It's January 2007 in Iraq

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
But there is hope. I give you my kind of patriot.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 January 2007 03:28 (eighteen years ago)

Meantime, the latest tea-leaf reading from Stratfor:

The 'Surge Strategy': Political Arguments and Military Realities

By George Friedman

U.S. President George W. Bush is preparing a new strategy for Iraq. According to reports being leaked to the media, the primary option being considered is a "surge strategy," in which U.S. troop levels in Iraq would be increased, particularly in the Baghdad region. The numbers of additional troops that would deploy -- or that would not be rotated home -- are unclear, but appear to be in the low tens of thousands. This "surge" strategy is interesting in that it runs counter to general expectations after the midterm elections in November, when it appeared that the president was tied to a phased withdrawal plan. Instead, Bush seems to have decided to attempt to break out of the military gridlock in which the United States finds itself. Therefore, the questions now are why the president is considering this strategy and whether it will work.

As we have discussed previously, the United States appears to have four strategic options in Iraq:

1. Massively increase the number of troops in Iraq, attempting to break the back of both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias and create room for a political settlement.

2. Begin a withdrawal process that allows the Iraqis to shape the politics of the country as they will -- and that leaves a huge opportunity for Iran to fill the vacuum.

3. Abandon attempts to provide security for Iraq but retain forces there, in a redeployed posture, with the goal of blocking any potential Iranian moves toward the Arabian Peninsula.

4. Attempt to reach a political accommodation with Tehran that concedes Iraq to the Iranian sphere of influence, in order to provide guarantees against Iranian expansion southward. This diplomatic option is compatible with all others.

Each of these options has strengths and weakness. The first option, the surge, rests on the assumption that the United States has enough troops available to make a difference on the ground in Iraq; it also would decrease the strategic reserve for dealing with other crises around the world. The phased withdrawal option eliminates the need for Iraqi Shia and Iran to engage in political discussion -- since, given time, U.S. forces would depart from Iraq and the Shia would be the dominant force. The blocking strategy puts the United States in the position of protecting Saudi Arabia (a Sunni kingdom that doesn't want to appear to be seeking such protection) against Iran -- a Shiite state that could, in that situation, choose the time and place for initiating conflict. In other words, this option would put U.S. forces on a strategic defensive in hostile areas. The fourth option, diplomacy, assumes some basis for a U.S.-Iranian understanding and a mechanism for enforcing agreements. In short, there are no good choices -- only a series of bad ones. But, for the United States, doing nothing is also a choice, and the current posture is untenable.

The president appears to have chosen a variation on the troop surge. But it is a variation with an important difference. He has not proposed a surge that would increase the number of troops in Iraq by an order of magnitude. Indeed, he cannot propose that, inasmuch as he does not have several hundred thousand troops standing by -- and to the extent that forces are standing by, he cannot afford to strip the strategic reserve completely. It is a big world, and other crises can emerge suddenly. The surge the president is proposing appears to be on the order of around 10,000 troops -- and certainly no more than 20,000. Even at the upper limit, that is not so much a surge as a modest increase. It is, however, the best that can be done under the circumstances.

The Political Logic

The president's logic appears to be as follows:

While it is impossible to double the size of the force in Iraq -- for reasons of manpower, logistics and politics -- it is possible to massively increase the force available in the key area of Iraq: Baghdad. If this increase were to include a reshuffling of forces already in-country in a way that would double the number deployed to Baghdad, it might be possible to achieve a strategic victory there, thus setting the stage for a political settlement that would favor American interests.

Behind this thinking is a psychological assumption. Over the past year, it has become conventional wisdom that the U.S. strategy in Iraq has failed and that it is simply a matter of time until U.S. forces withdraw. Under these circumstances, the United States has been marginalized in Iraq. No one expects Washington to be able to threaten the interests of various parties, and no one expects meaningful American guarantees. The Iraqis do not see the United States as being a long-term player in Iraq, or as relevant to the current political crisis there. Iran, Iraq's powerful Shiite neighbor, seems much more relevant and important. But the Sunnis, not viewing the Americans as a long-term factor in Iraq, cannot turn to the United States for protection even if they fear the Iranians and the Iraqi Shia. The conventional wisdom is that the United States has failed, knows it has failed and is out of options.

Unless the Americans are prepared to simply walk away, the assumptions of the players in and around Iraq must change. From Bush's standpoint, the United States must demonstrate that it does have options, and that the president's hands are not tied politically in Washington. If he can demonstrate that he can still shape U.S. policy, that the United States has the ability to increase forces in Iraq -- confounding expectations -- and that it can achieve victories, at least on the local level, the psychology in Iraq and Iran will change and the United States will at least be able to participate in shaping Iraq's political future instead of being simply a bystander. If the president can increase the forces in Iraq and not be blocked by the Democrats, then the assumption that the Republicans' political defeat in November cripples Bush's power on the larger stage would be dispelled. Therefore, surge the forces.

The Military Perspective

The plan has come under sharp attack, however -- particularly from the Army and apparently from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan is primarily political in nature: It would use U.S. forces as a lever to achieve a psychological shift and create a particular political environment. Viewed from a strictly military standpoint, however, it makes no sense. Now, war is about politics, but from the Joint Chiefs' standpoint, the military weakness of the plan obviates potential political benefits. The generals appear to have made the following criticisms:

The size of the surge cannot achieve any meaningful military result. Even a surge of hundreds of thousands of troops would not guarantee success in a counterinsurgency operation. This surge is too little, too late.


The United States already has surged forces into Baghdad, and the operation was regarded as a failure. Counterinsurgency operations in an urban setting are difficult, and the Americans are dealing with multiple Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents, criminal groups and hostile neighborhoods in the capital. Achieving military success here is unlikely, and the strategy would lead to casualties without victory.


