The MSM and the left like to paint a grim picture of Iraq - a picture of a military bogged down in an unwinnable fight, sitting ducks for IEDs, while military and civil leadership has no clue of what to do. For anyone who even makes a cursory examination of the situation, such a description of Iraq is, well, laughably stupid. Mackubin Thomas Owens over at NRO has written what amounts to a status report on Iraq:
...the key to success in Iraq is time. Iraq still needs time to create a competent military. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki understands this. During his recent visit to the United States, his constant refrain was that the Iraqis need time before they can take care of their own security.
American commanders have made it clear that the near-term priorities for U.S. troops are securing Baghdad and training Iraqi troops. Sectarian violence surged in the wake of the bombing of the Sammarah Mosque in February and peaked in Baghdad during June and July. Substantial U.S. and Iraqi forces were moved to Baghdad to secure the city. The subsequent combined military operations seem to have reduced sectarian attacks in August in Baghdad neighborhoods, according to Gen. Chiarelli. But the transfer of troops to Baghdad from al Anbar and other provinces in Iraq has made those locations less secure, leading critics of the administration to renew their call for more troops in the country.
But the additional troops in Iraq should be Iraqi, and, in this area, much progress has already been made. Five of ten Iraqi Army Divisions Headquarters have assumed the leads in their areas of responsibility. In May 2005, Iraqi forces took the lead in only 20 percent of Coalition operations. By August of last year it was up to 80 percent, and is higher today. According to Gen. George Casey on August 30, Iraqi forces will be able “to take on the security responsibilities for the country with very little coalition support” in about 12 to 18 months.
Lost in all the recent hoopla is the fact that the Sunni insurgency (so-called) has been broken - they are still out there and still capable of killing, but they are not at all capable of threatening the existence of the Iraqi government. The report last week about "stalemate" in western Anbar? That was all about how the terrorists couldn't win, but also about how the US military couldn't clear out the last of the rats - that will take an Iraqi military and police who know the language and culture.
With the buildup of the Iraqi army and police, we are rapidly approaching the time when US troops will merely backstop the Iraqis as they clear out the terrorists on their own - and given that it is their country and their own citizenry, they won't be as restricted as we are in dealing out harsh measures to terrorists and those who aid them.
Posted by Mark Noonan at September 20, 2006 03:40 AM
Comments
"In May 2005, Iraqi forces took the lead in only 20 percent of Coalition operations. By August of last year it was up to 80 percent, and is higher today."-NRO
Substantial, measureable progress! Thanks for the good news about Iraq, Mark. After the events of this last week, this is welcome news indeed.
Posted by: Freedom1 at September 20, 2006 05:08 AM
...they won't be as restricted as we are in dealing out harsh measures to terrorists and those who aid them.
Shhhhh...John McLame and Goober Graham may hear you!!!
Posted by: keefer at September 20, 2006 05:52 AM
At a downtown Washington news conference, Hamilton and Baker declined to say what their assessment is of the situation in Iraq now or to indicate anything about their upcoming recommendations. They said recommendations won't be given to the government or made public until after the November election - to avoid politicizing them. They said they would not be more specific about when the findings might be released.
Must be very bad news since they are afraid it will hurt them in November.
Posted by: Christian Wright at September 20, 2006 08:18 AM
Your unwavering optimism is impressive...you are all true believers. What about the recent lose of the Anbar province? And spare me the MSM line, I saw this on FOX news, AQ now controls roughly 30% of western Iraq
Posted by: aric at September 20, 2006 08:28 AM
Mark, not shockingly, doesn't understand what the Anbar intelligence report was saying.
First off, it in no way says the Sunni insurgency has been broken. I don't know if that's what you base your claim off, but it doesn't.
So, Mark, on what information do you get your claim that the Sunni insurgency has been broken?
The report does say the US is in a stalemate of sorts in Anbar. I won't be defeated militarily, but it also can't stop the insurgency. And because of that, there's basically a lawlessness that has overtaken the region--a void filled by Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (which is mostly made up of native Iraqi tribe members).
The main, and most pessimistic, message of this report is that the US military can basically tread water in fighting the insurgency, but while they do, they are losing the political war, which is what really needs to be won to end the insurgency. At this point, the report says, it seems unlikely that the US can win that political war with its troops in the region. It basically states that the US needs to get out of there and Iraqis need to settle this for themselves.
Mark, you seem to only be addressing military issues, and avoiding political ones. Perhaps that's because the Shi'ites and Kurds went back on their promise not to push for a division of Iraq into three regions, virtually shutting out Sunnis from oil revenues. That's the bigger issue and the bigger problem. If ethnic tensions weren't enough to push Iraq toward civil war, a fight for oil revenue very well may do it.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at September 20, 2006 08:47 AM
"That was all about how the terrorists couldn't win, but also about how the US military couldn't clear out the last of the rats - that will take an Iraqi military and police who know the language and culture."
