I believe the events of the past few weeks will be seen, in time, as a major turning point for the better in Iraq. When the dust has all settled, two of the major threats to a peaceful, prosperous, and free(er) Iraq were beaten back.
First, the Baathist bitter-enders invested heavily in Fallujah, where they tried to recreate Mogadishu and failed utterly. Fallujah is over for all practical purposes, and was a complete and crushing victory for the US Marines, and a humiliating and very costly defeat for the Baathists and their Sunni allies. Marine casualties were low (less than 20 killed, I believe), Baathist casualties were extraordinarily high (their body count is likely well into the mid-hundreds so far), plus the Iraqis have been treated to the sight of women and children fleeing from the Sunni/Baathist stronghold into the American-held safe zone, where they will be fed, housed, and not used as hostages or human shields.
What many of the handwringers in the media and elsewhere fail to realize is that the exodus from Fallujah means that the Americans have won there. The Americans have been trying to get non-combatants out of Fallujah all along, as the noncombatants were in Fallujah primarily as hostages and human shields. The fact that they are now fleeing means either (a) their neighborhood has been taken by the Americans or (b) the Baathists have been so weakened that they can no longer stop them from leaving. No military or real PR gains were won in Fallujah by the bad guys, and they lost men, material, and credibility they cannot afford to lose. For a better handle on the scope of the victory in Fallujah, go read Wretchard. Scroll down and note, in particular, how prescient he was concerning the strategy employed by the Marines. Wretchard never fails to impress, and in a few paragraphs generally delivers more high quality information about the war with the Islamists than any print or broadcast analyst.
Sadr’s attempted Shiite uprising also may be fizzling, although it is showing more staying power than I had initially thought. The key thing to understand about Sadr is that he is Iran’s catspaw in the proxy war that Iran is fighting with the US in Iraq. As the first engagement in this proxy war, the Sadr uprising was the main event, really, and it serves to illustrate two of my favorite conflict management maxims.
First, whoever controls the pace and timing of the conflict controls its outcome and will ultimately prevail. Sadr was forced out of the weeds by American pressure on his political/propaganda arm and/or by the impending June 30 “handover” date. His emergence into the open as an opponent of the Americans was very premature. The Iranians would probably have been much better off if they had waited for a diminished American presence in Iraq. The Iranians have been fairly successful at subverting Iraqis; however, when nut-cutting time comes, they face the Americans, who can butcher their proxies at will. Thus, the Americans forced the timing of this confrontation.
Then, Sadr’s Plan A came a cropper. He was hoping for a telegenic showdown at the Golden Mosque. The Americans declined their invitation to pose for the TV cameras against this background, and so he fled the Mosque. Again, American control of the timing and pace presage American victory.
Second, always look at the field from your opponent’s point of view. Sadr is playing primarily for the role of boss Shiite in Iraq. However, this brings him into opposition to Sistani, arguably the most influential single Iraqi these days. Sistani is having none of it, and is telling Shiites to sit out the uprising. Thus, it has not become nearly as widespread as the Iranians, Sadr, and many elements of the press would like to see happen, and would like to have you believe.
From Sistani’s point of view, Sadr and the Iranians have emerged as his enemies because they are trying to usurp his power base. This does not bode well for the Iranian strategy, unless they manage to assassinate him, which in turn might just harden Shiite opinion against them. Allah only knows how these internal Shiite politics will play out, but the initial set of the board places the Iranians in a hard position. They are fighting against not only the historical animosity of the Iraqis toward Iran, but have now maneuvered themselves more particularly into opposition to the leadership of their “natural” Shiite allies. This in turn will push moderate/mainstream Shiites even closer to the American side of the board.
As far as the more general “uprising” goes, it happened more on the American timetable than the Iranian timetable, and (perhaps as a result) it played out in local politics in ways that the Americans should be able to turn to their advantage.
Disclaimer: as with all political prognostication, this one has an expiration date of yesterday. Events will drive, but I think recent events, far from portending collapse in the American strategy for Iraq, may in the proper historical perspective be seen as essential to its success. For this to be true, of course, the current uprising will have to die down and its leaders killed (please, no arrest and trial – this is a war). That’s a pretty big if, but I (and I believe most Iraqis) are betting on it coming to pass.
