Article

2008-08-21 Iraq

Key U.S. Iraq strategy in danger of collapse

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-08-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 Looks like Maliki is intent on a Shiite dominated army.

Posted by phil_b 2008-08-21 01:41|| 2008-08-21 01:41|| Front Page Top

#2 This calls for a grain of salt the size of a Fairbanks-Morse marine diesel. Even if you overlook the fact that it's written on an antiwar newspaper chain's website by a guy named "Mohammed", you need to check out the board of directors at that so-called "centrist policy institute" named as a source...it's completely lousy with Clintonoids and other assorted Neville Chamberlain wannabes.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-08-21 01:45|| 2008-08-21 01:45|| Front Page Top

#3 If the duly elected government of Iraq wants to piss away the victory that has been won against the terrorists and wants us to leave by 2011, then we will leave. And the average Iraqi will get to live with the resulting resurgence of terror inside the country.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-08-21 01:45|| 2008-08-21 01:45|| Front Page Top

#4 "The last time we humiliated thousands of these guys is back in 2003, and we got the insurgency," Kahl said.

Hmmm. Mr. Kahl's credibility just swooped down towards zero. Without denying the bizarre and pathological Iraqi and even Arab concept of humiliation (being party to genocide - no big deal; losing your job - time to blow up grandmothers at vegetable markets!), this is the Iraq equivalent of "root causes" for the wider GWOT.

And - hate to I say I told you so - but these sorts of problems (though probably far less ominous than painted by Kahl and McLatchy, nee Knight-Ridder, whose sometime bureau chief was nice but quite dumb back in '05/'06) are the key side effect of "winning" without crushing the will of an enemy to resist. Long before any Sunnis were alienated by idiotic and vicious AQIZ behavior, they should have been cowering and beaten and terrified of not cooperating with the new order. Instead we had the surreal spectacle of Ramadi being a pitched battle between alien supergods (the USMC) and teenagers (the local AQIZ and "insurgents"). Though as ever I stand ready to be completely set straight by those with better info or analysis, I consider the Ramadi stand-off all by itself to be an inexcusable and clear example of a flawed strategy in Iraq that is working OK due to circumstances. A situation that would have been resolved in a week or less in previous eras - much to the benefit of all concerned save the vaporized enemy - stretched on for years and gave the quite dim would-be jihadi recruiting pool the ridiculous idea that they could stand up to US military power for even an afternoon.

If Gen. Casey became COS after presiding over a debacle, I fear there won't be many/any brave souls to make bold remarks about the absence of imperial garments when the upbeat assessments of the surge are done in the DOD and at the service schools.

Posted by Verlaine 2008-08-21 01:59|| 2008-08-21 01:59|| Front Page Top

#5 By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
McClatchy special correspondent Mohammed al Dulaimy contributed to this report.)
The cleanest word that this article invokes is
OFFAL
An Islamist and a Commie shared a pen and wrote a hold yer breath XMAS WISH for the Damn Devil Himself.

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2008-08-21 03:36|| 2008-08-21 03:36|| Front Page Top

#6 I've noticed maybe three articles in this general vein over the last week. They don't pass the smell test from my point of view. They seem to be trying to create a problem, rather than exposing any particular problem. Handful of salt is recommended.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2008-08-21 06:57|| 2008-08-21 06:57|| Front Page Top

#7 It depends on money, and where it is coming from.
They fought for Al Qaeda for money, not spiritual convictions. They're fighting for Iraq now for $300 a month. If there is better money in crime or insurgency, I guess that's where they'll go.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-08-21 07:34|| 2008-08-21 07:34|| Front Page Top

#8 A McClatchy article? The odds of accuracy match Debka, the level of bias is up there with CNN and the BBC. Remember that junior reporter they sent out who insisted that the sentry on duty at the Green Zone border let him through without credentials, while openly insulting the man for stupidity? The reporter's previous assignment had been something like Community Activities at a weekly village newspaper somewhere in the wilds of California. The story came out because the idiot wrote about it, quivering with indignation, on his McClatchy blog, if I recall correctly.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-21 08:23|| 2008-08-21 08:23|| Front Page Top

#9 Considering the source and the timing, I call bullshit.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-08-21 09:45|| 2008-08-21 09:45|| Front Page Top

#10 While I agree that anything McClatchy is suspect, Big Jim does have a point: many of the 'Sons of Iraq' are decent enough (for that region), patriotic fellows, but they're also there for the money. If the money stops they have to live somehow, and becoming auto mechanics isn't in the cards for most of them.