First of all, Mark, the report does not give suggestions as to how to fix the problem, so for you to claim that is says the insurgency only consists of "the last rats" and all it will take is iraqi troops to clear them out, is so far off it's laughable.
There is hope that bringing in Iraqi troops to take over would help, but that's all it is--hope. There' been no analysis that it would help, no report claiming this would help. In fact, there's fear that handing over control to the Iraqi army will lead to an all out civil war in the region.
You're not spinning this report Mark. For one to spin, there has to be some basis in the fact. You're so far off, you're basically just making stuff up. Lying, is what some would call it.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at September 20, 2006 09:00 AM
The paragraphs quoted from this article don’t say anything new and certainly don’t suggest that things are getting better in Iraq. (however, other parts of the article are more interesting, especially the part about needing more than military to resolve the Iraq conflict)
Time may cure many things—but how long? We’re 5+ years into this conflict—what more is needed? 5 more years? 10? That we are 5+ years into this conflict with Baghdad is still not secure is an embarrassment. And yes, shifting forces from other places in Iraq to Baghdad will make those other places less secure and more open to insurgents. So, bring in more troops? Entrench the US even more? Cause the US even higher casualty rates?
We’ve heard before that Iraq is in the last throes of the insurgency, that the Iraq military is ready to take on the responsibilities from the US military, we’ve heard before that the responsibility shift is only months away, but nothing is changing there, it just goes on. The same words are spoken and written every few months, but saying and writing it doesn’t make it so.
The casualty rates are heading back up after a brief respite
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
http://icasualties.org/oif/
The US shouldn’t be in Iraq now, except that we need to clean up the mess we made of it. However, the more we clean, the dirtier it gets. Iraq wasn’t a major problem in 2002 but it’s a knife in our side now. The US didn’t complete its mission of capturing the 9/11 terrorists, instead it got sidetracked with Iraq which has us sinking over a billion a week into that country—money that could be better spent on security at home.
Posted by: Nate at September 20, 2006 09:01 AM
I'm guessing this:
"While military means alone cannot defeat an insurgency, these operations did weaken the Sunni insurgency. Although the Sunni insurgents can still cause damage, the threat they pose to the government was reduced considerably by the rivers campaign."
Is where what Mark based this off of:
"Lost in all the recent hoopla is the fact that the Sunni insurgency (so-called) has been broken - they are still out there and still capable of killing, but they are not at all capable of threatening the existence of the Iraqi government."
The first quote is an op-ed by an NRO editor which says the threat to the government poses has been greatly reduced. Mark stretched the truth a bit I guess when he said "they are not at all capable of threatening the existence of the Iraqi government."
The sunni insurgency is definitely a threat to the Iraqi government considering the goal is a strong central Iraqi government composed of sunnis, shi'ites and kurds. If the sunnis are not on board, then the goal of that government will not be reached, and you have the potential of years of fighting between the sunnis and the shi'ites. The sunni insurgency is a threat to the Iraqi government. Not just militarily, but more importantly, politically.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at September 20, 2006 09:39 AM
quite frankly, I don't recognise what the mission is anymore after no nukes were found & I'm a vet.
know that I supported the invasion after our leadership assured nukes were there AND it was apparent that sanctions & containment were an illusion (ergo-the UN was ineffective) plus our pilots continued risk at being shot-down enforcing the no-fly zone.
but now it appears to me that we will not allow the kurds, our natural allies, to establish kurdistan in deferrence to our turkish "allies"...who blocked the 4th ID from opening the northern front & destroying the sunni/baathist insurgents, our enemies...because they hated the kurds...
and then there's this from the army times:
"Militias wield power, garner support"
But many Shiites believe the militias are their best protection against Sunni insurgents and religious zealots — who have killed thousands of Shiites since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003.
“Everyone’s drawn to militias, which give immediate results, which is what they want,” said Staff Sgt. Justin Nelson, 26. “It goes back to popular support for the militias.”
The militias also are linked to politicians — both Sunnis and Shiites. That requires the Americans to move carefully.
Sectarian hatred is palpable.
"This is a peacekeeping operation between people who don’t want peace,” said one officer who asked not to be named so he could speak freely. “What’s going to happen here is going to happen.”
