It is becoming clearer just what General Petraeus intends, but Ms. Kagan over at Opinion Journal says it better than I can:
Gens. David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno have encircled Baghdad with a double cordon of U.S. and Iraqi forces. They have been preparing the cordons patiently since February, as the new "surge" units arrived. The surge was completed only in mid-June, and the first phase of the large-scale operations it was intended to support began only on June 15. Since then, U.S. forces have begun blocking major road, river, and transportation route around Baghdad. They are also deployed in critical neighborhoods around outskirts and the interior of the city.
On June 15, Gens. Petraeus and Odierno launched a major offensive against al Qaeda strongholds all around Baghdad. "Phantom Thunder" is the largest operation in Iraq since 2003, and a milestone in the counterinsurgency strategy. For the first time, U.S. forces are working systematically throughout central Iraq to secure Baghdad by clearing its rural "belts" and its interior, so that the enemy cannot move from one safe haven to another. Together, the operations in Baghdad and the "belts" are increasing security in and around the capital.
U.S. and Iraqi forces are thereby attacking enemy strongholds and cutting supply routes all around the city, along which fighters and weapons moved freely in 2006. Coordinated operations south and east of Baghdad are at last interdicting the supply of weapons moving along the Tigris River to the capital. U.S. and Iraqi forces are operating east of Baghdad for the first time in years, disrupting al Qaeda's movement between bases on the Tigris and in Sadr City, a frequent target of its car bombs. North of Baghdad, U.S. forces recently cleared al Qaeda from the city of Baqubah, from which terrorists flowed into Baghdad. They are clearing al Qaeda's car bomb factories from Karmah, northwest of Baghdad, and its sanctuaries toward Lake Tharthar. These operations are supported by counterinsurgency operations west of the capital, from Fallujah to Abu Ghraib. U.S. forces are now, for the first time, fighting the enemy in the entire ring of cities and villages around Baghdad.
It isn't "whack a mole" - it is set up a cordon and then flush the enemy towards the cordon to capture or kill them. This is what Michael Yon has been reporting for a couple weeks now - the unfolding of a rather clever means of knocking the enemy in Iraq back on his heels and keeping him pinned down until the Iraqi security forces are up to to the task (something which is fast approaching). Keep in mind that the strategy wasn't to reduce the fighting; it wasn't to reduce US casualties; it wasn't to do anything other than get at the enemy - an entrenched, clever enemy who is willing to be killed for his cause. This has resulted in high US and Iraqi casualties - and there is more of this on the way; but the enemy is bleeding a lot more than we are, and the fact that the leadership is taking off for Iran indicates that they see the writing on the wall.
Point blank, the only thing which can save the enemy in Iraq at this point is Senator Harry Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi.
UPDATE: Regarding the President's press conference - I didn't catch his opening statement as I was taking the old man to the doctor for some blood work, but in the waiting room I did catch a substantial bit of the Q&A...or, more accurately, the I&A - "insult and answer". Disgusting the way the MSM acts towards the President - questions along the line of "when will you stop being an idiot and listen to the defeatists?". In the end, what I got out of it was great sympathy for the President - this must be 20 times or more he has patiently explained reality to idiots who don't know the first thing about what is going on in Iraq.
There is also over at NRO the No Surrender Caucus - please send notes of support to those GOP Senators who reached deep inside and found a pair.
Posted by Mark Noonan at July 12, 2007 08:41 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
Who is the enemy they keep talking about. An article out today in Corporate Media suggest the attack on an American compound that killed and captured some of our military had a lot of inside help.
Help our troops by supporting the Hamilton Baker plan.
Posted by: Plainjane at July 12, 2007 09:06 AM
I agree with most of your analysis Mark. However, I disagree on one area. The people most likely to cause a weakening in the US strategy right now are not the democrats. They have always been silent, or not so silent, detractors of the war if not out right treasonous in their commentary. The real problem will come from Republicans too scared to stand up for what is right and continue the fight. The fear of losing elections in 2008 will be the undoing of American strategy. If Bush cannot convince people that share his ideology of the necessity of the war and the potential sacrifices how can we expect him to keep any liberal support.