Since the central government is blessed with $73 billion that it can't spend, how's about having them pick up the tab for a while until one can sort out what happens to all the awakening councils?

Posted by Steve White 2008-08-21 09:43|| 2008-08-21 09:43|| Front Page Top

#11 Oh, and I predict we will see a lot more articles like this from sources like this after the primary. Gotta show that Obama was right and McCain is wrong ya know and try to influence an election.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-08-21 09:46|| 2008-08-21 09:46|| Front Page Top

#12 When we see something like this in the NYT under a John Burns byline (and ONLY under a John Burns byline), then it's time to worry. Until then, we return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-08-21 09:56|| 2008-08-21 09:56|| Front Page Top

#13 they should have been cowering and beaten and terrified of not cooperating with the new order

we didnt do that in Germany, or in Japan. Arguably, we didnt have to because wed beaten, terrified,etc in the course of the war, before we occupied. Not to many examples in US history, cause we didnt beat too many countries conventionally in 3 weeks. Closest comparison maybe the Phillipines after the Spanish American war. I dont know much about that, but IIUC it took some time to resolve. So call me skeptical of the "we werent tough enough" school. I think it is pretty clear to most that not keeping the Iraqi army employed, and using it to keep order, was a mistake (caveat to that is that it wouldnt have been THAT easy, as many Iraqi soldiers - esp Shiite enlistess - had simply run home and had no interest in the Iraqi army. That said, we could have kept SOME more than we did, and that would probably have helped) And most were not war criminals. And yeah, losing your job, feeling hopeless, etc does lead often to acts of violence - esp when such economic loss is also accompanied by POLITICAL changes as dramatic as Iraq saw in 2003 (Marxists are always scratching their heads cause they expect poverty to lead to revolution WITHOUT regard to the political situation, often much more important - and also cause they dont take into account changes in status, more important than income figures) As for blowing up grandmas, SOME of the insurgents in 2003 and 2004 spent most of their time attacking oil pipelines, etc - it was mainly AQ proper that specialized in the orcish stuff.

That leaves now. I agree that I think the pessimism sounds a bit overwrought. As usual, there are different reports from different sources, and from different places in Iraq. My vague impression from reading MSM mainly, and other sources a bit, is that Maliki IS absorbing more sons of Iraq than some thought he would, largely under US pressure, partly out of common sense, esp in places like Anbar where there really arent any Shiia. But that in Baghdad and esp Diyala, he (and the whole Shia side) are much more reluctant.

SW is right sorting out is needed here.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-21 10:04|| 2008-08-21 10:04|| Front Page Top

#14 It's possible the article is not actually meant for Western Audiences but primarily for Sunni Arabs looking for a grudge again.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-08-21 10:19|| 2008-08-21 10:19|| Front Page Top

#15 Dr. Rice just made a surprise visit to Iraq to hammer some of this out. Any reconstruction plan and integration of refugees needs to include Sunnis and any other sect. If they have a stake in its future, wages to support a family, they won't be so quick to blow up vegetable markets. All that oil revenue should be used for housing projects, building schools and hospitals, roads and other infrastructure, to benefit all.

Posted by Danielle 2008-08-21 12:45|| 2008-08-21 12:45|| Front Page Top

#16 I've seen similar articles at Long War Journal (Bill Roggio's place). I don't see it as BS. If Maliki does not make a good-faith effort to bring the Sunnis into the fold, then everything could come undone very fast. It is going to take time combined with a whole lot of credible actions to reduce tensions between the sunni and shia communities.

Posted by remoteman 2008-08-21 13:27|| 2008-08-21 13:27|| Front Page Top

23:57 Waldemar Uneack9263
23:55 Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields
23:54 GDLotA9226
23:49 Waldemar Uneack9263
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:28 Red Dawg
23:27 Woodrow Phaviper9249
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:23 SteveS
23:18 trailing wife
23:17 Steve White
23:12 trailing wife
23:09 newc
22:43 SteveS
22:37 Alaska Paul
22:36 trailing wife
22:31 Pappy
22:26 Alaska Paul
22:24 Iblis
22:20 Barbara Skolaut
22:16 3dc