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2114995.php
and then there's all the drumbeat about democracy.
well, what if they gave an election...& the terrorists get elected (Hamas anyone)?
purple fingers are one thing...truckloads of blood in the streets is quite another...& our soldiers are caught in the middle.
and the most powerful attack force in the world remains bogged-down on the ground in a "peacekeeping" operation just when we need their threat behind our diplomacy to confront iran & north korea.
my doupts are growing...
Posted by: OhioOrrin at September 20, 2006 09:54 AM
Tom,
The un-shocking thing is that you not only don't understand the intel report about Anbar, but refuse to even listen to anything which might cast doubt on your "its all going to heck in a handbasket" view...which, really, is your hope because hatred of Bush has made you, deep down, wish for our defeat in Iraq just so you can blame it on President Bush.
The Sunni insurgency ceased to be a threat to the existence of the Iraqi government a year or more ago...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at September 20, 2006 11:48 AM
Christian,
Or it could be good news but they don't want to release it for fear of the Democrats making an "October Surprise" issue out of it...you see, President Bush and the Republicans would prefer that the issue of the war not be political...we hoped that we could maintain some national unity on the subject, but the Democrats were determined that they gain partisan political advantage out of it.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at September 20, 2006 12:03 PM
President Bush and the Republicans would prefer that the issue of the war not be political
Jesus H. Christ, Noonan, weren't you recently saying that you're trying to give up lying? Did you have your eyes shut and your ears plugged for the entire 2004 campaign or something? The numero uno issue Bush and the GOP ran their political campaign on was...wait for it...wait for it...the war on terror!
Posted by: SeesThroughIt at September 20, 2006 03:35 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
"In May 2005, Iraqi forces took the lead in only 20 percent of Coalition operations. By August of last year it was up to 80 percent, and is higher today."-NRO
Substantial, measureable progress! Thanks for the good news about Iraq, Mark. After the events of this last week, this is welcome news indeed.
...they won't be as restricted as we are in dealing out harsh measures to terrorists and those who aid them.
Shhhhh...John McLame and Goober Graham may hear you!!!
At a downtown Washington news conference, Hamilton and Baker declined to say what their assessment is of the situation in Iraq now or to indicate anything about their upcoming recommendations. They said recommendations won't be given to the government or made public until after the November election - to avoid politicizing them. They said they would not be more specific about when the findings might be released.
Must be very bad news since they are afraid it will hurt them in November.
Your unwavering optimism is impressive...you are all true believers. What about the recent lose of the Anbar province? And spare me the MSM line, I saw this on FOX news, AQ now controls roughly 30% of western Iraq
Mark, not shockingly, doesn't understand what the Anbar intelligence report was saying.
First off, it in no way says the Sunni insurgency has been broken. I don't know if that's what you base your claim off, but it doesn't.
So, Mark, on what information do you get your claim that the Sunni insurgency has been broken?
The report does say the US is in a stalemate of sorts in Anbar. I won't be defeated militarily, but it also can't stop the insurgency. And because of that, there's basically a lawlessness that has overtaken the region--a void filled by Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (which is mostly made up of native Iraqi tribe members).
The main, and most pessimistic, message of this report is that the US military can basically tread water in fighting the insurgency, but while they do, they are losing the political war, which is what really needs to be won to end the insurgency. At this point, the report says, it seems unlikely that the US can win that political war with its troops in the region. It basically states that the US needs to get out of there and Iraqis need to settle this for themselves.
Mark, you seem to only be addressing military issues, and avoiding political ones. Perhaps that's because the Shi'ites and Kurds went back on their promise not to push for a division of Iraq into three regions, virtually shutting out Sunnis from oil revenues. That's the bigger issue and the bigger problem. If ethnic tensions weren't enough to push Iraq toward civil war, a fight for oil revenue very well may do it.
"That was all about how the terrorists couldn't win, but also about how the US military couldn't clear out the last of the rats - that will take an Iraqi military and police who know the language and culture."
First of all, Mark, the report does not give suggestions as to how to fix the problem, so for you to claim that is says the insurgency only consists of "the last rats" and all it will take is iraqi troops to clear them out, is so far off it's laughable.
There is hope that bringing in Iraqi troops to take over would help, but that's all it is--hope. There' been no analysis that it would help, no report claiming this would help. In fact, there's fear that handing over control to the Iraqi army will lead to an all out civil war in the region.
You're not spinning this report Mark. For one to spin, there has to be some basis in the fact. You're so far off, you're basically just making stuff up. Lying, is what some would call it.
