posted
This is something that I've been expecting someone, somewhere to say recently, in response to the White House's statements and General Petraeus's testimony. Am I missing where the opposition has raised this? Or am I not correct in thinking this?
It seems obvious to me. Yes, the terrorists groups are an important problem and defeating or containing them is likely necessary to move forward, but that seems to me to be a very intermediate goal.
They weren't around to be the problems that Dick Cheney knew about in the early 90s but forgot in the intervening decade.
There are major diplomatic/social/political hurdles to there ever being a working democracy or even a working non-oppressive government in Iraq. These are, in my view, the central issues that need to be worked on, but it doesn't seem like people are focusing on them.
There's things like "In Anbar province, the local Sunni militias have turned on al Queda and are helping us out." Don't get me wrong. That's great intermediate news, but they're not on our side. They're on their own. I get the feeling that when they don't go along with us anymore, it's going to be a shock to the people in charge as opposed to the extremely obvious occurance that it seems to me.
docmagik started a thread recently about a couple of Bush's speeches on Iraq. One section especially stuck out to me.
quote:The murderers and beheaders are not the true face of Islam; they are the face of evil. They seek to exploit religion as a path to power and a means to dominate the Middle East. The violent Islamic radicalism that inspires them has two main strains. One is Sunni extremism, embodied by al Qaida and its terrorist allies. Their organization advances a vision that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women, and children in the pursuit of political power. We saw this vision in the brutal rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, where women were publicly whipped, men were beaten for missing prayer meetings, and young girls could not go to school.
These extremists hope to impose that same dark vision across the Middle East by raising up a violent and radical caliphate that spans from Spain to Indonesia. So they kill fellow Muslims in places like Algeria and Jordan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia in an attempt to undermine their governments. And they kill Americans because they know we stand in their way. And that is why they attacked U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, and killed sailors aboard the USS Cole in 2001 [sic]. And that is why they killed nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. And that is why they plot to attack us again. And that is why we must stay in the fight until the fight is won. (Applause.)
The other strain of radicalism in the Middle East is Shia extremism, supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran backs Hezbollah who are trying to undermine the democratic government of Lebanon. Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent, and target Israel, and destabilize the Palestinian territories. Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which could be used to attack American and NATO troops. Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and pose no threat to their regime. And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.
Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late. (Applause.)
That sounds profoundly stupid to me. al Queda does not lead the Sunnis in Iraq. They make up a pretty small portion of the people fighting. Nor are the Shia led by Iran nor only fighting because Iran is goading them on.
So, I lsiten to them talking about how they've reduced al Queda in Iraq (that last part is important, because they don't seem to have reduced or contained al Queda as a whole), and, yeah that's great, but ultimately that's not going to put us on the road to success.
For all the talk about wheter the surge is succeeding or failing in achieving its goals, it seems to me that we haven't looked hard enough at what its goals are actually going to achieve.
posted
I think it depends on if you're thinking about military or diplomatic/political objectives (and whether you consider those to be separate things).
The primary military opponent are not the Sunni insurgents. It is (or has been) the remnants of the Baathists that joined themselves with other violent Sunni extremist cults to conglomerate into al Qaeda in Iraq. Defeating them has been, since the beginning of the invasion, the primary military objective.
Over the past two years I think a secondary military objective has coalesced around Iranian funded Shia militias. Neither these militants, nor their Sunni counterparts in al Quaeda, should be compared or at least confused with the masses of Iraqis who have begun engaging in tit-for-tat type attacks on each other. Rather, these are the groups that are engaging in relatively sophisticated attacks on coalition targets. They are the military threat, and the fact that they (at least aQiI) are being beaten is an indication of military progress.