Surging fresh troops into Baghdad would create major command-and-control problems. The entire structure of areas of responsibility, intelligence distribution and tasking, chains of command and so on would have to be shifted in a very short period of time for the president's strategy to work. Transitioning new troops -- who are not familiar with the area for which they would be responsible -- into a counterinsurgency operation in a city of about 5 million would create endless opportunities for confusion, fratricide and failure. A "surge" connotes "fast," and this transition should not be undertaken quickly.


The U.S. Army in particular is stretched to the limit. Failure to massively increase the size of the Army has meant that the force that existed in 2003 has had to carry the load of this war through multiple deployments. The president's strategy necessarily would increase the duration of several deployments for Army and Marine forces. Between concerns about morale and retention, maintaining equipment in the theater and simple effectiveness after long periods of deployment, the United States is at the limits of what it can do. Surging forces in an operation that is unlikely to succeed creates failure throughout the military system. No increase in U.S. forces generally, if committed to now, would impact the system for months or even years.


There is little or no reserve available in practical terms. A 10-division military force, deployed the way it is, means that five divisions are in Iraq at any given time, and the other five are either recovering or preparing to go there. The United States is already vulnerable should other crises crop up in the world, and a surge into Iraq now would simply exacerbate that condition.


What we have here, therefore, is a divergence between political reality and military reality.

The Upshot

Politically, the Americans cannot leave Iraq unless Washington is prepared to allow Iran to assume dominance in Iraq and the region. That is politically unacceptable. A redeployment under the current circumstances would create a hostage force in Iraq, rather than a powerful regional strike force. The United States must redefine the politics of the region before it can redeploy. To do this, it must use the forces available in one last try -- regardless of the condition of the forces or even the improbability of success -- to shift the psychology of the other players. Too much is at stake not to take the risk.

Militarily, even a temporary success in Baghdad is doubtful -- and if it can be achieved, the gains would be temporary. They also would come at substantial cost to the force structure and the American strategic posture. Any political success in Iraq would be vitiated by the military cost. Indeed, the Iraqis and Iranians have a sophisticated understanding of U.S. military capability and will understand that the Americans cannot sustain a "surged" posture (and likely would pursue their own strategies on the basis of that understanding). Thus, the U.S. operation at best would lead to a transitory military improvement; at worst, it would inflict substantial casualties on U.S. forces while actually weakening the U.S. military position overall.

If the military argument wins, then the United States must select from options two through four. Politically, this means that Iraq would become a Shiite state under the heavy influence of Iran. If the political argument wins, it means the United States will continue with military operations that are unlikely to achieve their desired ends. Neither option is palatable. The president now must choose between them.

He appears to have chosen a high-risk military operation in hopes of retrieving the United States' political position. Given what has been risked, this is not an irrational point of view, even if it is a tough position to take. It is possible that the surge would lead to perceptions that the United States is an unpredictable player that retains unexpected options, and that discounting it prematurely is unwise. The strategy could bring some Shia to the table as a hedge, or perhaps even lead to a political solution in Iraq. Even if the probability of this happening is low, the cost is bearable -- and given what has already been invested, from Bush's standpoint, it is a necessary move.

Of course, the problem every gambler has when he is losing is the fear that if he leaves the table, he will lose his chance at recouping his losses. Every gambler, when he is down, faces the temptation of taking his dwindling chips and trying to recoup. He figures that it's worth the risk. And it could be. He could get lucky. But more frequently, he compounds his earlier losses by losing the money for his cab ride home.

We can divine the president's reasoning. Nothing succeeds like success and, indeed, he might pull the winning card. If the strategy fails, the United States will have added to its military weakness somewhat, but not catastrophically. But the question is this: Will the president be in a position to get up from the table if this surge fails, or will he keep pulling chips out of his pocket in the hope that he can recoup?

That is the question this strategy does not answer.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 January 2007 06:00 (eighteen years ago)

big news out of iraq that a minutely small segment of the population who follows iraqi news will care about (and i suspect ned is one of them): jamil hussein exists! i will write more about this when not drunk.

critique de la vie quotidienne (modestmickey), Friday, 5 January 2007 06:04 (eighteen years ago)

Heheheh, really. Malkin must be getting drunk by now.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 January 2007 06:06 (eighteen years ago)

she must be jumping in excitement that she has an excuse to not go to iraq anymore. but anyways, i can't wait to find out what happens with that.

critique de la vie quotidienne (modestmickey), Friday, 5 January 2007 06:07 (eighteen years ago)

No, she's apparently still going. Still, this has the air of 'Er, well, I'll paste in enough comments and, um, yeah!'

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 January 2007 06:08 (eighteen years ago)

Meantime, oh the brilliant planning:

The administration also intends to nominate Navy Adm. William J. Fallon to head the Central Command, replacing Gen. John P. Abizaid as the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East. Some military officials consider Fallon an unusual choice, because he is a naval officer in charge of the Pacific Command with limited experience in the Middle East and would be in charge of two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

...

The U.S. military is increasingly resigned to the probability that Bush will deploy a relatively small number of additional troops -- between one and five brigades -- in part because he has few other dramatic options available to signal U.S. determination in Iraq, officials said. But the Joint Chiefs have not given up making the case that the potential dangers outweigh the benefits for several reasons, officials said.

There are already signs that a limited U.S. escalation, even when complemented by new political and economic steps, may not satisfy either supporters or critics of a surge. Pentagon officials and military experts say far more troops are needed to make a real difference, but the United States would have to remobilize reserves, extend current tours of duty and accelerate planned deployments just to come up with 20,000 troops, U.S. officials say. And such a surge would strap the military for other potential crises, they add.

Etc. Oh, and how cute this is:

As many as 50,000 Iraqis may be fleeing their homes each month in a bid to escape the violence that's tearing the country apart. But less than one percent would be welcome in the United States under its current quota system.

...