Well presently there is supposed to be a cease fire in F. (although some fighting is still happening).
The reps of the Council in Bagdad that the Allies set up say that the Americans have agreed to pull back.
Now IF the Americans agree to pull back WITHOUT getting the people who killed and mutilated the four civilian Americans (plus the people who killed the other Western civiliand in F.) it would be a humilation for the United States.
I am not sure what this war is supposed to be about (that does not mean that is a bad idea, there may be good reasons for the war without me knowing about them – I do not have a access to the information the policy makers have), but leaving that aside there are a few possible errors in your post that need to be dealt with.
Firstly thinking that the only enemy in F. are “Baathists” (if that is what you think) is mistaken. Secondly noncombat civilians – life is not like that.
Remember Kipling? When you are laying on Afghan plains and “the women come out to cut up what remains”.
Once a man is helpless the women and children in F. (or anywhere else) will be quite happy to mutilate him. Indeed there is a tradition of this.
As for the fighting in the rest of Iraq (another helecopter down today – hopefully the crew will be recovered or at least were not taken alive), well the United States armed forces could win out (I hope so), but it should not be treated as automatic.
Both “radical” Islam (we have to use this word “radical” I suppose, to fit in with the official line that most Muslims are fluffy bunnies that love the West – perhaps the offical line is true, I am no expert)and local nationalism (plus tribalism) are hard enemies, difficult to beat. However, as I said, it is certainly possible that they will be beaten.
All the above being said I must (without any false intent) say that I admire your positive attitude. It reminds me of Queen Victoria at the time of the Boar War or Mrs Thatcher at the time of the Falklands – they both said (when presented with difficulties) “I am not interested in the possibilities of defeat, they do not exist”.
Both the Boar War and the Falklands turned out to be victories. Middle aged men like me tend to be a bit timid – seeing problems rather than solutions.
One side effect of this mess: hostage taking will become a normal tactic. It got press and leverage that mere ambushes don’t.
Is Robert Clayton Dean I see before me?
The media are, for the most part, scaredy-cat morons. A few dead bodies and they scream collapse and chaos.
The fact is, an armed attack by a few poorly-trained lightly armed militia on the most powerful military in the history of the human race is going to get squashed flat, as long as the latter has the willpower to do so. With Bush and the neocons at the helm, the willpower is not in doubt.
So, now that the ant has pissed on the elephant, and the elephant has deflected its foot a few millimetres to quickly squash the ant, can we please stop wasting time waffling on pointlessly about irrelevancies like the NYT and Guardian do, and instead focus on the real issues in Iraq? Namely, what is the US plan for turning the country into a peaceful liberal democracy friendly to the west, and how do they intend to achieve this once they pull out of the country? How are they going to avoid civil war, the country collapsing into chaos as first the Kurds, then the Sunnis or Shias secceed? How are they going to prevent another strongman taking power? Or, if they intend to occupy for many years, how do they intend to prevent the whole of Iraq getting hacked off with the occupation?
I forgot another danger – how do they stop people democratically electing an anti-western theocracy, or just a plain old anti-western Arab nationalist, who then democratically orders the US to bugger off?
If the US then says no, and stays in, then their claims to be implementing democracy will be shown to be pure nonsense, and the whole of Iraq will want them out.
I’d love to see a credible explanation of the US’s long-term strategy, and how they intend to achieve it. Now that would be a proper article!
Non-combant civilians were slaughtered at the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001. Decades of appeasement policies between Democratic nations and rogue nations along with terrorist organizations lead to this unprovoked war upon peace-loving citizens who had done nothing to warrant their demise.
By allowing for rogue nations to continue with their threats upon the world, terrorist organizations saw a viable opportunity to carry out their own methods of destruction.
We are at war with rogue nations and terrorist organizations because we had learned on September 11, 2001 that the decades of peace-loving Democratic nations desire to ‘talk things out’ with rogue nations and terrorist organizations had failed miserably.