However, I certainly think it's true that military progress without diplomatic progress will result in a constant war, where new militants appear every time the previous set of militants are defeated. That may be why the Iran-funded Shia militants are becoming increasingly problematic; because they're filling the power vacuum left by aQiI's weakening. That said, I don't know that we can/should hold Gen. Petraeus and the US armed forces at fault for achieving a military objective. Rather, I think the people who should be held at fault are the diplomats and politicians, in Iraq, the US, and, more broadly, among all countries interested in ending the bloodshed in Iraq.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The primary military opponent are not the Sunni insurgents. It is (or has been) the remnants of the Baathists that joined themselves with other violent Sunni extremist cults to conglomerate into al Qaeda in Iraq. Defeating them has been, since the beginning of the invasion, the primary military objective.
As far as I have been able to tell, the large majority of Sunni insurgent groups have little to do with al Queda in Iraq and they are the majorty of whom we are fighting. If they are not the primary military objective, shouldn't they be?
(above is edited: because I think I misunderstood what you were saying at first)
---
I also think you must hold General Petraeus at fault at some point. He was the head of writing the counterinsurgency manual for just situations like this and is now put in charge of a mission that is ignoring many large, crucially important parts of what is laid out in it. As the commander of the forces, he can communicate his desire for the mission to conform more to something that has a chance of success, but ultimately has to carry out he orders he is given or resign.
However, as someone called to testify before Congress to give them an accurate assessment of the situation, I think he betrays a trust if he does not mention the failures and neglect on the diplomatic front that is going to make any military gains basically moot.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To your first point: who are the Sunni insurgent groups. I think this term gets confused a lot. There are, as far as I can tell, two types of groups. Those who are foreign-funded, staffed that primarily attack either US interests using IEDs or that sow terror through large scale car bombs. These insurgent groups primarily fly under the colors of aQiI, and are, I believe, in the numerical minority. In addition to these groups, there are a large number of Sunni groups who feel they've been disenfranchised or attacked by Shia ascendency. These tend to lash out against Iraqi military or police targets. I would consider the first group the primary military adversary of the US, since they are targeting US troops and civilians. They're also, of the two groups, the ones I'd label terrorists.
To the second, perhaps there are two questions: 1) is the surge fulfilling its stated purpose and 2) is that purpose serving the larger goal. The answer to the first, I think, is yes, because the surge has been militarily successful. The answer to the second is beyond the ability of Gen. Petraeus to answer. Rather it should devolve to elected and appointed officials in Iraq and the US. If we want a whipping boy I think ambassador Crocker is better suited to the role than Gen. Petraeus. Here's a link to the testimony he gave to Congress. I haven't read it, so I can't speak to his points.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are mistaken that the Sunni insurgent groups that are fighting the U.S. fall into the estimated 5% of the insurgents foreign fighters. Nearly all the insurgent groups in Iraq are fighting the U.S. troops.
edit: And ultimately, I'm not sure how that matters. If the majority of Sunni insurgents are out there killing Shiites or whomever, and we're not doing much about it, that's almost worse, isn't it?
---
I think there is a great deal more ambiguity as to whether many of the improvements in Iraq (for example the much touted Anbar miracle) are due to the surge or that the surge is actually going to be successful (as opposed to "well, things are getting better in some places" that was Patraeus's line), then you seem to be granting. But that's not really my point. Ultimately, the military surge being successful is going to be largely irrelevant if there isn't what has been missing since day one, a feasible diplomatic/social/political plan. Without that, our troops are just dying in order to buy President Bush time to get out of office and pass this on to someone else.
edit: If you don't think that some of the blame for this rests on Patraeus, I think you're wrong, but really that's sort of beside the point. I'm much less concerned about apportioning blame than I am about someone fixing the incredibly obvious problems here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think you are mistaken that the Sunni insurgent groups that are fighting the U.S. fall into the estimated 5% of the insurgents foreign fighters. Nearly all the insurgent groups in Iraq are fighting the U.S. troops.
edit: And ultimately, I'm not sure how that matters. If the majority of Sunni insurgents are out there killing Shiites or whomever, and we're not doing much about it, that's almost worse, isn't it?