The NYT reporters say the U.S. administration has only recently realised how dangerous Baghdad is for local employees. Iraqis' lives are endangered by association with the superpower, but they are given the cold shoulder when they try to escape rising violence.

An interpreter named only as Amar in the newspaper report, who's missing a finger, an eye and part of his skull after a bomb attack, says he hasn't found any sympathy for his asylum bid. "They said they have nothing for Iraqis... We feel just like stupid trash."

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 January 2007 07:03 (eighteen years ago)

Tonight at work an employee called out because her husband was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

ramon fernandez (ramon fernandez), Friday, 5 January 2007 13:59 (eighteen years ago)

Lord. :-(

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 January 2007 15:04 (eighteen years ago)

ned, i'm not drunk anymore and wrote more about jamil hussein here: http://murderinging.com/2007/01/05/jamil-hussein-exists/

the right wing response to this so far has been really hilarious. anyways, keep posting good stuff from crazies land, i can't get enough of it.

critique de la vie quotidienne (modestmickey), Friday, 5 January 2007 15:40 (eighteen years ago)

Remember the dead.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 7 January 2007 08:20 (eighteen years ago)

US Army urges dead to re-enlist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6237607.stm

Andy_K (Andy_K), Sunday, 7 January 2007 08:27 (eighteen years ago)

gives new meaning to the phrase 'cannon fodder.' or not.

hstencil (hstencil), Sunday, 7 January 2007 08:34 (eighteen years ago)

Meantime, this piece at townhall.com is of interest, in that it's from a guy who's fought over there via the IRR, still 'believes in the war' and all that and is considering re-upping but is clearly disillusioned. Less flailing than some, while he still pins partial blame on those darn leftists who hate the President (though to his comparative credit he actually never uses the word, or even says 'Democrats'), he's clear-minded enough to recognize how badly this was botched by the administration and how useless Bush is at explaining anything -- and to his further credit, he doesn't invoke the 'blame the Iraqis' meme at all, which is a lot more I can say for some of the clowns out there at present. The comments, considering it is townhall.com and all, are all over the place.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 7 January 2007 21:16 (eighteen years ago)

I heard an interesting bit on NPR, something to the effect that Maliki wants the US troop increase to fight the Sunni insurgency, while the US wants it to tap down both the insurgency and the Shiite militias (i.e. Moqtada), and it's unlikely that such a basic disconnect in goals will end with the desired result (stability in Iraq). This is one of the more interesting arguments against the surge strategy.

Edward III (edward iii), Sunday, 7 January 2007 21:43 (eighteen years ago)

we get 'new plan' Wed.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070108/D8MH66Q00.html

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 January 2007 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

My anticipation knows no bounds.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 8 January 2007 19:15 (eighteen years ago)

I just want to remind folks that, although our troops are not controlling events in Iraq and the only news they make these days is when they die, many of them are dying, absorbing shrapnel and bullets, having limbs blown off, or just bleeding all over their uniforms -- every day. And even those many others who shall not bleed today are having a long, long procession of bad-ugly days.

Now ask yourself, as all of them are asking themselves, why is this so? For what? For whom? When and where will it end?

Now remember: they can't end this. But we can. Add your pebble to the pile. Email your representative. It won't take many words to say what needs to be said.

Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 17:57 (eighteen years ago)

On a related note, support is down to 26% for this shit, plus minus three points.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

Now remember: they can't end this. But we can. Add your pebble to the pile. Email your representative. It won't take many words to say what needs to be said.

your suggestion seemed like a good idea to me, so i went ahead and wrote mine, voiced my objection and asked him to not vote for any potential troop surge.

on his house website, he writes that the iraqis are now in control of their country with saddam gone, and that our elimination of the terrorists in iraq is crucial to our freedom. so i also did my best to correct him on both of these claims.

how likely is a house rep to actually read a letter from a constituent, anyway?

ath (ath), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

seeing as how my House Rep is Pelosi and both my senators voted against the war I'm pretty sure they're gonna go my way - letter writing won't accomplish much for my part.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

and seeing as how my house rep is a wingnut all star who recently gave a speech about converting all the muslims in iraq to christianity... i have a feeling that letter writing won't help much for me either.

critique de la vie quotidienne (modestmickey), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

It's a great idea, but in my district, I have Earl Blumenaer as my rep, and even my republican senator(Smith) vocally denounced the occupation at the end of December. So there's not too much chance that these guys are gung ho w/ endless funding.

But we'll see.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

For sure it will be read by a staff member. That staff member will definitely report the number of letters and emails received on each "side" of the issue. That is the very least that will occur.
(xpost)
Several facts will lend your correspondence much greater weight than a mere tick mark lumped into this raw total:

- You are a constituent. That means you vote in his district. Right there you have gained a lot of traction, since most correspondence to a rep's office is from non-constituents. They do listen to voters in their district.

- You used your own words. That counts for a lot. A huge amount of correspondence is generated by cheap, bulk methods (e.g. "sign this web petition", "forward this pre-written email", "mail this pre-written postcard"). When someone takes the time to really write, it stands out.

- You took the time to address the rep's own stated position and used a reasoned approach. The importance of this is not that you will reason the rep out of his stated position by the astounding force of your intellect, but that you are a well-spoken voter at large in his district who could influence other people who vote.

If your letter is exceptionally persuasive and well-written, the staff member probably will hand it to his rep and urge him to read it, but that is a rare scenario. More likely, the staff member will just weight your letter fairly heavily when reporting the sentiment of the voters.

Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:04 (eighteen years ago)

well, that's encouraging at least. to further that likelihood i probably should've included that i am staunchly anti-meth, since that was basically his entire campaign last year.

ath (ath), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

For a slightly different vantage point, here's a bit here about a gamer's life in Baghdad, from the vantage point of a 23-year-old Iraqi guy who plays the games off of his own generator. I can't read the actual article, which is slathered in so much Mtv.com flash abortion that my work computer won't load it.