Imagine what the world would be like today had the coalition of Democratic nations continued to appease rogue nations and terrorist organizations. We would all be living in fear like those who live in Spain. All Democratic nations would be under constant attack because appeasement would have let that door remain open. Hundreds of thousands of peace-loving people from every Democratic country around the world would be dead because each and every attack would have emboldened rogue nations and terrorist organizations to commit further destructive forms of slaughter.
Appeasement failed before September 11, 2001 and it failed after the Spaniards decided they did not prefer war. Even after the Spaniards elected a new government prefering appeasement above war, the threat of destruction continues to hang over their country. The terrorists are still in Spain making plans to blow up the Spaniards. Most of the people in European countries and in the United States still live under fear but the difference is that we will not be beholden to the failed policies of appeasement. We will take the fight to them rather than waiting for the fight to come to us, again.
It is regrettable that the Iraqi people lived in a rogue nation, however, since the Iraqi people could not or would not address their own rogue government, the coalition of Democratic nations did this for them. I do not believe the people of Iraq wish to return to life under rule of a rogue government, they already survived that nightmare.
This is what this war is about.
I should think it would be obvious that there is no specific long-term strategy for dealing with all those issues. We’re doing our best and making it up as we go along. You know, just like every other combatant in every other war that’s ever been fought.
I apologize for our lack of omniscience.
To tell you the truth, we need help more than we need carping. If we lose, a lot more than the Iraqis and Americans are going to suffer.
Read someone who, unlike RCD, has a clue
http://www.juancole.com. Oops, I’m sorry, Cole’s a history professor, and therefore a latte-swigging elitist.
You don’t even have to go as far as Juan Cole, who (from a Samisdatist perspective) belongs to the anti-war leper colony. Instead, read Wretchard as suggested by RCD himself. Wretchard provides an interesting citation from neocon Michael Ledeen, who wrote the following in April 2003:
“The military battle to destroy the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein has virtually ended. Now the political battle for the freedom of the Iraqi people ensues, and it may be over very quickly, to our surprise and shame.
We have a very narrow window in Iraq to win the support of the Shiite community, which constitutes a majority of the Iraqi people. If we do not manage that in the next month or two, the radical Iranian regime will almost certainly succeed in its ambitious and, thus far, brilliantly managed campaign to mobilize the Iraqi Shiites to discredit the Coalition victory, demand an immediate American withdrawal, and insist on “international” — that is, U.N. and European — supervision of the country. That would leave Iran with a free hand in Iraq, strengthen the regime in Tehran to our detriment, and give a second wind to the terror network. Our victory, as the old saying goes, would turn to ashes in our mouths.
…..Just as they did against the shah, the Iranian Shiite leaders intend to build a mass following, leading to an insurrection against us. Look carefully at the banners carried by the Shiite demonstrators. They are very clean and well produced, with slogans in both Arabic (for the Iraqis) and English (for Western media). That is the Iranian regime at work, one of the most brilliant and patient intelligence organizations in the region. The slogans chanted by the mobs in Baghdad are Iranian slogans, calls for an Islamic state. It may seem fanciful to suggest that our liberation of Iraq could be transformed into a pro-Iranian regime applying sharia law, but after all just last year our negotiators permitted the creation of an Islamic Republic in Afghanistan.”
Oh — that narrow window! Since Ledeen’s prediction seems to have come true, it would appear that the victory has in fact turned to ashes.
Anyway, thanks for the Wretchard tip, RCD — until now I hadn’t realised that some Neocons are almost as good at predicting negative outcomes as the paleos themselves.
I do so wish the people at the top in the US/UK would stop blathering about introducing ‘democracy’ to Iraq’s shattered civil society. Liberty should be the objective, not mob rule. That is why this is a golden opportunity to just treat the Islamists and their allies as a military problem.
Sure, the sooner the US and UK can get out, the better. This upsurge in violence actually brings that day closer by allowing many of the people who would otherwise have to be contined by lengthy political means to simply be shot at instead. A nasty business but not without its upside.