The paragraphs quoted from this article don’t say anything new and certainly don’t suggest that things are getting better in Iraq. (however, other parts of the article are more interesting, especially the part about needing more than military to resolve the Iraq conflict)
Time may cure many things—but how long? We’re 5+ years into this conflict—what more is needed? 5 more years? 10? That we are 5+ years into this conflict with Baghdad is still not secure is an embarrassment. And yes, shifting forces from other places in Iraq to Baghdad will make those other places less secure and more open to insurgents. So, bring in more troops? Entrench the US even more? Cause the US even higher casualty rates?
We’ve heard before that Iraq is in the last throes of the insurgency, that the Iraq military is ready to take on the responsibilities from the US military, we’ve heard before that the responsibility shift is only months away, but nothing is changing there, it just goes on. The same words are spoken and written every few months, but saying and writing it doesn’t make it so.
The casualty rates are heading back up after a brief respite
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
http://icasualties.org/oif/
The US shouldn’t be in Iraq now, except that we need to clean up the mess we made of it. However, the more we clean, the dirtier it gets. Iraq wasn’t a major problem in 2002 but it’s a knife in our side now. The US didn’t complete its mission of capturing the 9/11 terrorists, instead it got sidetracked with Iraq which has us sinking over a billion a week into that country—money that could be better spent on security at home.
I'm guessing this:
"While military means alone cannot defeat an insurgency, these operations did weaken the Sunni insurgency. Although the Sunni insurgents can still cause damage, the threat they pose to the government was reduced considerably by the rivers campaign."
Is where what Mark based this off of:
"Lost in all the recent hoopla is the fact that the Sunni insurgency (so-called) has been broken - they are still out there and still capable of killing, but they are not at all capable of threatening the existence of the Iraqi government."
The first quote is an op-ed by an NRO editor which says the threat to the government poses has been greatly reduced. Mark stretched the truth a bit I guess when he said "they are not at all capable of threatening the existence of the Iraqi government."
The sunni insurgency is definitely a threat to the Iraqi government considering the goal is a strong central Iraqi government composed of sunnis, shi'ites and kurds. If the sunnis are not on board, then the goal of that government will not be reached, and you have the potential of years of fighting between the sunnis and the shi'ites. The sunni insurgency is a threat to the Iraqi government. Not just militarily, but more importantly, politically.
quite frankly, I don't recognise what the mission is anymore after no nukes were found & I'm a vet.
know that I supported the invasion after our leadership assured nukes were there AND it was apparent that sanctions & containment were an illusion (ergo-the UN was ineffective) plus our pilots continued risk at being shot-down enforcing the no-fly zone.
but now it appears to me that we will not allow the kurds, our natural allies, to establish kurdistan in deferrence to our turkish "allies"...who blocked the 4th ID from opening the northern front & destroying the sunni/baathist insurgents, our enemies...because they hated the kurds...
and then there's this from the army times:
"Militias wield power, garner support"
But many Shiites believe the militias are their best protection against Sunni insurgents and religious zealots — who have killed thousands of Shiites since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003.
“Everyone’s drawn to militias, which give immediate results, which is what they want,” said Staff Sgt. Justin Nelson, 26. “It goes back to popular support for the militias.”
The militias also are linked to politicians — both Sunnis and Shiites. That requires the Americans to move carefully.
Sectarian hatred is palpable.
"This is a peacekeeping operation between people who don’t want peace,” said one officer who asked not to be named so he could speak freely. “What’s going to happen here is going to happen.”
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2114995.php
and then there's all the drumbeat about democracy.
well, what if they gave an election...& the terrorists get elected (Hamas anyone)?
purple fingers are one thing...truckloads of blood in the streets is quite another...& our soldiers are caught in the middle.
and the most powerful attack force in the world remains bogged-down on the ground in a "peacekeeping" operation just when we need their threat behind our diplomacy to confront iran & north korea.
my doupts are growing...
Tom,
The un-shocking thing is that you not only don't understand the intel report about Anbar, but refuse to even listen to anything which might cast doubt on your "its all going to heck in a handbasket" view...which, really, is your hope because hatred of Bush has made you, deep down, wish for our defeat in Iraq just so you can blame it on President Bush.
The Sunni insurgency ceased to be a threat to the existence of the Iraqi government a year or more ago...
Christian,
Or it could be good news but they don't want to release it for fear of the Democrats making an "October Surprise" issue out of it...you see, President Bush and the Republicans would prefer that the issue of the war not be political...we hoped that we could maintain some national unity on the subject, but the Democrats were determined that they gain partisan political advantage out of it.
President Bush and the Republicans would prefer that the issue of the war not be political
Jesus H. Christ, Noonan, weren't you recently saying that you're trying to give up lying? Did you have your eyes shut and your ears plugged for the entire 2004 campaign or something? The numero uno issue Bush and the GOP ran their political campaign on was...wait for it...wait for it...the war on terror!