If someone would be so giving as to c&p this shit onto here, i'd be grateful.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:44 (eighteen years ago)

here we go, thanks to Onimo over in ILG.

Turns out the gamer guy is a unemployed English grad and metalhead who had to relocate to Syria.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:57 (eighteen years ago)

OKDUBYA: The mud offensive.

Dick Destiny (Dick Destiny), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 04:29 (eighteen years ago)

Tomorrow is going to be such a ridiculous day.

I react almost dully to all the deaths now. And I wish I didn't.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 04:43 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.artproductionsinc.com/clients/Surge/surge1.gif

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 08:13 (eighteen years ago)

a version of the new plan, as told by Blackadder

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 16:46 (eighteen years ago)

Bush to admit to mistakes, commit to new ones

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

David Frum has advice for the prez:

Hang a map of Baghdad on one wall. A map of Iraq on another. Have the president stand between them with a laser pointer. Let him show where the sectarian fighting in the city is occurring, let him detail where US troops are currently deployed. Then he can explain the new plan: Where the extra troops would go, what they would do, where the new checkpoints would be placed, how the city would be cleared, how it would be held

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 17:25 (eighteen years ago)

He forgot a third step: "Put big signs above each so the President knows which one he is looking at."

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 17:27 (eighteen years ago)

hee hee. now i imagine the President as trying to do this as a powerpoint presentation, and arguing with his laptop in front of an expectant crowd. The laser pointer darts around the walls and almost blinds several asst Secretaries since he forgot to turn it off before banging on the keys.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 17:30 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/captain-kangaroo-1.jpg

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

Bush is doing it from the WH library, to show just what a fresh and scholarly plan it is.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:23 (eighteen years ago)

NRO world provides you, the reader, with a leak:

Based on a just-completed White House background briefing, it looks like the President’s new Iraq strategy to be unveiled tonight looks promising.

The Administration recognizes a lot of what has gone wrong, for example, that is was unrealistic to assume that political progress could be made while the security situation remained so ghastly. The new emphasis is on security first. Five new American brigades will be sent to Baghdad to work with new Iraqi brigades securing the capital block by block. Unclear whether this will be sufficient force. Rules of engagement also to change so that there will be no more areas off limits to American forces.

The President also plans to ask for a larger army – a little late and so necessary! It will be interesting to see how the Democrats in Congress handle that one. All that talk of supporting the troops. . .

Possible problem areas: the strategy still depends heavily on Maliki’s bona fides. They believe his heart is the right place but he has suffered from lack of “capabilities.” That’s a gamble. There is also a “regional” component to the new strategy that seems to rely on another push for Israeli/Palestinian cooperation (Rice is traveling to Middle East within the week). That sounds like Baker/Hamilton bunk, but let’s see what she says.

Still, most of it sounds exactly right.

Uh-huh.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

"All that talk of supporting the troops" = ROFLZ

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

Maliki's in al-Sadr's backpocket politically. Ostensibly one of the groups US troops are being sent in to fight are Sadr's Mahdi Army - assuming that the "no areas off limits to American forces" provision will be exercised to take back security control from the militias. It will be interesting to watch how that political power struggle plays out - unfortunately it will be bought with the coin of more American lives.

Sounds like we're planning to beat whack-a-mole with a slightly bigger hammer. Ye gods. What's that word we weren't supposed to say? Oh, yeah...

QUAQMIRE

Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

IRAQMIRE

Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

FYI, quaqmire is when you're stuck in a pit full of ducks.

Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

Neat Salon bit here: Theatre of Blood -- Casting the Iraq warring as Jacobean revenge tragedy, starring Dubya.

Nothing like getting the blood hot & flowing for Grand Drama.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:53 (eighteen years ago)

you gotta love how Dubya will only admit a mistake if that admission can be used as a pretext to commit further mistakes. POLITICAL GENIUS

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:14 (eighteen years ago)

(ie, "my mistake was to not send enough troops - therefore let's send some more!")

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:14 (eighteen years ago)

christ I hate him what an asshole

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:16 (eighteen years ago)

oh for fuck's sake:

Shiite businesses in detroit are being vandalized.

It's fucking DETROIT, people. Of all the shit you have to worry about on a daily basis, you want to start fucking with other people over all this?

I'm wondering how far out in the suburbs(e.g. Dearborn) this shit goes.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:38 (eighteen years ago)

Okay, so the theater is over, back to the grind. And courtesy of Cunning Realist, a sense of what that grind is like:

Almost two years ago, at the exact same time some self-anointed experts and opiners like this one proclaimed "We're Winning", I made this post about a childhood friend of mine serving in Iraq who warned of the low troop morale and the "FUBAR clusterfuck" we were in. He was spot-on as it turned out, and an infinitely better source than those dubious "the media isn't showing the schools we've been painting" missives trumpeted by the usual suspects. He's now out of the Army, but stays in touch with friends still serving in Iraq. Recently he told me that troop morale is at rock-bottom now, lower than ever, and dejection is turning ominously into anger.

The mention about the media canard is interesting because Malkin's back from Iraq and is sounding a little, dare I say, sobered -- or at least more obviously clutching at straws:

Yes, there is danger and chaos and unspeakable bloodshed in parts of Baghdad. Sectarian violence--compounded by everyday street crime and tribal conflict--is rampant. Corruption, incompetence, and apathy infect the Iraqi government. You've gotten endless news coverage of all that. But there are also pockets of success and signs of hope amid utter despair. I'll give you more details of our embed unit after we get home. We have much to report and will be publishing a multi-part video and audio series, blog posts, and op-eds on security conditions, media malpractice, and the big picture on the war next week. Having met, watched, and interviewed a broad cross-section of our troops during our brief but fruitful travels, my faith in the U.S. military has never been stronger-- but I will not sugarcoat my skepticism and doubts about decisions being made in Washington.