I read this article just before I saw your post. In it, Brig. Gen. Anderson estimates 80% of car bombings are performed by foreign insurgents. The funds that pay for the farmers to emplace IEDs are foreign funds (or Ba'ath funds). I just don't think other Sunni insurgent groups are targeting US troops or terrorizing Iraqi civilians. At least not in numbers worthy of consideration.
As to the second question, I don't know what our role is/should be in mediating internal Iraqi conflicts. I see two distinct conflicts: one headed by well-funded foreign fighters and former Ba'athists that focuses on terrorizing Iraqi civilians and killing US troops, the other a Hatfield-McCoy religious feud between Sunnis and Shi'ites. The first is obviously the province of the US military; the second I don't see so much.
quote: I think there is a great deal more ambiguity as to whether many of the improvements in Iraq (for example the much touted Anbar miracle) are due to the surge or that the surge is actually going to be successful (as opposed to "well, things are getting better in some places" that was Patraeus's line), then you seem to be granting. But that's not really my point. Ultimately, the military surge being successful is going to be largely irrelevant if there isn't what has been missing since day one, a feasible diplomatic/social/political plan. Without that, our troops are just dying in order to buy President Bush time to get out of office and pass this on to someone else.
edit: If you don't think that some of the blame for this rests on Patraeus, I think you're wrong, but really that's sort of beside the point. I'm much less concerned about apportioning blame than I am about someone fixing the incredibly obvious problems here.
I agree; I've also wondered to what degree the "success" of the surge is just an artifact of convenient timing, as the Anbar Sunnis get tired of the chaos the foreign fighters have been causing. Also, I think I've said twice already that we should reevaluate whether the military actions being taken are accomplishing overall goals and objectives. My only issue is with taking Gen. Petraeus to task. The man's trained (very well trained) as a military strategist; however, that doesn't mean he's qualified or capable of solving the problem of Iraq. Rather, he's there to provide sufficient security so that a diplomatic solution can be sought. Iraq is more secure than it was; that's good. Have the politicians taken advantage of the increased security to solve the internal problems; not so far as I can tell.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I read this article just before I saw your post. In it, Brig. Gen. Anderson estimates 80% of car bombings are performed by foreign insurgents. The funds that pay for the farmers to emplace IEDs are foreign funds (or Ba'ath funds). I just don't think other Sunni insurgent groups are targeting US troops or terrorizing Iraqi civilians. At least not in numbers worthy of consideration.
20% of car bombs would then be by domestic insurgents, right? Is that an insignificant numbers.
IEDs are placed by farmers, yes. They are also placed by insurgents who aren't getting paid.
It's not news (or at least it shouldn't be) that the foreign fighters are the ones primarily using terroristic tactics.
The idea that this means that domestic insurgents aren't attacking U.S. troops with, you know, guns and RPGs and explosives and the like is a really strange one to me. We have fundamentally different conceptions of what is going on over there.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
<edit to clarify> I understand that aQiI and the Iranian-funded militias aren't the only threat to US security in Iraq. However, I believe they are the most deadly and the most easily combatted.
Thinking again about what I see as the two battles going on in Iraq: I think we can solve the first militarily, and I think the surge has helped, and I think it's a battle that will be completely won eventually. The second battle, the looming religious civil war, is not one the US could win militarily; furthermore, the presence of US troops will only exacerbate that problem. The only way it goes away is through diplomacy.