Posted by: Dudleyatlaw at July 12, 2007 09:36 AM
I bet I'm going to surprise a few people with this post.
Having read the details of General Petraeus' interim report, and with 8 of the 18 objectives regarded as "satisfactory" and progress made on a further 2 I do think at this point in time that congress should delay a vote on timetables for withdrawal until the full progress report in September.
If, as I had first thought, there was little movement at all, politically then I would have joined in the calls for a timetable of withdrawal. But 10 out of 18 proceeding (albeit 2 unsatisfactorily) is progress. I have my doubts whether the containment cordon around Baghdad will succeed, but I'm not in full possession of the facts so - just like other things I don't know the full story about - I'm not prepared to dismiss the possibility that it might make progress.
I would still like to see the pressure on the Iraqi parliament over oil rights eased, but with regards to the surge and it's strategy I do consider that General Petreaus ought to be extended the courtesy of continuing his plan unimpeded by political battles until September's report is ready.
It will be beyond anyone to deny by September whether or not the strategy is successful. I feel it's a gamble, with extremely high stakes... but given the alternative - which still might prove necessary - I'd very much like to see General Petreaus' plan work.
Posted by: Paramedic Sarah at July 12, 2007 10:02 AM
It should be noted that Dr. Kagan is the wife of Fred Kagan, one of the planners of the surge.
That said, I would also agree that the plan be given until September to succeed. At that point however, unless there has been significant progress on the political front in Iraq, we need to be entertaining other options.
Posted by: Casper at July 12, 2007 11:34 AM
I'm pissed at Bush/Rumsfield for the screwups in Iraq but Petraeus should have the time to try. I believe that some on the left actually hope for failure for no other reason than a twisted kind of vindication and "I told you so". Of course they wont admit it which makes their mendacity even more deplorable all the while claiming they "support the troops".
Folks the stakes are too high...its just that simple. Ralph Peters had an article that says it well:
"Given that Senate Majority Misleader Harry Reid and Commissar of the House Nancy Pelosi won't tell us what they foresee af- ter we quit, let me lay it out:
* After suffering a strategic defeat, al-Qaeda-in-Iraq comes back from the dead (those zombies again . . .) and gets to declare a strategic victory over the Great Satan.
* Iran establishes hegemony over Iraq's southern oil fields and menaces the other Persian Gulf producers. (Sorry, Comrade Gore, even that Toyota Prius needs some gasoline . . . )
* Our troops will have died in vain. Of course, that doesn't really matter to much of anyone in Washington, Democrat or Republican. So we'll just write off those young Americans stupid enough to join the military when they could've ducked out the way most members of Congress did.
* A slaughter of the innocents - so many dead, the bodies will never be counted.
But I hope somebody tries to count the dead after our Congress kills them. As for those on the left who sanctimoniously set out rows of shabby combat boots to "teach" the rest of us the cost of war, I fully expect them to put out displays of women's slippers and children's shoes to show the world how many innocents died when they "brought our troops home now." (Note to the demonstrators - better start bulk-ordering those slippers and booties now.)
I hate the long-mismanaged mess in Iraq. I wish there were a sensible, decent way to get out that wouldn't undercut our security and produce massive innocent casualties. But there isn't. Not now. And, like it or not, we have a moral responsibility as well as practical interests in refusing to surrender to the butchers in Iraq. "
Posted by: ZootAllure at July 12, 2007 12:07 PM
Sarah,
That is what wisdom dictates - now, lets see what happens.