Ledeen, meanwhile...well, just read it.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 January 2007 15:29 (eighteen years ago)

Ledeen, meanwhile...well, just read it.

i love when people make vietnam comparisons approvingly. because, you know, those cambodia incursions turned out so well.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 11 January 2007 16:31 (eighteen years ago)

Excerpted from my Senior Fellow GlobalSec take on the dispatch of a packet of brigades to Baghdad, mentioned last night by the decider. For the sake of the discussion, the unit numbers and the precise places where they come from isn't as central as what it means militarily.

======

Now DD takes a look at the escalation in force, which includes the dispatching of five brigades to Baghdad.

Does it make sense? Or is it more a dumb penny-packet drib-and-drabs approach, the kind the Fuhrer/OKW might have come up with when it was all downhill in WWII, everything lost.

The brigade as a task force is part of the modern American army's modular approach to war. Take the tools out of the toolbox and put them together in a mix to solve the military problem posed. If the problem is unsolvable, that is not addressed.

The brigade is the smallest US military unit capable of being self-sustaining. There are three or more brigades in the standard division in the US military. The Baghdad escalation takes from five different American divisions, apparently, to achieve Bush's aims.

Normally, if army's wish to preserve the esprit de corps of units and work their organizational unity to the fullest, one dispatches divisions. In the Bush plan one could dispatch one or two divisions to Baghdad and achieve the same thing, instead of pulling apart units from various formations now at home in the United States (or in the case of the tabbed airborne brigade, in Kuwait) and -- perhaps -- playing to the local homefront interests that at least some of a division, based at a city somewhere in the US, will remain behind.

However, the current US military philosophy in Iraq uses brigades as individual task forces, presumably to stiffen the Iraqi "army" and do the block-by-block fighting when even that fails. As it does.
=====

The rest, some window-dressing, is here.

Dick Destiny (Dick Destiny), Thursday, 11 January 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

Um, Ahmadinejad came to power more than two years after we entered Iraq.

Rhetoric getting ahead of facts... you know what I mean! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

To me that seems to be the biggest, most obvious shortcoming of the Cheney doctrine - bully everyone as much as possible and then get all surprised when they react.

What is the Cheney doctrine? Something along the lines of "We're the US, bitch, we do what we please."

(now hearing gangsta rap album recorded from Bush administration's POV)

Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 19 January 2007 16:33 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, more or less. I guess it's usually called the Bush Doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Friday, 19 January 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

I think you're right about Iran being part of our reason to go in to begin with - it's just ironic how that became a self-fulfilling prophecy. In having destroyed the Iraq we had effectively helped to build up in the first place to counterbalance Iran, we are now forced to remain there in its place.

A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Friday, 19 January 2007 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

The right of self-defense should be extended in order to authorize pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US.

Man, I just shake my head every time I read this. It's like Bush and his football buddies are yelling "The best defense is a good offense!" and snapping each other with towels in the White House.

In having destroyed the Iraq we had effectively helped to build up in the first place to counterbalance Iran, we are now forced to remain there in its place.

What I fear is the adminstration's plans to ensure we won't withdraw from the region after they're out of office. At this point that gang is obssessed with their legacy and with getting the Bush Doctrine written into the history books. I know it sounds paranoid, but they're way beyond 75 klicks above the Do Lung bridge...

Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 19 January 2007 16:58 (eighteen years ago)

In which Hugh Hewitt compares Bush's SOTU to Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 15:27 (eighteen years ago)

er, here.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 15:28 (eighteen years ago)

Anything to keep him happy. (Based on the commenters he gets these days, even a slew of his regulars are tired of his schtick.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 15:50 (eighteen years ago)

"You may write off that guy with the funny hat and the scraggly beard, standing on the corner muttering and cursing, as just another crazy hobo, but I'm reminded of another man with a funny hat and a scraggly beard..."

A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 16:05 (eighteen years ago)

Lovely.

American officers tried to persuade the Iraqi soldiers to leave the slum area for better cover, but the Iraqis refused to risk crossing a lane that was being raked by machine-gun fire. “It’s their show,” said Lt. David Stroud, adding that the Americans have orders to defer to the Iraqis in cases like this.

In this surreal setting, about 20 American soldiers were forced at one point to pull themselves one by one up a canted tin roof by a dangling rubber hose and then shimmy along a ledge to another hut. The soldiers were stunned when a small child suddenly walked out of a darkened doorway and an old man started wheezing and crying somewhere inside.

Ultimately the group made it back to the high rises and escaped the sniper in the alley by throwing out the smoke bombs and sprinting to safety. Even though two Iraqis were struck by gunfire, many of the rest could not stop shouting and guffawing with amusement as they ran through the smoke.

One Iraqi soldier in the alley pointed his rifle at an American reporter and pulled the trigger. There was only a click: the weapon had no ammunition. The soldier laughed at his joke.

64 US soldiers dead this month so far. Almost 1500 Iraqi deaths.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 26 January 2007 05:36 (eighteen years ago)

Goddamn irresponsible media. It's reports like this that make our soldiers' jobs tougher!

Meanwhile, al-Maliki threatened a Sunni lawmaker with arrest during a broadcasted session of Parliament.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html?em&ex=1169960400&en=a409cbba07641b13&ei=5087%0A

The lawmakers had their shouting match while sitting beneath a banner with a phrase from the Koran that extols the importance of a civil debate in making good decisions.

Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 26 January 2007 15:44 (eighteen years ago)

Oh, but that's hardly fair - think of all the times the Bush administration has probably directly contradicted whatever the fuck was engraved in Latin above their heads.

A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Friday, 26 January 2007 15:51 (eighteen years ago)

Irony is delicious whether it's in Arabic or Latin...

Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 26 January 2007 17:24 (eighteen years ago)

Bush is MAKING DECISIONS!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 January 2007 18:43 (eighteen years ago)

Oh for fun.

