution and two upcoming elections in the balance. After weeks of trying to keep the country from fracturing along ethnic and cultural lines ---- between the oil-rich Kurdish zone in the north, an oil-rich Shiite zone in the south, and an oil-poor "Sunnistan" in the middle ---- the Iraqi parliament failed to meet a deadline two weeks ago to draft a new constitution and then arrived at a draft last week that has yet to be approved. Iraqis are scheduled to vote on the new constitution in October, when a two-thirds "no" in three of Iraq's 18 provinces would block it. If the new document is ratified, Iraqis will then have a chance to choose a first full-term government in December. Cole said Ramadi will be an important place to watch to see if attempts at democracy can survive. "If you cannot get the Arabs of Ramadi to buy into it, you lose Anbar. And if Anbar province is lost to the government, then it means Iraq will be partitioned," he said, offering little hope that a breakup could be avoided. "If there could be a breakthrough in Ramadi, then maybe there could be a breakthrough in other Sunni cities elsewhere. But I'm not going to hold my breath," he said. "I think the whole thing is going south." I'm shocked to hear that, coming from Juan Cole ... |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #9 Let's be realistic here. The enemy lost the war. The Sunnis, Baatists in particular, should no longer have sway. Moreover, the freely chose to vote with their feet and not vote. Meantime, you have brave Iraqis who risked their lives in order to vote. This included old men who had to be carried to the voting stations in wheel barrows, etc. This is THEIR government and constitution. The elected officals are THEIR representatives. The Coaltion has lost many brave men and women so that these same people can determine their own destiny. These are the same people who were killed in the millions under the Baatist/Saddam Regime. Damn it, let these people make their own determinations. The Baatists were at a minimum willing accomplices to Saddam & Co. But the Baatist elements extend well into Syria. The insurgency and the terrorists stream into Iraq through Syria. Sure, it would be nice to recognize that Al Anbar province is a shit hole and leave it at that. But the Coaltion should not leave Iraq unless and until adequate border security is provided for by trained and well equipped Iraqis and Syria has been cleaned out. As for the political side. The Sunnis still live in DeNile and the atroscities they committed are still very fresh in the minds of Kurds and Shias. It may take a decade or more of good behavior by the Sunnis before they are capable of playing a meaningful role in the new federation. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-28 16:08 |
| #8 The Iraqis have been given the chance of a lifetime to have a decent life. But so much is tribal. The Sunnis are in the middle of a sand pile, whereas the Kurds in the north and Shiia to the south have the oil in which to create wealth and a thriving economy. Our main objective in attacking Saddam and Co and to overthrow the machine was to eliminate Iraq as a source of global terror and the resources to create terror and instability and the possibility of passing WMD to terrorist proxies worldwide. We have done that. The terrorists thrive and move around only in a population that aids them. The Sunnis have aided and abetted the terrorists. However, they do respect power. Old Patriot is right. Only the intelligent and concentrated application of overwhelming force will break these nutcases' will to resist. If that is not done, then we are just mucking about, using up troops and national treasure in a futile attempt at nation building. Germany and Japan had to have the will to fight broken before we could even think about rebuilding. The same with Iraq. Unfortunately we went the PC way, getting our knickers in a knot over Abu Grabass, too much or too little air conditioning at Club Gitmo, and the mishandling of |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-08-28 14:49 |
| #7 Anyone that quotes John Pike and Juan Cole has an agenda, and it's not pro-American. John Pike is also head of the Coalition of Concerned Scientists, which has pushed the Global Warming stupidity, and more conspiracy theories than Jesse Jackson. Juan Cole is just a pro-Arabist idiot. There is still the option to use overwhelming force. Give the Sunnis a week to get their house in order. If they don't, pull back and let the entire city be bombed until the only thing the bombs do is churn rubble. Set up blocking forces to ensure nobody leaves. Let the entire WORLD know that our patience is limited, and we will use whatever force we believe necessary to accomplish our objectives. Too bad about the women, children, baby ducks and whatever: they had no choice. They're just as much the victims of Sunni stupidity as everyone else in Iraq. Too bad, so sad. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-08-28 14:21 |