Dudley,
It is the spineless GOPers who are the big worry right now - though over at NRO there is word that, in the end, the GOP is going to be firm on at least waiting until the September report. I'm pretty sure that in September there will be at least a token vote for withdrawal - and likely with the President's approval...meanwhile, we've got until then to give the military its chance, and the Iraqi government its chance. I'm betting on the United States military and the Iraqi people - keeping in mind that even if we decide in September to start finishing up the Iraq campaign, it will be spring/summer of 2008 before the bulk of the troops are out...and that, in the end, will also upset Democrats...expect a 180 by December from them: they won't want victorious American troops coming home to a rapturous welcome in the middle of an election year when all their candidates were strongly defeatist in 2007.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at July 12, 2007 12:17 PM
The Dems think that more violence means we should leave sooner. Thats completely backwards, and its EXACTLY what the scumbag murderers are counting on. If thats not either treasonous or insane, I don't know what is.
Posted by: jbiccum at July 12, 2007 12:41 PM
I've supported this war from the beginning. Even through the Bush Administration's poor performance with strategy, I've stood by him.
However, if by September, we haven't seen some impressive progress from the Iraqis and/or the effectiveness of the surge, i'm going to be hopeing for a decrease in troop levels. I dont want a complete withdrawl, but something has to motivate the Iraqis to step up. We have a responsibility to assist them, but it should only last so long, and I feel that time for America to hold Iraq's hand is quickly fading. Learn to swim or drown trying. Overall, I do believe General Petraus should be given time for his plan. People calling this war lost prematurely are ignorant and should give the Generals to ability to make that call.
Posted by: zachster at July 12, 2007 01:18 PM
Mark, who's "Dudley?"
I called a talk show yesterday morning on my way to work, and lit into Dingy Harry Reid-tard's "the war is lost" speech--the one he gave about a week after his Senate approved the surge and Gen Petraeus taking charge of said surge. The donkeycRATs were ready to recall the troops before all the troops were even deployed. Why did they fund it?
I have news for everyone--we're not leaving Iraq in September. We're not leaving Iraq during this administration. Here's another news flash: If a Donkey-Rat wins the WH this time, we're still not leaving Iraq. So all you seminar blogger troll lemming parrots can bitch and whine, and gloat over low poll numbers, all you wish. It ain't changing squat. Live with it, troll pukes!
Life is great...
Posted by: keefer at July 12, 2007 04:23 PM
I hope the surge works, the Iraqis step up to secure and govern themselves, and then for the troops can come home to one big barbque.
Can I get an Amen?!
Posted by: JAF at July 12, 2007 06:15 PM
AMEN,
I'll bring the chips.
Posted by: Casper at July 12, 2007 06:45 PM
Amen, JAF. I hope they come home soon too. In fact, I'm recanting my previous newsflash. We'll probably be leaving Iraq sometime in early '08; our soldiers are stretched too thin to go on much longer than that. Sad, but true.
Life is still good, but not great.
Mark, never mind about Dudley; I saw his post after I asked you who he was...
Posted by: keefer at July 12, 2007 07:55 PM
Come on keefer, is that the best you can do. I figured you would at least volunteer to bring the buns. After all, you are always toasting them.
Posted by: Casper at July 12, 2007 08:22 PM
It's the best I can do, Casper. Toasting buns? Me? Whose?
Posted by: keefer at July 12, 2007 08:33 PM
We must stay and WIN the War in Iraq. The consequences for failure are genocide and regional wars.
Posted by: Freedom1 at July 12, 2007 08:55 PM
The democrats are scared to death that the surge is going to work. al queda is running out of patience with reid and pelosi to save their skins.
Posted by: james allegro at July 13, 2007 12:44 AM
Kim Kagan appeared locally on the Victoria Taft program this evening. She is a very intelligent lady.
Victoria told me that she is thinking of podcasting the interview. It isn't up yet, but you can keep an eye out for it here at 860 KPAM Victoria Taft Show
Posted by:
Lew Waters at July 13, 2007 01:23 AM
they see the writing on the wall.
and then the all dead-enders will be in their last throes and we'll turn a corner and be greeted as liberators ?
that'll be awesome. again.
Posted by:
cleek at July 13, 2007 03:23 PM
Why does president Bush insist that things are going great in Iraq, then on the other hand say Al Quada is stronger than ever?
Posted by: lost_my_bush at July 13, 2007 03:47 PM
closely coiffed: Why does president Bush insist that things are going great in Iraq, then on the other hand say Al Quada is stronger than ever?