Contrary to public statements by the U.S. military, four U.S. soldiers did not die repelling a sneak attack at the governor’s office in the Shiite holy city of Karbala last week. New information obtained by The Associated Press shows they were abducted and found dead or dying as far as 25 miles away.

The brazen assault, 50 miles south of Baghdad on Jan. 20, was conducted by nine to 12 militants posing as an American security team. They traveled in black GMC Suburban vehicles — the type used by U.S. government convoys — had American weapons, wore new U.S. military combat fatigues and spoke English.

In a written statement, the U.S. command reported at the time that five soldiers were killed while “repelling the attack.” Now, two senior U.S. military officials as well as Iraqi officials say four of the five were captured and taken from the governor’s compound alive. Three of them were found dead and one mortally wounded later that evening in locations as far as 25 miles east of the governor’s office.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 26 January 2007 19:41 (eighteen years ago)

Gates now toeing the company line, talking about how any criticism is effectively treasonous, since the resolution is "embolden"ing to the enemy.

kingfish moose tracks (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 26 January 2007 20:09 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think we had a "Path to 9/11" thread on here, or else i can't find it.

anyhoo, Fox News is going to be airing the cut footage from the series, specifically about the bullshit Sandy Berger bits conjured out of thin air.

Still, that thing cost $40 million?!

kingfish moose tracks (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 26 January 2007 21:40 (eighteen years ago)

I read .pdfs so you don't have to. The alleged wisdom of David Petraeus.

Dick Destiny (Dick Destiny), Friday, 26 January 2007 21:48 (eighteen years ago)

Can anyone help make sense out of this? (any Stratfor posts yet, Ned?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/world/middleeast/26cnd-prexy.html?em&ex=1169960400&en=092e3c48d429fe31&ei=5087%0A

The New York Times

January 26, 2007
Bush Backs Force Against Iranians in Iraq
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 -- American soldiers will do what they must to protect themselves from Iranian agents operating inside Iraq, the White House said today, following a report that President Bush had authorized the killing of Iranian agents.

“If our troops get actionable intelligence that agents are going to cause our troops or Iraqi citizens harm, they’re going to take whatever force protections that are necessary,” said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

The president himself told reporters today that, “It just makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them.”

He made the comment at a White House appearance with Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who was confirmed by the Senate today as the new commander in Iraq.

“And so, yeah, we’re going to continue to protect ourselves in Iraq,” Mr. Bush went on, “and at the same time work to solve our problems with Iran diplomatically. And I believe we can succeed.”

The president remarks were in response to an article in The Washington Post today that said the White House had authorized the United States military to kill or capture Iranian operatives in Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy against Iran.

But Mr. Bush said any notion that the United States wants to widen its military campaign beyond the borders of Iraq “simply is not accurate.” The president and his top aides have said several times in recent weeks that there are no plans to pursue Iranian agents into Iran.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates echoed Mr. Bush’s remarks today. “Our forces are authorized to go after those who are trying to kill them,” Mr. Gates said at a Pentagon briefing. “And if you’re in Iraq and trying to kill our troops, then you should consider yourself a target.”

Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that President Bush had issued an order several months before authorizing a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives inside Iraq. She said that Iran had provided components for roadside bombs and training for thousands of Shiite militia fighters, mostly in Iran.

“There has been a decision to go after these networks,” she said in an interview with The New York Times, referring to Iranian operatives working inside Iraq.

The Post article today provided additional details of that effort, reporting that the Bush administration had authorized the American military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of a strategy to weaken Tehran’s influence in the Middle East and to give up its nuclear ambitions.

As the day wore on, Bush administration officials tried to dispel the impression that there was anything new in the strategy against Iran. Rather, they said, the use of lethal force against Iranian agents had never been ruled out.

The Post said lethal force against Iranians was not known to have been used to date. But the newspaper did say that dozens of suspected Iranian agents had been detained over the past year for three to four days at a time under a “catch and release” policy intended to avoid escalating tensions with Iran.

Mr. Gates, who took office in December, said he was under the impression that The Post report contained “a number of inaccuracies,” although he was not specific. And when he was asked whether the “kill-or-capture authority” applied to Iranians meddling in Iraq’s political or economic affairs, he replied, “What we’re looking for are people who are trying to kill us.”

In particular, Mr. Gates said, American forces were going after “these networks” that bring deadly homemade bombs, or “improvised explosive devices,” into Iraq “that are causing 70 percent of our casualties.”

Asked whether the administration had embarked on “a much larger” anti-Iran strategy, Mr. Gates replied, “No, I don’t think so.”

Mr. Johndroe of the National Security Council took issue with The Post’s description of the administration’s approach as “catch and release.” President Bush bluntly warned Iran on Jan. 10 to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs. The next day, American troops backed by helicopters and armored vehicles raided an Iranian diplomatic office in Erbil, Iraq, in the middle of the night and detained a half-dozen Iranians working inside. Shortly afterward, an additional American aircraft carrier was deployed off Iran’s coast.

The Iranian government said the raid violated international law. The American military said in a statement that documents and equipment removed from the office “will be examined to determine the extent of the alleged illegal or terrorist activity,” and that “appropriate action” would be taken regarding the detainees.

The White House has long accused Iran of providing weapons and training to Shiite forces in Iraq with the aim of keeping the United States bogged down in the war and teaching Washington a bitter lesson about the perils of regime change and nation-building.

In his 2002 State of the Union address, Mr. Bush described Iran as part of an “axis of evil,” along with Iraq and North Korea, and administration officials have said Iran is the single greatest threat in the Middle East.

Asked why he was sticking to his plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq despite flagging Congressional support, Mr. Bush said: “One of the things I’ve found in Congress is that most people recognize that failure would be a disaster for the United States. And in that I’m the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster. In other words, I had to think about what’s likely to work.”