| #6 Sunnis are gonna stonewall themselves into a non-entity when it comes to players. Either sign the constitution or accept you'll be left out . assholes |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-28 09:47 |
| #5 Oh, no, No, NO! Don't you see? The MSM has it right. EVERYONE must all follow the same theme, which (come to think of it), is the same as it is here. Follow MY theme! Anybody remember that Bush won 52% to 48%, and if the Iraqis read the papers here, this country is torn by racial/political/economic divisiveness. Ask Al Sharpton. Ask Jesse Jackson. Ask Cindy was-her-face. Teddy, John-Boy, or Turan Dick. Why, this country is nowhere NEAR perfect! If a 2/3's no vote was required in 10 states (3 of 18 provices ~ 10 of 50 states)to block something, John Roberts would be confirmed tomorrow, and ... and.... Is Las Vegas taking odds on the Iraqi Constitution passing? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-08-28 09:02 |
| #4 Verlaine and .com are right and I would add that if the Sunnis want to boycot the referundum on the constitution then let them. It just means it will pass and they are screwed. Better practice herding goats for a living cos that will be the main source of Sunni employment thereafter. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-08-28 08:07 |
| #3 Thank you, Verlaine - it's refreshing to hear a calm and realistic view of the situation - and the players. First-hand knowledge of Arab behavior flips several Western assumptions on their heads. Sigh. Jafaari & Co aren't worth warm spit - to Iraq's future, anyway. I'm sure Tehran appreciates them - and no doubt they keep the Sunnis in stitches. Otherwise... Where's Allawi... I appreciate and echo all of your comments, today. I would only presume to add 3 observations while strongly echoing you thoughts on the Sunnis... 1) The old international bugaboo, faux "stability" - combined with the idiot notion that anything but a "whole" Iraq is failure, is at the heart of the current wasted motion / treading-water approaches. 2) If none of the participants in the constitutional process is actually willing to step out of character and work for the good of all, if the participants can see no further than the interests of their own group, then the existence of "Iraq" is as artificial as "Yugoslavia". Make it so, number one. 3) There is a limit to the number of strategies we have the time and treasure to try. Thanks for your posts - they insert a breath of reality that has been missing more often than not. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-28 07:51 |
| #2 I didn't check to see, but I sure hope this wasn't an original from the North County Times. Normally that small paper has provided much better coverage (i.e., nothing from the idiot Cole and nothing from the generalist Pike, who merely recycles the glibbest tidbits of conventional wisdom). Saddam didn't social engineer -- he merely went with the pre-existing tribal/regional flow, as he had to, post-1991. Meanwhile, the "loss" of Anbar would be quite acceptable, if the major towns of the area were to be properly cordoned and anti-governmnet activity in the area suppressed. The war is and always has been 95% a civil war -- one which our de facto clients (Shi'a and Kurds) are exceptionally well-positioned to win decisively. A rare and happy arrangement -- though one that can only be exploited with the patience and sacrified the Marines have shown. I'd bet at least $20 that in 10 years there will still be trouble in Ramadi and Anbar generally -- many countries are able to function fairly well while still containing some troublesome areas. Fortunately "Sunnistan" is, indeed, oil-poor. And the trucking companies of Kuwait and Turkey and Iran will not mind getting all that Aqaba-Baghdad business. If the new Iraqi government had the spine (and the ability to use our firepower), they could obtain Anbar's submission in far less time. But we've long since abandoned the only sensible strategy (break the will and capacity of the enemy to fight), and the other Iraqis apart from some Kurds have rarely shown any backbone. |
| Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2005-08-28 05:57 |
| #1 Steaks, na, already eat. everythingisgointohell v.108.2 |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-28 03:01 |