I don't recall him saying AQ is stronger than ever. My recollection is just the opposite. So he isn't duplicitious. On the other hand, it appears most experts are of the opinion that he's wrong on both counts. Lol!
Posted by: Ricorun at July 13, 2007 06:17 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
Who is the enemy they keep talking about. An article out today in Corporate Media suggest the attack on an American compound that killed and captured some of our military had a lot of inside help.
Help our troops by supporting the Hamilton Baker plan.
I agree with most of your analysis Mark. However, I disagree on one area. The people most likely to cause a weakening in the US strategy right now are not the democrats. They have always been silent, or not so silent, detractors of the war if not out right treasonous in their commentary. The real problem will come from Republicans too scared to stand up for what is right and continue the fight. The fear of losing elections in 2008 will be the undoing of American strategy. If Bush cannot convince people that share his ideology of the necessity of the war and the potential sacrifices how can we expect him to keep any liberal support.
I bet I'm going to surprise a few people with this post.
Having read the details of General Petraeus' interim report, and with 8 of the 18 objectives regarded as "satisfactory" and progress made on a further 2 I do think at this point in time that congress should delay a vote on timetables for withdrawal until the full progress report in September.
If, as I had first thought, there was little movement at all, politically then I would have joined in the calls for a timetable of withdrawal. But 10 out of 18 proceeding (albeit 2 unsatisfactorily) is progress. I have my doubts whether the containment cordon around Baghdad will succeed, but I'm not in full possession of the facts so - just like other things I don't know the full story about - I'm not prepared to dismiss the possibility that it might make progress.
I would still like to see the pressure on the Iraqi parliament over oil rights eased, but with regards to the surge and it's strategy I do consider that General Petreaus ought to be extended the courtesy of continuing his plan unimpeded by political battles until September's report is ready.
It will be beyond anyone to deny by September whether or not the strategy is successful. I feel it's a gamble, with extremely high stakes... but given the alternative - which still might prove necessary - I'd very much like to see General Petreaus' plan work.
It should be noted that Dr. Kagan is the wife of Fred Kagan, one of the planners of the surge.
That said, I would also agree that the plan be given until September to succeed. At that point however, unless there has been significant progress on the political front in Iraq, we need to be entertaining other options.
I'm pissed at Bush/Rumsfield for the screwups in Iraq but Petraeus should have the time to try. I believe that some on the left actually hope for failure for no other reason than a twisted kind of vindication and "I told you so". Of course they wont admit it which makes their mendacity even more deplorable all the while claiming they "support the troops".
Folks the stakes are too high...its just that simple. Ralph Peters had an article that says it well:
"Given that Senate Majority Misleader Harry Reid and Commissar of the House Nancy Pelosi won't tell us what they foresee af- ter we quit, let me lay it out:
* After suffering a strategic defeat, al-Qaeda-in-Iraq comes back from the dead (those zombies again . . .) and gets to declare a strategic victory over the Great Satan.
* Iran establishes hegemony over Iraq's southern oil fields and menaces the other Persian Gulf producers. (Sorry, Comrade Gore, even that Toyota Prius needs some gasoline . . . )
* Our troops will have died in vain. Of course, that doesn't really matter to much of anyone in Washington, Democrat or Republican. So we'll just write off those young Americans stupid enough to join the military when they could've ducked out the way most members of Congress did.
* A slaughter of the innocents - so many dead, the bodies will never be counted.
But I hope somebody tries to count the dead after our Congress kills them. As for those on the left who sanctimoniously set out rows of shabby combat boots to "teach" the rest of us the cost of war, I fully expect them to put out displays of women's slippers and children's shoes to show the world how many innocents died when they "brought our troops home now." (Note to the demonstrators - better start bulk-ordering those slippers and booties now.)
I hate the long-mismanaged mess in Iraq. I wish there were a sensible, decent way to get out that wouldn't undercut our security and produce massive innocent casualties. But there isn't. Not now. And, like it or not, we have a moral responsibility as well as practical interests in refusing to surrender to the butchers in Iraq. "
Sarah,
That is what wisdom dictates - now, lets see what happens.