“This upsurge in violence actually brings that day closer by allowing many of the people who would otherwise have to be contined by lengthy political means to simply be shot at instead.”
I quite enjoy this kind of Samizdata self-trolling style on Perry’s part. It’s the deja vu virtual Nineteenth Hole all over again.
But how many do we shoot (or nuke)?
1% of the population?
10% of the population?
10% of the population plus 90% ‘collateral’?
To be on the safe side, option three is probably the best. One thing is certain – a country devoid of Iraqis will also be devoid of Iraqi Islamists.
And thus the first rationalizations of a failed policy begin….. (Democracy was the last surviving excuse our govts had for the invasion). We’ll just install a secular thug (from the Tsihtaab Party), he won’t commit genocide for the first month, then we can declare victory and pull out, preserving Perry’s moral superiority to the anti-war crowd.
Govt help == govt control == resentment against those who reject the ‘help’ because they don’t want to be controlled. If I say that about social programs, am I so wrong? We’re seeing the same thing now in Iraq. Read one of the “kill all the ungrateful bastards” threads on FreeRepublic sometime to see how Perry will be talking next week (if too many Iraqis want a theocratic state, I guess we gotta kill them all). Will Perry ever have a harsh word against his political allies posting calls for genocide? Nope. No enemies to Perry’s right (he’d have made a good French socialist).
The “I don’t support the govt but I support overthrowing Saddam” crowd should, in theory, at least be able to criticize how the govt is going about it. They cannot in practice. That’s because once they sided w/ the govt they acquired shared political opponents, and the pro-war ‘libertarians’ are stuck. The govt can do no wrong. They cannot be wrong about anything even in hindsight, because that would help the ‘wrong’ people politically here in the West. The average Iraqi is just along for the ride. See below:
This cannot, in any way, shape, or form be due to incompetence (let alone malice) on the part of our govts. This can only have an upside. Violence goes down; we’re winning. Violence goes up; we’re winning. Whatever happens can only prove the govt was absolutely, totally right. The govt cannot fail. The govt is always right.
Still cheering, Perry?
Look, Scott, you wimp — most of these kids would probably have ended up as Islamofascists anyhow.
Anyhow, occasionally shit just happens when you’re spreading democracy and treasuring freedom …
If they weren’t going to before, they probably will now (the survivors, at least). That’s the problem w/ “just kill the handful of bad guys, then we win” approach. RCD and Perry seem to think there’s a finite number of people genetically predisposed to hate us for no reason and once they’re dead, problem solved by brute govt force.
Won’t the Iraqis fighting us just slip back into the civilian population if things go bad for them (which could very well happen)? Yep. Won’t people that not even Perry or RCD could justify killing now get pissed off enough at having family and neighbors killed and houses destroyed to join the fighting next time? Yep.
Scott Cattanach wrote:
I doubt he’s cheering any more than you were when the bombs went off at Atocha station, or when the WTC towers fell.
Ted, Perry is calling for continuted fighting in Iraq and evidently considers this acceptable (and sees no future downside). I never called for strikes on the WTC.
We must thank Scott for making arguments against all War (I am not being sarcastic here – pointing this out since I likely disagree with Scott over Iraq). We should be reminded that War is not pretty, and shouldn’t be casually thrown around, especially from a safe distance.
I assume Scott is against all War as the innocent will die under every circumstance of War. I assume the alternative is to treat any disruption as a legal matter, by some World authority, who won’t be able to execute its authority toward a Saddam since those firmly entrenched such as he cannot be removed, or even ‘arrested’, without a level of force that will cause innocents to die. Therefore, nothing in essence is done other than sternly worded reprimands.
If War is sometimes good, then we must really debate whether our presence in Iraq is justified or not. We can toss around the notions that we’re there to liberate, we’re there to stabilize the region, we’re there for dirty oil and profits. I guess War must be ‘just’, to liberate slaves, liberate Cuba from the Spanish, or some such. If it’s to secure base resources upon which econcomies depend, then it’s not just. Protecting trading partners, regardless of their domestic predispostions, is wrong. We should just suffer the detrimental effects to our economy quietly and with dignity lest an innocent be killed. We didn’t cause the disruptions in the region, Saddam did. In handling Saddam, fundementalists decided it was their fight too. Innocents have died. Perhaps if they had stood up to their dictator instead of cowering in fear, allowing invasion of peaceable neighbors, none of this would have occured.