As for Iran, Mr. Bush said the Iranian people were not America’s enemy. “Our problem is with the government that takes actions that end up isolating your people, ends up denying the Iranian people their true place in the world,” he said.

Two leading Democratic senators had expressed concerns about the Bush administration’s approach to Iran even before The Post report.

A week ago, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that White House efforts to portray Iran as a growing threat are uncomfortably reminiscent of rhetoric about Iraq before the American invasion of 2003.

Mr. Rockefeller said the administration was building a case against Tehran even as American intelligence agencies still know little about either Iran’s internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East.

And Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, recently issued a sharp warning to the administration about the raids against Iranians in Iraq. Although the White House has said there are no plans to pursue Iranian agents into their own country, Mr. Biden said any cross-border operations “will generate a constitutional confrontation here in the Senate.”

Next week, the Senate is to debate a resolution endorsed by the Foreign Relations Committee denouncing the president’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad.

Mr. Gates said any such resolution “emboldens the enemy.” He said he was sure that was not the intention of its supporters, “but that’s the effect.”

Senator Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said he backed a “kill or capture” policy toward Iranians operating in Iraq.

“We want the American troops protected in Iraq,” he said in a question-answer session at the Capitol. “Whatever it takes to protect them is something we’re certainly interested in. But for the president to escalate this conflict outside Iraq is something he has to come back and ask us permission to do.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Mark Mazzetti contributed.

A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Saturday, 27 January 2007 01:44 (eighteen years ago)

There's been various posts on Iran from Stratfor but nothing specifically about this yet (at least that I have access to; most of their stuff is subscription only). The reaction on the right has been this blackly hilarious mix of "Yeah, ABOUT TIME!" and "Hey, wait, who's leaking shit to the press again! BASTARDS!" I eventually expect time to simply implode.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 27 January 2007 01:46 (eighteen years ago)

I guess I'm just confused about the on-the-ground implications of this. Does it mean we're going to take specific military action against these alleged Iranian "agents," or is it just like, if we happen to see an obviously Iranian-looking dude handing IED parts to an Iraqi we'll no longer NOT shoot him just because he's Iranian?

A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Saturday, 27 January 2007 01:51 (eighteen years ago)

Yes.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 27 January 2007 01:52 (eighteen years ago)

C'mon, this is tailormade for bending any direction necessary.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 27 January 2007 01:52 (eighteen years ago)

So then my other question is, is this really a "leak" or is it the latest move in the game of Rattle the Iranians?

A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Saturday, 27 January 2007 02:12 (eighteen years ago)

Who knows?

Meantime, remember the dead.

In 2004, eager to get on with his career and family life, Freeman moved into the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), a pool of trained soldiers not assigned to any unit, to serve out the rest of his eight-year mandatory obligation.

He was in California with a civilian job, a 1-year-old son named Gunnar and another baby on the way in the fall of 2005 when a shortage of officers prompted a large call-up by the IRR of West Point graduates from the classes of 1998 and later -- many of whom had only a few months of service left.

"He was an augmentee, who happened to be called up to fill a slot," said Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Edmond, a full-time staff member at the 412th Civil Affairs Battalion in Whitehall, Ohio, which Freeman was called to join. "It's almost to fill a void," he said, commenting on the Army's deepening manpower shortage, especially in the reserve, which requires it to cobble together units with people from across the country.

Charlotte Freeman, Freeman's wife, recalled her husband's shock upon receiving an Army telegram ordering him back to active duty. "He walked into the house and was totally white," she said yesterday. "He had moved on" from the Army.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 06:02 (eighteen years ago)

The principal of a school here is being called up to go to Iraq.

Maria :D (Maria D.), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 06:09 (eighteen years ago)

What happens if they refuse?

Ned T.Rifle (nedtrifle), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 10:37 (eighteen years ago)

That's what I suggested last week in a letter to the editor to the local paper.

Maria :D (Maria D.), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 12:32 (eighteen years ago)

I'm interested to know how coverage of iraqi life is being undertaken in the US media. Barely a week goes by here where I don't see another documentary or in-depth report into the brutalities of iraqi existence (last night dispatches had one on interior ministry death squads). There is barely any focus on british troop activities (possibly because they are in the quieter south), we see more US troops on screen than brits and more dead or injured iraqis than either of those.

These monthly threads have tended to reflect political and strategic concerns so I'm interested in what the balance of coverage is, particularly on the TV.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 12:50 (eighteen years ago)

I could be wrong but I don't think there is any news or investigation or reports on American television about day-to-day Iraqi life. At all! Maybe CNN has done a 10 minute piece here and there.

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 12:59 (eighteen years ago)

All I can say is they don't cover it on Fox (the only US news network I get).

I can understand why there is a difference in coverage. US soldiers are dying daily and this is news that can't really be ignored.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 13:02 (eighteen years ago)

On balance I'd guess print media is doing more than TV on this front in America, but since I avoid TV coverage I can't really say...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 13:45 (eighteen years ago)

There is not much in "voices from the street" coverage on the boob tube. Except for PBS and community channels that show "Democracy Now!" and BBC.
I actually rely on this thread for comprehensive coverage! (Every monthly thread). So thank you, Ned and everyone else, for providing those links and keeping the discourse going.

aimurchie (aimurchie), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 15:32 (eighteen years ago)

I'm interested to know how coverage of iraqi life is being undertaken in the US media.

The death toll of American troops and Iraqi civilians is a constant staple of US TV news, both on local and the nationals like CNN. There's the occasional human interest story about how events are affecting the Iraqi population, but US TV news stations don't provide enough coverage to sufficiently communicate how chaotic and desperate life in Iraq is. This is par for the course when it comes to coverage of wartorn countries, whether it's Lebanon, Sudan, or Iraq. National Public Radio generally does a better job with this.