Dudley,
It is the spineless GOPers who are the big worry right now - though over at NRO there is word that, in the end, the GOP is going to be firm on at least waiting until the September report. I'm pretty sure that in September there will be at least a token vote for withdrawal - and likely with the President's approval...meanwhile, we've got until then to give the military its chance, and the Iraqi government its chance. I'm betting on the United States military and the Iraqi people - keeping in mind that even if we decide in September to start finishing up the Iraq campaign, it will be spring/summer of 2008 before the bulk of the troops are out...and that, in the end, will also upset Democrats...expect a 180 by December from them: they won't want victorious American troops coming home to a rapturous welcome in the middle of an election year when all their candidates were strongly defeatist in 2007.
The Dems think that more violence means we should leave sooner. Thats completely backwards, and its EXACTLY what the scumbag murderers are counting on. If thats not either treasonous or insane, I don't know what is.
I've supported this war from the beginning. Even through the Bush Administration's poor performance with strategy, I've stood by him.
However, if by September, we haven't seen some impressive progress from the Iraqis and/or the effectiveness of the surge, i'm going to be hopeing for a decrease in troop levels. I dont want a complete withdrawl, but something has to motivate the Iraqis to step up. We have a responsibility to assist them, but it should only last so long, and I feel that time for America to hold Iraq's hand is quickly fading. Learn to swim or drown trying. Overall, I do believe General Petraus should be given time for his plan. People calling this war lost prematurely are ignorant and should give the Generals to ability to make that call.
Mark, who's "Dudley?"
I called a talk show yesterday morning on my way to work, and lit into Dingy Harry Reid-tard's "the war is lost" speech--the one he gave about a week after his Senate approved the surge and Gen Petraeus taking charge of said surge. The donkeycRATs were ready to recall the troops before all the troops were even deployed. Why did they fund it?
I have news for everyone--we're not leaving Iraq in September. We're not leaving Iraq during this administration. Here's another news flash: If a Donkey-Rat wins the WH this time, we're still not leaving Iraq. So all you seminar blogger troll lemming parrots can bitch and whine, and gloat over low poll numbers, all you wish. It ain't changing squat. Live with it, troll pukes!
Life is great...
I hope the surge works, the Iraqis step up to secure and govern themselves, and then for the troops can come home to one big barbque.
Can I get an Amen?!
AMEN,
I'll bring the chips.
Amen, JAF. I hope they come home soon too. In fact, I'm recanting my previous newsflash. We'll probably be leaving Iraq sometime in early '08; our soldiers are stretched too thin to go on much longer than that. Sad, but true.
Life is still good, but not great.
Mark, never mind about Dudley; I saw his post after I asked you who he was...
Come on keefer, is that the best you can do. I figured you would at least volunteer to bring the buns. After all, you are always toasting them.
It's the best I can do, Casper. Toasting buns? Me? Whose?
We must stay and WIN the War in Iraq. The consequences for failure are genocide and regional wars.
The democrats are scared to death that the surge is going to work. al queda is running out of patience with reid and pelosi to save their skins.
Kim Kagan appeared locally on the Victoria Taft program this evening. She is a very intelligent lady.
Victoria told me that she is thinking of podcasting the interview. It isn't up yet, but you can keep an eye out for it here at 860 KPAM Victoria Taft Show
they see the writing on the wall.
and then the all dead-enders will be in their last throes and we'll turn a corner and be greeted as liberators ?
that'll be awesome. again.
Why does president Bush insist that things are going great in Iraq, then on the other hand say Al Quada is stronger than ever?
closely coiffed: Why does president Bush insist that things are going great in Iraq, then on the other hand say Al Quada is stronger than ever?
I don't recall him saying AQ is stronger than ever. My recollection is just the opposite. So he isn't duplicitious. On the other hand, it appears most experts are of the opinion that he's wrong on both counts. Lol!