So the challenge (as I see it) of Iraq is to win the battle we can win militarily, resolve the one we can't diplomatically, and get the troops out before their presence draws sufficient ire from other militias to require further military action. That's how I envision a successful resolution of the situation. Pulling out before the military battle has been won, or staying and becoming embroiled in a civil war are both bad options. And if we pull out (even after winning the military battle) and the diplomatic objective isn't obtained, then Iraq will suffer for it and honestly the whole thing will have been a tragic waste of resources and lives and international good will. But I am not a pessimist about the situation, and I do believe that, given sufficient support by Iraqi, US and international officials, and given sufficient security provided by coalition troops, a diplomatic solution can be found. The decision theorist in me wants to assign probabilities to the likelihoods, and compute an expected value, but I'll refrain and simply hold on to my hope.</edit>
quote:The idea that this means that domestic insurgents aren't attacking U.S. troops with, you know, guns and RPGs and explosives and the like is a really strange one to me. We have fundamentally different conceptions of what is going on over there.
Yeah, I'll say.
I think Iraq is a lot like the South after the Civil War, where Sunnis = White people, Shiites = black people, insurgents = precursors to the KKK, and the U.S. = the U.S. It's not a perfect analogy, but that's how I see it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pulling out before the military battle has been won, or staying and becoming embroiled in a civil war are both bad options.
Part of the argument of the people who want us to withdraw (and have an argument other than "WITHDRAWWWWWW!!!!") is that the military battle with al Queda and such is only going on because we are there. If we weren't, they wouldn't be there or, like in the al Anbar province, they locals would turn on them. I think that, while obviously it is a little more complicated than that, that this is a much more likely outcome than the "Terrorists will be able to freely set up training camps in Iraq" than some people seem to believe will be the result.
Why do you consider pulling out before winning the military battle to be a bad option?
---
For myself, I'm actually more worried about the civil war, but I don't think we're going to be able to do anything about it. If we leave, I think there's a serious chance the Iraq is going to turn into a battlefield between Saudia Arabia and other Arab countries and Iran.
And really, I want my and others' friends and family to stop getting wounded and killed in an action that is not going turn out well for us because the people in charge are either unwilling or incapable of addressing the hard problems that don't make good political fuel.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they are going to fight that battle anyway, then, as bad as this sounds...why not let them fight it? I don't get why we are sacrificing our lives and money to prevent a war that is going to happen regardless.
But AQI isn't insignificant, and neither are they the biggest evil there. Estimates I think are now that they have ranks in the 15,000 member range, and thanks to the war, they have more resources (money, guns, explosives, men) and training camps than ever before.
Al Anbar isn't better because of the surge, it was good luck and a LOT of money spent on bribes to local leaders. Iraq has huge problems that five years and a half trillion dollars later we appear no cloesr to solving on our own. I think pulling back to neighboring Kuwait to wait and see what happens, ready to intervene to stop a genocide but not to stop an all out war, might be the best move.
By the way, Pres. Bush is lying when he says that we're withdrawing troops next year from a position of strength. He cites Al Anbar as our greatest success, when we had almost nothing to do with it, and the simple fact of the matter is that we don't have enough troops to sustain the troop levels we have there now. Those 30,000 surge troops HAVE to come home, because there is no one to replace them. He's using smoke and mirrors to try and make the situation sound better than it is.
Honestly, I'm at the point where I think Democrats should get us out of this war, and if you think they can't you're wrong. They have an endgame option, and it's really quite simple. They don't send Bush an appropriations bill to sign. So far they've sent him a few bills that demand benchmarks and changes, and he vetoes them. Well, don't send him a bill. No bill, no veto, no funds, no war. By the law, Pres. Bush will have the money to make sure that the troops are fed and safe, but won't have enough to actually send them out on missions. He will either have to bring them home, or leave them dangerously vulnerable out in the middle of nowhere with no money. It's what pundits would probably call a 'nuclear option,' but frankly I think they are all out of options. It's either that, or they sit on their hands for another 16 months because he just isn't going to budge on these issues.
Their problem is they don't want to rock the boat before the Presidential elections. So that leaves the question of what's more important, getting out of Iraq now, or ensuring 4 years of Democratic leadership versus 4 more years of the same old Republican mismanagement? It's not as cut and dry as you might think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