For people like Scott, 9/11 never happened.
I’m not a pacifist (hence the .357 in my nightstand). I just think using the military should be at least limited to direct (and obvious) threats and not used for making people believe what Perry thinks they should believe to avoid problems down the road. I also think we need to be agreed on why we go to war, which is why I’ll never buy the “I don’t care if Bush lied about WMD to get the plebs on board for our war, we’re right so the end justifies the means” line of BS. The fact that this war couldn’t have been sold for the reason that will eventually be adopted to justify it, whatever that turns out to be, speaks volumes about how justified it really is.
When Perry says he doesn’t care if Bush lied to get his war or not, and dismisses democracy as “mob rule”, he’s basically arguing for a Philosopher King (if not him, then someone who thinks exactly like him), and most of his limited govt beliefs boil down to him not wanting the unwashed telling him what to do (admittedly, I feel the same way).
However, people like that are as much for telling others what to do as any right-wing evangelical Christian; they only disagree w/ them on things like sex laws because they personally don’t care who you boink, not out of the principle that its none of their business even if they do care.
I’m also disgusted w/ the “War as Spectator Sport” cheerleading that went on. One more week of fighting in last year’s invasion, and the Command Post crowd would have formed a Fantasy Division league (“hey, the 12th Armored destroyed 10 Iraqi tanks yesterday, that’s 10 points for me – whoopie!!!”). I don’t want my world news from ESPN.
For people like Ironchef, 9/11 was committed by whoever he wants to attack today, instead of by Saudi terrorists operating out of Afghanistan. For people like Ironchef, 9/11 is an excuse to avoid the annoying and difficult chore of thinking and just do what he’s told.
I also think we need to be agreed on why we go to war,
I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said except for the above. There has never been a War that had complete agreement in waging it, or complete disagreement for not. We in the US have boiled down the Civil War as about slavery when there were multiple reasons for and against the War. Some in the North were merely profiteers. Others had the desire to ‘preserve the Union’, which was the official line until support, and the will, in the North began to flag. Then the Emancipation Proclamation (a Martial Decree) was issued turning the argument more toward salvery. Those in the South didn’t necessarily fight to preserve slavery, but simply their land was under attack, good, bad, or indifferent. Iraq is not so different there.
Also, foreign countries weighed whether it was proper to get involved, and little was due to the issue of slavery, but pragmatic economics.
Brief history lesson (pedantic perhaps) necessary only to show one example of the multiple reasons for War and its prosecution. There will never be universal agreement, just is there is never any universal agreement possible in any ‘association’ man creates for himself.
I suppose for some the UN legitimizes and provides the necessary universality, but it definitely proves the opposite, there can never be full agreement as there are too many points of view, and interests, to ever have universality in practice.
With the case in Iraq, there are economic concerns that warrant involvement in the region. If the masses would rather risk an upsurge in the cost of energy, and the contracting effect it will have on the economy, then so be it. I would have much rather preferred the arguments stem from the this logic, but I’m afraid our government, on either side of the aisle, are rarely that forthright about reality. They are so used to smoke and mirror-ing the masses that Bush’s approach is par for the course. I may not agree with the official PR, but I support the War for the reasons I deem to be the ‘real’ reasons we are there regardless if they are officially recognized.
I, personally, don’t think enough force was used initially, and we left ourselves open for continued insurgency. If War is considered necessary, it should be prosecuted to meet its objective or it should not be waged at all. All successful Wars have been waged with the idea of breaking the mass population from considering further resistance. Assuming we could merely let the iraqi soldiers and personnel disappear without an official ending of hostilities and not have it come back is the biggest error in this situation.