Getting back to our normal strategic and political concerns, this morning on NPR an analyst was talking about Iraq turning into a full-blown proxy war; Iran expands support of Shiite militias, and surrounding Sunni governments continue funnelling arms and funds to the Iraqi Sunnis to offset Iranian influence. One of his points was, in the back of their minds Shiites know the American presence is temporary whereas Iran isn't going anywhere.

One of the outcomes I've been expecting since the US extracted permission to go after Shiite militias from al-Maliki: Shiites offering up some splinter groups (see the Najaf action a few days ago) as a sign of "progress" to the Americans. Such actions aren't going to change the larger Shiite-Sunni conflict. If al-Sadr starts using US troops to go after renegades in his own party, it would only stabilize his power & influence yet forestall any real progress.

The Najaf operation continues the theme in recent coverage of how ineffectual the Iraqi army is, with US forces doing all the heavy lifting.

Edward III (edward iii), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 15:55 (eighteen years ago)

The problem with that "analysis" is that almost all the Shiite militias sort of hate Iran.

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

My main TV news programmes have dropped pretty much all operational coverage. It seems to be wall to wall tortured, mutilated and dead iraqis right now.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

Meantime, if you want an example of how political suicide is done... (Keep in mind I think it's Hewitt/Barnett and their commentators killing themselves here.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 17:14 (eighteen years ago)

The problem with that "analysis" is that almost all the Shiite militias sort of hate Iran.
-- Euai Kapaui (tracerhan...), January 30th, 2007. (later)

Still, would that keep them from taking Iran's money and arms? And some have very strong ties to Iran - the Badr Organization is on the Iranian payroll, they even fought on Iran's side during their war with Iraq!

Edward III (edward iii), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

Granted, though, part of the problem is telling who's on who's side over there; between the shifting alliances, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" factor, and the various power plays going on. Fog o' war be thick.

Edward III (edward iii), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

More good news:

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Quarterly Report

Some highlights:

Early last year, SIGIR identified 2006 as the Year of Transition in Iraq Reconstruction. Throughout 2006, SIGIR tracked progress on a range of issues that challenged the success of the U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq, including:
• helping the Iraqis fight corruption
• improving security, especially infrastructure
security
• building the governance capacities of the
Iraqi ministries and provincial governments
• ensuring the sustainability of completed
IRRF programs and projects
• increasing the participation of international
donors
• strengthening coordination among U.S.
reconstruction agencies

SIGIR observed limited progress on each of
these issues:

1. Corruption continues to plague Iraq. Anticorruption institutions in Iraq are fragmented, and there does not appear to be an internal Iraqi consensus about how these institutions should interact. SIGIR’s 2006 audit of U.S. support to anticorruption efforts in Iraq presented a series of recommendations, some of which remain unresolved.

2. Infrastructure security remains vulnerable. Electric lines are attacked regularly, and the northern pipelines are largely inoperable because of interdiction. Iraqi repair crews are frequently unable to work because of repeated attacks. SIGIR’s 2006 audit of infrastructure security efforts emphasized the need for greater focus in this area.

3. The capacity of Iraq’s ministries to execute their capital budgets remains weak. Overcoming this weakness is essential to future progress on reconstruction. A recent SIGIR review of ministry capacity development found that much still needs to be done to improve U.S. support for GOI capacity development.

4. The sustainability of completed IRRF projects remains a concern. Although U.S. reconstruction officials have implemented a program to promote project sustainability, a recent SIGIR review indicates weakness in Iraq’s management of this program.

5. Multilateral support for Iraq reconstruction has yet to be realized. The International Compact for Iraq (the Compact) is expected to advance this essential effort, but it has not yet been officially implemented. For the Compact to succeed, the UN, the World Bank, Iraq’s regional neighbors, and the international donor community must engage more aggressively in supporting Iraq’s recovery.

6. Inconsistent coordination among the many U.S. agencies supporting Iraq’s reconstruction has hampered the effective execution of the U.S. reconstruction program. The newly appointed U.S. coordinator for economic transition may help remediate these problems. SIGIR is conducting reviews of the evolving roles and responsibilities of U.S. agencies as internal reorganizations take place. As the reconstruction program in Iraq progresses into 2007, the process of transitioning the management of the program to Iraqi control will accelerate. Ensuring the program’s successful transition hinges on making effective progress on each of the foregoing issues.

Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 14:26 (eighteen years ago)

But the troops just want to kick ass, man!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 15:09 (eighteen years ago)

Meantime, this is an interesting recollection.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 15:17 (eighteen years ago)

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who look first in their planning for how many casualties we might take, instead of how many enemy casualties we might inflict.


ugh. I always get the impression those aren't very representative.

UART variations (ex machina), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 16:23 (eighteen years ago)

They aren't. But they'll make the most blowhard-friendly noise.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 16:52 (eighteen years ago)

We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to build nations. We are there to kill our enemies.

That's good to know, 'cause we're sucking at goal #1. How's #2 going?

Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

Iraq's prime minister said today he's sure Iran is behind some attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and he won't allow his country to be a battleground for the two nations. Two U.S. officials theorize Iran may have been involved in a January 20 attack that killed five U.S. soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/31/iraq.main/index.html

Isn't this kind of thinking how we GOT into iraq?

UART variations (ex machina), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 21:16 (eighteen years ago)

"We have told the Iranians and the Americans, 'We know that you have a problem with each other, but we are asking you, please solve your problems outside Iraq,' " Nuri al-Maliki told CNN.

UART variations (ex machina), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 21:16 (eighteen years ago)

nice little bit about people claiming to be Churchill w/o actually knowing Churchill's history

kingfish moose tracks (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 21:22 (eighteen years ago)

Air Force lobbying to reach out and crush.

Dick Destiny (Dick Destiny), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 21:31 (eighteen years ago)

Again, remember the dead.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 22:00 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.idealinnovations.com/default.asp?contentID=551

oh look, they're hiring!

kingfishy (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 1 February 2007 07:29 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.