As for the rah-rah stuff, I agree. The same thing happened in ’91. While many were watching the nightly briefings as if it were a television program, I sought out other coverage that showed the aftermath of particular attacks. It didn’t change my perspective on the War. It merely is the reality of the situation. If one supports a War, they should certainly involve themselves in the results. If it tempers youropinion (as Viet Nam coverage did) then perhaps that information is necessary to make a complete decision (that’s not to say that some of the coverage wasn’t biased the other way).
War isn’t a game. War isn’t a movie with John Wayne storming up the hill. It’s meant to detroy and kill, and sometimes it is necessary. We need to balance out the reasons for War with its results. It is not right to disconnect the two. The picture above is terrible to see. But it doesn’t change my support or point of view. It merely balances the thoughts that go into the equation. I can honestly say I brought into my support for action before it began the likelihood of the above. It can’t be casually dismissed as ‘breaking eggs’, but it is necessary.
Straw man. You can have a consensus w/o absolute agreement, and you can oppose any war we need to be lied into w/o requiring 100% of 300 million people to agree.
Lets move to the new thread.
I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said except for the above. There has never been a War that had complete agreement in waging it, or complete disagreement for not.
Straw man. You can have a consensus w/o absolute agreement, and you can oppose any war we need to be lied into w/o requiring 100% of 300 million people to agree.
Then who are the ‘we’ you refer to in the quoted material? Apparently it’s a consensus of the correct sort.
Was Honest Abe then a ‘liar’ when he said he was out to preserve the Union, and when things looked bleak, he changed the tack and said it was for freeing slaves? He has been accused of using his power as Commander and Chief to reinvigorate his political fortunes. Or was he merely being pragmatic, using what was most expedient in bringing about the result he thought proper?
It is quite an assertion to say Bush ‘lied’. He used to policially expedient route in gaining support for War. As I said before, I wish all the Pols involved be above board and honest about why we are in Iraq. Is it fair the Dems, who knew a day of reckoning was likely with Saddam based on economic pragmatism, are using the situation for political gain for themselves? No one, Bush, or those Pols who hurl ‘liar’ about so easily, are being honest about our involvement in Iraq. If they were, then I’m sure when the Dems were in office they could have easily ended the militaristic posture in Iraq maintaining no fly-zones, dropping ordinance (a la ’98) between the two parts of the ‘active’ War. But they didn’t. Why? And are they ‘liars’ too? We’ve been involved in Iraq for 13 years, using varying levels of force to get what we want. It has been maintained by both sides of the aisle for pretty much the same reason, and those reasons are economic. The Dems posture and the Repubs posture. But they are using the means they feel necessary to what is expedient for them. Neither are ‘liars’ in this situation, they are merely politicians, who have to cut it both ways at every juncture. What is best realistically, but couched in the manner that will sit right with the sheep who follow them.
toolkien
Luckily Cattanach had moved on to greener pastures when your last post appeared. Your analysis just about sums up the ‘truth’ about ‘lies’. Lies are part of the evolutionary process; without them we would have perished as a species many millennia ago. The truth of anything of course is a lie not yet found out. And if someone coined that before me I would appreciate the source, as it just popped into my head. Bearing in mind that any ‘original’ thought that popped into anyone’s head, probably popped into some other bugger’s head before, whether or not recorded or expressed. There is a dire limitation on human thought, which is repetitive and puny and, as can be deduced from the current state of the world, pretty well fucked up by now and was probably ever thus. Now that’s the Truth according to just one fucked up moribund member of homo sapiens sapiens. Best left at that because once you start to cross reference it with other ‘self-evident’ truths it becomes exponentially fucked up and eventually leads to war.
RE: Scott
Al-Jazeera?
You actually believe anything from that proproganda machine? That’s actually more interesting than any of the drivel you’ve posted.
Scott – I’m on the antiwar side, but that picture was noise, not signal. People die either way – comparing numbers is worthwhile, but comparing bloodiness of pictures is not.
Syn – I don’t know how your comments about rogue nations and terrorist organizations have anything to do with Iraq. Iraq was a dictatorship, and nasty to its internal enemies. But it was not a real threat to US security (unlike, say, North Korea or al-Quaeda).